SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 134

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Ms. Christine Normandin
  • 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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Ms. Christine Normandin
  • 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!
  • star_border