Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm delighted to hear that everyone agrees conducting technical tests before committee meetings is a good idea. I gather it is common practice, and that's great. I think just about every committee does it, but unfortunately, the practice is still not set out in a routine motion, and it should be.
Nevertheless, I think everyone would agree with me that our interpreters, technical staff and clerks have been doing an outstanding job during the pandemic. We have all had to work differently, with Zoom and so forth. The honourable member said it was temporary. If so, even better. I, too, miss our in-person meetings in Parliament or, as we francophones have learned to say in recent months, réunions en présentiel. However, we don't know how long we will continue to need Zoom to see one another. We need to make sure we can work effectively and diligently, so we should put the necessary tools in place.
Earlier, Mr. Angus said that we mustn't delay or prevent the appearance of witnesses before the committee because hearing from them already has its challenges. I agree with him, but that's the point: we need to help them. The motion does not say that the committee will reject witness testimony. The idea is to adopt a routine motion requiring that technical tests be conducted with all witnesses prior to committee meetings. I did not hear anyone on the committee call this a bad idea. I think we all agree that it's a good idea.
The honourable member brought up the fact that the Standing Committee on Official Languages was conducting a study on this topic. That's great, but every committee is independent. Just because the official languages committee adopts certain measures, it does not mean that the members of every committee will agree with them. Even better if they do. However, I think we should all have the same routine motions. That's just my opinion.
The fact remains that, as we speak, every committee is independent. We should make our own decision on how we wish to do things here, on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. If everyone agrees with the substance of the motion, meaning that technical tests should be conducted with witnesses prior to committee meetings to make things easier for witnesses and interpreters—and to give us assurance that everything is running smoothly when it comes time for witnesses to appear before the committee—we should adopt this motion.
If a month, a year or two years down the road, the Standing Committee on Official Languages or some other committee submits a report stating that more can be done, we can always amend the rule and adopt a better approach. Nobody would argue with that. In the meantime, though, as we wait for another committee's report or decisions, I think our committee would do well to adopt a simple rule that is already consistent with the current practice—a rule stating that the committee will conduct technical tests before hearing from witnesses.