Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's a suggestion for us to entertain.

Mr. Richards, it creates a new formula for rescinding, having to readopt rather than having to rescind.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes. I mean, I don't know how others feel about this, but give me a minute to think it through. On the surface, I think what Mr. Alghabra has come up with could be a solution here.

As I said, just give me a minute to think it through completely and make sure there isn't something I haven't thought of. I will admit that initially I hadn't thought of this concern that Mr. Brassard raised. Then, when he raised it, it rang some alarm bells for me.

If you wouldn't mind, give me a minute to think about it. On the surface, I think it does solve the problem. What I'm trying to prevent, obviously, is a situation where the government can hold on to those emergency powers. I think having a sunset clause, which I guess would have to be agreed to by all parties in advance—that would be part of the motion they would arrive at in having the emergency powers granted, and it would only be renewed if all parties agreed—that, I think, should get us where we need to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I think so, too, although I'm not going to vote on it. I'm just following the debate. I hear your concerns, and I feel that this may alleviate some of those concerns so that one person can't hold on.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others, especially Mr. Brassard, who originally raised the concerns, but I think it might get us there. I'm still opposed to the idea of submitting something that's about future situations, but that's irrelevant to this part of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madam Normandin has a point to make on that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I just want to make sure that I have understood correctly. The amendment proposal would be roughly the equivalent of our current approach, where the parties agree to begin the process and also agree on the period of time. Is that correct?

That is done every time the period of time is up and the parties come to a new agreement. They decide on a new time period and, once there is no longer agreement, that is over. That is exactly what we have now. That is the gist of your proposal, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That is absolutely correct.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I just want to let the committee know that I would agree to that. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thanks, Ms. Blaney. I think we're getting somewhere, but I don't want to get prematurely excited about the fix.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I think there's reason to be excited, Madam Chair. I would love to see some proposed wording to that, but I think, barring anything that—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I have some as well, Blake, that I could propose.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Sure—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, Mr. Brassard. This will make the recommendation an all-party recommendation. You may not vote in favour of it, but at least it has contributions from all parties.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think what Madam Normandin spoke about is exactly what I brought up earlier. The mechanism already exists, so if we can reflect that accurately.... I think we can do it with this. I'm reading off my sheet here. This states that the words “come into force or be rescinded on the agreement of all recognized parties” be replaced with “come into force on the agreement of all recognized parties and only remain in force during for such time as the parties agree”.

I can repeat it again if you like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think there might be a simpler way of stating it. The first part was really good, but maybe someone has....

Repeat it.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Could you repeat it, please?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Yes. It's that the words “come into force or be rescinded on the agreement of all recognized parties” be replaced with “come into force on the agreement of all recognized parties and only remain in force during for such time as the parties agree”.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I don't know whether this has to do with interpretation issues, but what I am hearing does not reflect the current reality as I have understood it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I think it's a small nuance.

Mr. Alghabra, since you're the one who proposed this, you may have some wording.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I would propose that where it says “come into force” we add “for a predefined or pre-agreed-upon period of time and can only be extended by agreement of all parties”.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Just for clarification, what date would you propose?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think the parties would be deciding that. They'd have to come up with their own agreement, given the circumstances each time. We wouldn't even be saying “this is the date”. When they come to an agreement, they have to agree on an end date, and they all have to agree on that end date. Then, when that date comes, they could only go past it if all parties were to agree again. Otherwise, it would basically lapse out and you would revert to the original Standing Orders.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I would just say that I think the simplest way to say it might be “into force for a limited time and can only be extended at the agreement of all recognized parties”. We just keep it simple.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Richards.