For the upteenth time I’ve seen on social media people describing the hybrid committee meetings as House sittings. Whether you agree or not on the utility/necessity of the House sitting vs the hybrid special committee can we all at least use the proper terminology?
1/...

I am also seeing both sides of that disparage the other side with either mistrust the or outright lies. My favourites are that the Government shut down Parliament or that the Conservatives were against further debate / wanted all 338 MPs present. Both are untrue.
2/...

The Government did not shut down the House, the Commons did by way of a majority of voices. Canadians will eventually have their say on that decision at the ballot box. The Conservatives were not proposing full sittings in terms of attendance but in terms of proceedings.
3/...

Their position was that the expansion of the special committee in terms of number of meetings and topics covered was insufficient. Their position was that a safe way could be found to have the House formally sit. Again Canadians will get to decide on that at the ballot box.
4/...

Both the Government proposal and the default proceedings position of the Opposition ensured more debate and questioning than the previous situation. Ultimately it was a case of which situation was preferable for a majority of MPs. FWIW, as an interested observer ...
5/...

I do not know why if the House can meet as a special committee of the whole house using a hybrid attendance system why that same system could not be used to operate regular sittings of the House or even modified ones permitting more business to get done?
6/6