I made it clear, and I think others did as well, that the committee should be looking only at what is necessary in the pandemic and not using the committee as it's now structured to do the normal work of parliamentary reform, which should be ongoing and which should take place in the post-pandemic environment.
I'm worried about the word “modernization”. I prefer to talk about parliamentary reform because modernization has an edge to it, and some of the things that are best about Parliament are very long-standing, quite unmodern, pre-modern and very valuable. I always resisted, although I wasn't always successful, in not talking about reform in the House of Commons as modernization. Certainly there's some of that with respect to technological possibilities, and a lot of that is taking place in the committee right now. I think other witnesses would agree—at least if I understood them correctly—that what the committee is doing here should not be precedent setting for the post-pandemic Parliament.