With a second wave of the coronavirus likely on the horizon in the coming months, a debate over whether to grant cabinet additional emergency powers will continue to consume P.E.I.’s legislature Tuesday.
A proposed bill would give the executive branch of government a free hand to change some legislation, without having these changes hit the floor of the legislature. The bill would alter the Province’s Emergency Measures Act, giving cabinet expanded powers to change legislation during a state of emergency and for up to 90 days after the end of the emergency.
Some MLAs argue more study is needed, while others have expressed a fundamental disagreement with the broad powers the legislation would give cabinet.
Last week, in response to these criticisms, Justice and Public Safety Minister Bloyce Thompson introduced an amendment to his own legislation, allowing the legislative assembly to effectively veto changes to legislation made by cabinet. The amendment also listed six acts, including the Elections Expenses Act and the Conflict of Interest Act, that could not be changed by cabinet during a state of emergency and set a sunset clause of May 31, 2022, on the changes. Thompson conceded an outside legal opinion of the original bill found it was too broad.
Thompson raised the cumbersome process of obtaining an April Supreme Court order halting eviction as an example of a processes that required quicker action in a state of emergency. He said broad cabinet powers were needed due to the unpredictability of a possible second wave of the virus.
“Everybody has said we have a second wave coming. We are learning things every day, so we can’t possibly list all the acts that are going to be affected because we do not know all the acts,” Thompson told The House on Thursday evening.
Liberal MLA Robert Henderson said he was personally uncomfortable with the bill, even with the government’s new amendments, because it reduced the powers of the legislative branch.
“There’s still the same fundamental flaw that I think there’s an overreach in the powers that are necessary,” Henderson said during debate on Friday.
Henderson questioned why it was necessary to sideline the role of the legislature in making changes to existing laws. He suggested an omnibus bill could accomplish the changes needed by government.
An amendment to the government’s amendment, introduced by Green Opposition Leader Peter Bevan-Baker, added 23 other pieces of legislation that could not be altered by cabinet. These included the Environmental Protection Act, the Lands Protection Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
This amendment to the government amendment was passed on Thursday.
But on Friday, Green MLA Lynne Lund argued that the changes should be referred to a standing committee to give MLAs more time to examine its possible impacts. She suggested a time limit of two weeks to review other legislation that could be added to the list of exemptions.
Lund did not close the door to supporting the bill, raising situations where extraordinary cabinet powers would be necessary.
“I am prepared to accept that that is a possibility, particularly around the layering of potential emergencies. When you move into hurricane season, I do realize we are going to experience more intense storms in Atlantic Canada,” Lund said.
Transportation Minister Steven Myers questioned the need to refer the legislation to committee, suggesting it was fairer for 27 MLAs to debate the bill rather than only six.
Bevan-Baker said the changes introduced by government and Opposition have fundamentally altered the original bill.
“This is not an attempt for permanent overreach on behalf of a sinister government,” Bevan-Baker said.
Debate on the Emergency Measures Act amendments will resume today.
