I appreciate Mr. Brassard's comments and I totally respect his perspective on this, but I think I see it quite differently.
I would say the word “permanently” appears there because we quoted the recommendation that was made by the law clerk, Mr. Dufresne. If you look at our recommendation, it has that in quotes. It wasn't our intention to indicate that this would be a permanent change to quorum but that this would be a recommendation for a virtual presence to be considered within a pandemic or an exceptional circumstance like we are in.
The other thing is, I think it's a bit contentious around the “20 members”, etc., because that may change. I have some suggested wording for a revised version of this recommendation that takes out the quote, but I have more to say about quorum in relation to the testimony we heard to back up why this recommendation appears here and how I don't think it's overstepping, based on the testimony that was given by three or four very reputable sources or experts on parliamentary procedure.
I want to give the revised version of it first, if you're okay with that. What I would recommend is that we state the recommendation as follows: “Consistent with the Law Clerk of the House of Commons: The Committee recommends that during extraordinary circumstances, virtual presence meets the requirements for quorum as set out in Section 48 of the Constitution Act of 1867.”