To Mr. Richards' suggestion, although I understand it, I think this is basically the hybrid model. It's what we've already been doing.
The intention behind the recommendation is to echo the sentiments of Benoît Pelletier, Joseph Maingot, Philippe Dufresne and Greg Tardi, all of whom basically said in their testimony that—if I were to summarize all of it, the way I read it—the courts would not intervene.
Parliament has a constitutionally guaranteed right over its own domain, which means that it makes its own rules. Any time the courts have interpreted anything like this, they have consistently used the living tree approach, which means that they would adopt a modern interpretation that would essentially allow for a virtual presence.
Finally, the testimony suggests, based on my reading of it over and over again, that no changes are actually necessary. What I think Mr. Dufresne had said is that if we enshrine those changes in a piece of legislation or a change to the Standing Orders, this would make it clear that we were exercising that constitutionally protected right, which is control over our own proceedings as the House of Commons.
From my perspective, based on the testimony that we heard, this isn't a big stretch at all. It's actually, I think, the dominant perception that was shared by the most compelling testimony that we heard from reputable experts.