Yes. The reason I raised the constitutionality issue, and even the idea of constitutional amendment, is really not that I don't think a living tree kind of interpretation would somehow lead the courts to say a virtual Parliament or even virtual votes are not constitutional, because I think as, a matter of expediency, that's how the Constitution will be interpreted. For clarity purposes, it is actually quite important to formalize what we can do and adjustments to certain procedures as much as possible, and that goes from more specific measures in the Standing Orders to bigger Constitutional clarifications.
I agree with everything that Mr. Tardi was saying about the purposive approach to understanding the Constitution, but the Constitution was written with certain assumptions. Certainly, the assumption of the founders of the 1867 document were that Parliament was an in-person, one-place process. I see no reason why this is not an opportunity to use the amending formula for Parliament itself to clarify and provide clarity to these options even within the act itself.