I think there is a reasonable amount of confusion about what we're discussing now, given the various versions of the recommendations that we've discussed.
I just want to comment on the issue of threat to democracy in majority government. Majority governments or any other Parliament conduct their business always with a vote. The state of emergency in the province of Ontario, my province, was adopted by a vote. It did not require all recognized and unrecognized parties to talk behind the scenes to agree about their opinions. In my opinion, a state of a emergency is much more invasive and it suspends democracy a lot more than what a standing order does and doesn't do. We can pass in various provinces, and maybe perhaps the same way at the federal level, the declaration of a state of emergency through a vote of the various legislatures. Therefore, I'm confused as to how that is much less invasive or a risk to democracy than adopting a set of standing orders that enables Parliament to do its job in various approaches.
I want to remind everybody that we're talking here about extraordinary circumstances, just like a circumstance in which provinces have decided to use a state of emergency. We don't see provinces, day in and day out, declare a state of emergency and use their majority to abuse their power. That's not what happens. In fact, Parliament and MPs, MLAs and MNAs are held accountable to their constituents. They know they couldn't do something unreasonable such as that, and we all work in that context.
I'm just confused by all this hyperbole I'm hearing.