Madam Chair, we know that, every day, interpreters suffer injuries and that this has consequences for their health. Experts have come to testify to this. Someone in the government decided to maintain the hybrid sessions despite these external opinions.
In terms of what you talked about, Mr. Holland, these are witnesses who were participating in the sessions remotely through broadcast-quality links. These links ensure that they produce good sound. These witnesses had to go to places where there were compressed signals, so there was good sound for interpretation. You're mixing oranges and pears at the moment.
Who in the government made the decision to continue with the hybrid meetings anyway, knowing that interpreters are being injured every day because of this mode of working?