As practical as it may be, it still comes down to a privacy issue when you're discussing those types of things with a constituent. You would well know how many people want a face-to-face appointment. I know there aren't too many weeks that go by that I don't spend as much time as I can in the riding, and it's difficult as a minister. Having said that, when I do, I have face-to-face meetings. I do some work by phone, and I do some work by e-mail from here, to scope out what it is they want to discuss, but at the end of the day they still want that face-to-face meeting in order to make their points and to move forward on the issues.
Skype is certainly an option. At times, if you're speaking to a group.... I'll use it if I can't get back to a chamber meeting, just to make sure my presence is there, but it is still logistically problematic in most areas. Even in areas that have high-speed, it's still problematic, with weather interference and different things like that. You've got that time delay, and it's not as usable as it could possibly be.
I felt it was an offhand remark that really missed the whole idea of serviceability in a riding. Your presence has to be felt. We have to be seen doing our job day-to-day on the ground, and Skype just doesn't get that done. So it was just an offhand comment by Justice Mills that I thought really proved the point that he didn't understand the nature of face to face. Mr. Armstrong made the point of asking if he would run a court case that way. No, legally that would just be untenable.