No, that's not good enough, Madam Chair. The reason it's not good enough, and I'll explain it if you allow me, is that we're still in a situation where, although it solves the problem of putting in place these emergency standing orders where all parties must agree, it doesn't solve the problem that Mr. Brassard raised, where one party can continue to hold those powers because they refuse to agree.
The problem we have there is that we basically come around to a situation where the very thing we're trying to prevent is done another way through a back door. In other words, if we have a legitimate crisis and all parties agree, then we'll put in place these emergency standing orders. But then, when the crisis is averted, or most people believe it's averted, the one party—that would likely happen to be the governing party, obviously, one would assume—chooses not to allow it to be rescinded.
That's what this allows. One party could prevent it from being rescinded. It essentially allows the government to do by the back door what we're trying to prevent them from doing by the front door.