Thank you for your question.
I think it would be important to separate the ideas of some members of Parliament being permanently on hybrid versus having the option to use it when you need it.
What we're envisioning is that having the option on the table gives members of Parliament the flexibility to figure out how best for them to manage their representational work between the work in the House of Commons and within their constituency, depending on the circumstances as they arise. We don't anticipate that this means that some members will always be in the constituency and never appear inside the legislature itself. Those informal functions could still continue. What we're adding is just another tool for MPs to be able to do that work.
The other thing that worries me a little bit about prioritizing this informal stuff that's off the books is that I still want to keep pushing that there still needs to be accountability to the Canadian public about how this work is being done. If the reason to take hybrid off completely as an option is in service of all of this informal stuff that is rarely documented and isn't going to appear in Hansard and things along those lines, I think that raises a different accountability issue back to the Canadian public, because it's work that we simply don't see.