Exactly. You need them and we need them too in order to uphold both official languages.
I am sure you understand that, if you tell the committee that you are in the process of studying the issue and you don't know too much about the repercussions, it kind of gives the impression that the current interpreters are guinea pigs, in a way. According to the surveys, people are saying that they have suffered injuries and that the sound is toxic.
I am also concerned about the definition you are giving for in-person meetings and distance meetings. One day, members will be meeting in the same room as they did before. If all the witnesses appeared and provided their comments remotely most of the time, you would still consider it an in-person meeting because all the members would be in the same committee room. That's very troubling for the interpreters. In my opinion, if most, if not all, of the witnesses appear remotely, that does not meet the definition of an in-person meeting.
Can you tell us more about that?