I just wanted to participate in this debate.
I think the intentions of this recommendation were to acknowledge the significant public health risk that's before us, but also to anticipate the potential need for additional capacity around a fully functioning virtual Parliament if there is a second or third wave of this pandemic in the future.
Also, I think the wording is intentional in terms of undertaking the necessary steps to expand the House's capacity. It is reflective of an incremental approach. It doesn't preclude us from slowly implementing and evaluating every step of the way. To be fair, we included the realization, given the limited capacity that we know the House has at the moment, to say that the hybrid model in the interim would really be something we value and can serve the purpose for the time being.
However, why not develop the capacity for Parliament to operate virtually, especially knowing that there may be second and third waves of this pandemic? We don't want to put people's health at risk by calling them back too early, or, in cases where we do call them back and there's a surge, we may be suspending, and we may find ourselves back in the same situation.
Therefore, instead of repeating the past, we would be thinking ahead and being proactive and progressive about developing that capacity now, which I think is a positive, progressive way to look at this current issue.