- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Saint-Jean
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56
- Government Page
- Nov/24/22 3:28:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, we cannot take something into account if we have no knowledge of it. Unfortunately, when people testify by video conference, we do not have a 360-degree view of what is happening, much like when we operate by video conference here in the House.
It is not just about people's facial expressions. They might be shuffling their feet, looking nervous, tapping their foot or passing a note to their lawyer. It could also be about how the reaction of the entire room, about seeing how a witness reacts when they hear another witness or when they see what is happening in the courtroom. We get information from more than just what we see framed on a screen. A number of factors are involved. Some information could be lost, and this too must be analyzed by the committees.
As I was saying, there may be a risk that lawyers could agree at the start to proceed by video conference, and that during the proceedings, they realize that the procedural safeguards are not being upheld and they must return to an in-person format. At that point, there would be less efficiency rather than more. I am wondering what would happen if the consent to proceed by video conference were revoked. I hope that will be studied as well.
220 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:27:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his question. I did touch on that in my speech.
Connectivity is one interesting aspect. One of the downsides I see is the emergence of regional disparities. Some people may be required to come to court to testify in person because of poor connectivity in the region. Conversely, people who live some distance away may be pressured to communicate via audio conference and testify by video conference on the grounds that it is easier for them to do so remotely even though they might prefer to do it in person. Either scenario poses a risk of unequal treatment. This is one of the important factors that the House and perhaps the independent commissions will have to study. The Barreau du Québec also raised the issue in its recommendations.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my eloquent colleague for his speech. We always learn a lot when we listen to him. It is always enjoyable.
I would like to hear what he has to say about what will happen in committee. I understand that there is a massive amount of work to do to make this bill acceptable since it currently contains many flaws. Often, the contributions of expert witnesses are what support us in committee.
I would like to know what kind of experts he thinks it would be useful to hear from. Perhaps computer scientists, ethicists or legal experts? Generally speaking, who would he like to see testify in committee?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Lethbridge for her speech, although it was a bit much for my ears at times. I want to go back to one of the complaints that the Conservatives made in committee. They complained that there was not enough time to hear from a number of witnesses. One of those witnesses was Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada, an organization that has no members but is financially supported by YouTube. Many YouTube and TikTok users came to testify. There are 160,000 YouTubers in Canada.
How many more do the Conservatives need to hear from?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, congratulations on what I believe is your first ruling in the House.
There has been a lot of emphasis on the fact that under the super-closure motion, there is not enough time to hear witnesses in committee. I would be curious to know how much time my colleague thinks is enough. We know that many TikTokers and YouTubers have come to testify, some even twice.
How much would be enough in the Conservatives' eyes? I did not hear that answer.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/22 1:22:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Whitby for his speech.
Just before him, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice made an interesting comment about the possible splitting of the bill. He said that if the bill were to be split in two, witnesses would probably have to be recalled to testify on the separate parts of the bill. What this comment implies is that the testimony cannot apply in the same way to the two parts of the bill that some want to split.
Are the Liberals not admitting that these two parts are different enough that we would want to vote on them separately?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
