Certainly, from my perspective, NDP 2 is the preferable one. It's only preferable because.... I disagree with the other idea, that we have a modified set of standing orders for future situations. I think that's something we should analyze later, in a second report. If we're going to go down this path, I want to ensure there are some rules around how those standing orders would be put into force and rescinded. In my mind, there still would need to be an amendment to the NDP one to make the change about how they would be rescinded, possibly. However, I think the principle that the NDP is trying to accomplish on that part of it is still....
I would be interested to hear Ms. Blaney's thoughts on the proposal I've made, in terms of whether she would agree with that idea. I hadn't even considered the possibility, and maybe she hadn't either, of a majority government deciding to hold those emergency powers by being the one party that doesn't agree to rescind.
I would love to hear Ms. Blaney's thoughts on that, if we could. She's saying “the agreement of all recognized parties” for it to come into force. Would she agree, then, that it would only remain in force as long as all recognized parties agreed? In other words, if one party decides to pull its agreement on it.... I would assume that the only way a party could pull its agreement would be through some kind of a motion. The bottom line is, would she agree on that principle, that it would come into force and stay in force only as long as all parties agree?
I want to get her thoughts on that, if I can, Madam Chair, and then I might be able to make some decision on that.