Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to pick up on the theme that Mr. Robert just ended up on. We need to step back here and realize that what we are looking at is a temporary measure of a virtual Parliament. As Mr. Robert said, we can have some foresight as to what mechanisms kick in, or what circumstances kick in, on a virtual Parliament going forward. However, right now, as it stands, we are dealing with this issue at the height of a health crisis.
I'll remind all committee members as well that there are essential workers who are putting themselves on the front line every single day across this country. There is talk about reopening economies in every single province. There's talk about opening golf courses, for God's sake.
Mr. Dufresne, my question is in relation to what you said earlier about the Constitution, that it is a living tree and that it does adapt to modern life. How would the courts interpret “modern life” as it relates to the Constitution?
Again, I want to re-emphasize that, by all accounts, we are in a temporary health crisis that will subside at some point and we're going to get back to normal life. Therefore, what would the courts interpret as “modern life”, and how would that be applied when it comes to changing the Constitution and the requirements of Parliament as you stated earlier?