PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 26, 1998

• 1109

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, perhaps we could begin. As you can see, the order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(v), the review of the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of House committees. This is our second meeting on this topic.

As witnesses today we're pleased to welcome the Clerk of the House, Bob Marleau—it's very good of you to come—and his colleagues, Louis Bard, who is chief information officer and executive director, information services; and Rob Walsh, who the clerk assistant and general legislative counsel, committees and legislative services. I know you both have been before our committee before. We appreciate your being here again. Gentlemen, welcome.

• 1110

Bob, do you have some plan in mind here?

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, I don't have a written opening statement, but in preparation for the meeting, having read the testimony of the press gallery on Tuesday, I went back to the testimony I gave the then House management committee on October 8, 1991. In rereading what I said last night, I found myself more cogent then than I probably am now. If I may, I'll refer to this testimony, in that I believe very little has changed as to the fundamental issues of televising committees, and I'll address what has changed in my view since my appearance then.

When I appeared before you, the main issue the committee was considering then was also the proposal from the press gallery for a pool of cameras to have access to the committees from time to time, with or without pre-established guidelines. I'll address that in a moment. But essentially, as you heard earlier this week, it's a proposal that would allow them to choose when, which and what. As I reread their testimony on Monday, it would be their material in their control, although they're willing to entertain some kind of contractual—I use that lightly—agreement with this committee or the House in terms of the format and a certain amount of adherence to decorum issues.

When I appeared in 1991, the first two points I made were that in my view there were serious privilege issues related to the style of coverage the committee would be involved in sooner or later. In the 90-second, 30-second or 15-second clip approach—it seems to have been compressed since 1991 from 90 seconds to even shorter, and we manage to get a question and answer in Question Period now in 60 seconds—the issues of privilege are the same; they have not changed.

You have to ask yourselves the question on the whole concept of why the House went gavel to gavel in terms of providing a form of electronic Hansard. It seemed to me then, and still seems to me today, you are setting yourselves up for some sort of conflict somewhere down the road with the media, or indeed pitting parliamentary privilege versus freedom of the press to come into conflict.

Let me say why. Let me give you what I believe would be a real example. Imagine a recalcitrant, difficult, aggressive witness who appears before you. At the beginning of their presentation they may make a very newsworthy statement. It may be a perfect 90-second clip. But as the course of the meeting evolves—and you've all been through this as parliamentarians—through your own interrogation and cross-examination of the witness, by the time adjournment rolls around they may well have totally reversed their position. That witness may also feel somewhat aggrieved if only a portion of what they said before the committee were reported.

In 1991, Ms. Diane Davidson addressed some of the legal issues, in terms of fair, just treatment for those kinds of witnesses, that could also become problematic in time. I don't want for a moment to criticize our press corps. I think they have a fine standard, which I think meets anything internationally in terms of professionalism, but the temptation to get the scoop would be there.

I'll give you another example, and this one is real. It's one the House has had to deal with in the last few years, and in fact has not dealt with. And that's my point, that over time you will lose your authority and you will negotiate away control of your proceedings if you enter into this kind of agreement.

• 1115

When the House first set up televising for the whole House, it wasn't television that was complaining of non-access, it was the print media. For years following 1977 the print media said “We don't have the same images. We're in a position of not being able to represent what goes on in the House in the print media because they have the pictures and we don't.” So the House leaders entered into an agreement with CP and UPI, the press gallery, to have photographers on the floor of the House of Commons. You see them during Question Period mainly but also during the major debates. They let them have access to the floor under the guise that they would adhere roughly to the guidelines the House staff that televises adheres to.

What has happened? There have been several breaches of those guidelines by those photographers, most of which I report to the Speaker. Some come through the channels, the House leaders. But the House has chosen to ignore those breaches of those guidelines, by and large, because the conflict is very political and very difficult.

This morning in the National Post is one of those pictures, which I think tests the limits of the guidelines. This image would not be allowed by our cameras. That kind of broad shot away, taken from the gallery, would not be allowed under the television guidelines.

The Chairman: Could you circulate that?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I addressed that particular issue in 1991. It's still very much alive today, in terms of the reality of the media and the reality that at the end of the day an editor makes the choice, both in the print media and in the TV media, on what is shown and what is not shown. That's something I think you have to consider. I'd say 99% of the time we don't have any issues or any problems, but when you have one, it's usually a difficult and a very politically charged one.

I think the proposal you're looking at is far from perfect. It continues to have difficulties. What has changed since 1991 is that the House then did not televise committees. We have since then equipped a room for gavel to gavel, so when it is replayed Canadians have the whole picture. Sure the media can still select whatever 90-second clips they want from that and rebroadcast them, as they do with the House, but if you're an aggrieved witness, at least there's a full electronic record there.

The final issue I want to address is one I didn't address the last time in relationship to the pool, particularly the testimony and the insistence of the press gallery that the material is theirs if they're allowed in and they will choose what they tape. Right now, in the context of the House committees and the House broadcasting, the House staff is under your control via the Speaker on what they take—and they take it all—how they take it, and the conditions under which they absolve themselves of their duties. Cameras are very powerful instruments. They have zoom capabilities. If the individual behind the camera is not under your control, human nature is such that sooner or later there will be something taken that you will be in contest with.

Remember the interview given by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Lalonde, in the 1980s, with the zoom camera over his shoulder taking a picture of a figure in a budget that was still a draft. It was used. It caused quite a furore in the House and some alterations were made to the budget documents, or at least it was claimed that some alterations were made to the budget documents. Sooner or later this striving for the scoop is going to put you in conflict with the press corps, I would predict.

The other issue is that you don't know when they're going to use it. We have—fortunately not so much in this country but just south of the border—what they call the President's death watch. That is media people who simply take cuts that they put in the can for a future event. You could have an accumulation of these 90-second takes easily put together over a period of time, and you would have what I would think of as potentially a totally distorted view of the record.

• 1120

It might be news. It might be newsworthy. It might even be totally professional, totally within the ethics of journalism. I don't criticize the possibility of that happening, not by an iota. But from your perspective as guardians of the rights and the proceedings of the committees, it might not be compatible with your view of parliamentary records.

I have two more things before I close, Mr. Chair. In the testimony there's something that gave me a little concern, and I tried to establish before coming here with the director of CPAC, Ms. LeeEllen Carroll. She said that, as well, if you're thinking about giving CPAC access and no one else, that actually wouldn't work under our Parliamentary Press Gallery rules. CPAC has made it very clear, in appearing before the Parliamentary Press Gallery, that they would choose their membership in the gallery before giving exclusive access to any one committee.

I'm not sure what that means and I've not been able to verify it, but CPAC is under contract with us to give us a minimum amount of committee replay as part of both the licence and contractual agreement. I hope this statement made by the press gallery is not CPAC reconsidering its contractual position, which I believe lasts until August 2001.

Finally, in terms of the equipment you now have, there was a total of 1,846 hours of committee time from September 1997 to May 1998. There were available 322 hours of television time in room 253-D. There were in fact 263 hours used. Therefore, there's an excess capacity of TV time in 253-D which is not used, Monday and Friday still being an issue.

CPAC indeed has exceeded its commitment to rebroadcast that. They've rebroadcast 330 hours of committee time over the 263; therefore, they've actually replayed the committee coverage by a factor of 25%. To equip a second room is about $400,000, as I said before, I think, to this committee. There are about $100,000 to $150,000 a year in operating costs in terms of human resources, equipment maintenance, and that sort of thing.

You still have the issue of distribution. If you fill two committee rooms, say 600 to 800 hours of TV time, you'll fill CPAC. If you consider expanding the committee programming, you have to look at where you go with this material. It would mean some negotiations either with CPAC or another distributor.

Those are the main issues I wanted to lay before the committee, Mr. Chairman, but they are essentially in my evidence of 1991. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Does either of your colleagues, Monsieur Bard or Mr. Walsh, wish to add anything?

Mr. Rob Walsh (Clerk Assistant and General legislative Counsel, Committees and Legislative Services Directorate, House of Commons): I have no comment.

Mr. Louis Bard (Chief Information Officer and Executive Director, Information Services Directorate, House of Commons): No comment.

The Chairman: The chair acknowledges Randy White, and then Joe Fontana.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Marleau painted a fairly dismal picture of the potential for disaster in having TV broadcasting in committees. I'm wondering if you see any benefit to it whatsoever.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think there's no question that exposing more of committees to the viewer would enhance the larger public opinion of the value of what members of Parliament do, in my view. If I paint a bleak picture, what I'm trying to do is predict the conflict between the two solitudes that inevitably, I think, will come. And once you let them in it's very difficult, even over time, six or seven years... I would say that if a court challenge came, you might find that the court would basically say you've given up the control and the privilege.

• 1125

To enhance the role of the member, and all of those issues in terms of allowing Canadians or others to see the good work that goes on in committees, we're talking about 1,846 hours of committee meetings multiplied by 20. You're talking about an awful lot of person-hours here devoted to this work.

What I'm saying is I don't think the 90-second clip will do it much justice. It's not so much that I'm trying to paint a bleak picture as that I'm saying I don't think it will do it much justice.

Mr. Randy White: What would be the difference, in the case of a recalcitrant witness, between the reports of that witness on television and the reports of that witness in a newspaper of the things they say?

Mr. Robert Marleau: In my 1991 testimony I addressed that as a responsible question, and my views haven't changed on it. I think that by and large the print media have to sit back and make a more global analysis of what's gone on in the committee. They have to give more context to explain that particular action, even if it's a direct quote.

Now, everyone has been quoted out of context around this table, I'm sure. But by and large the print media have to do a little more analysis and projection of the context in order to make it understandable for the reader.

It's an art for TV to give the whole message in a 90-second clip, and while we've seen some good ones, they don't usually do this. I think they are harder to achieve.

Mr. Randy White: What is the difference between room 253-D having cameras in it and room 112-N, which we sit in now, having a fixed camera or two in it?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The issue is not the camera. The issue I'm underlining is who controls the camera. There's no problem with fixed cameras. You can have the quorum agreements in terms of when they come in, if they stay, if they're permanently here. The issue is who controls the trigger on the camera.

Mr. Randy White: Could I just get a clarification on your reference to $300,000 to $400,000 per room for upgrading? The presentation we heard two days ago had no mention of additional costs.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I understand that the media is willing to carry the bulk of the costs if they go to the pool arrangement, from what I see in the testimony, including using cameras that don't require additional lighting and that sort of thing. I noticed there was some back and forth on whether the camera would stay permanently in the room, which I doubt. But you could certainly have tripods that stay permanently in the room to diminish any kind of...

Mr. Randy White: Finally, I think I understand what you're suggesting through your presentation. You're giving information to the committee. But are you making a suggestion in your presentation as to what visibility or what coverage could be enhanced as opposed to the status quo?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, as opposed to the status quo, a second committee room when you're having two committees competing—and that's been a rare occasion, although it has happened for 253-D—would certainly assist in that kind of context.

In terms of ready access by the electronic media to enhance the coverage, I think the testimony at the press gallery is that there is no such guarantee. I think it's Mr. Oliver who said, “You didn't have that guarantee when you started in 1977 with the House, and you don't have that guarantee now”.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Marleau.

The Chairman: All right, I have Joe Fontana, then Stéphane Bergeron, then the chair, then Chuck Strahl, then Gurmant Grewal.

The chair acknowledges Joe Fontana.

• 1130

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, Randy addressed a couple of the points that I wanted to bring up. Through you, Mr. Chairman, could Bob explain to us the existing CPAC contract so that I understand whether or not there's a principle of exclusivity with regard to CPAC's arrangement with the House as it relates not only to the House of Commons but to the committees? I think you might have alluded to some legalese that I'm unfamiliar with and that might be in the contract. Is there a contractual agreement with CPAC that says it has exclusive rights to the broadcast of committees and the House of Commons today?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I don't think the words “exclusive rights” are used in the contract, if you're coming from that direction. There is a licence approved by the CRTC, and it lists as one of the conditions for granting this licence that CPAC must respect the letter and spirit of its agreement with the House of Commons. In summary, that included gavel-to-gavel, opening-to-adjournment coverage of the House; a repeat of Question Period to cover the time zones across the country; a full rebroadcast of that later the same night; and a certain amount of committee coverage.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thanks for that clarification. My point, though, is about another, competing interest.

CPAC is in the business of attracting audiences, too. They had to go to the CRTC for this licence. If one in fact gave unfettered access to all the networks, either by pool or individually, wouldn't CPAC ask why it has to abide by all of the CRTC guidelines or certain contractual arrangements with the House? Would CPAC not say it can do whatever it wants in the committee rooms, can come and go as it wants, broadcast what it wants, with 90-second portions and everything else?

I'm just trying to understand the legal implications of the House entering into one contract with a bunch of broadcasters, an existing CPAC contract that outlines what they can and can't do, and the requirements of CRTC. I'm trying to understand whether or not there are any barriers to our entering into a contractual agreement with anybody else.

The Chairman: I hate to remind people of this, but the chair is still here.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Chairman, I did notice that after my last appearance with the Speaker and in the evidence on Tuesday, so I made the firm resolve to always address the chair.

I don't think there are any barriers to other kinds of arrangements or agreements that might be made with the press gallery. The current feed of the House of Commons is controlled by the House of Commons and is made available to everyone. The conditions with CPAC were that for getting that feed and for getting House of Commons support for a licence, the return was guaranteed coverage of the House as per the House's terms. The feed we provide to all the media outlets, and they do what they wish with it. They can take 90-second clips or they can rebroadcast live, as they have done from time to time.

Mr. Joe Fontana: But that's my next point, which I think Chuck, Randy, and most of the other people have also addressed. I want this House to provide information to Canadians, gavel to gavel. I'm truly interested in providing the Canadian people with an opportunity to see members doing some very fine work, and not necessarily in being used as a way to just get some good news clips for the commercial broadcast business. I think the public interest is information, not necessarily providing organizations with news, even though, within the gavel-to-gavel period, there might be some very newsworthy things.

In terms of the guidelines, when CPAC does it now, any of the broadcast people can take that feed and reuse it if they want. They want to be able to come to any particular committee they want on a given date, even if it's not in 253-D—the only place CPAC can essentially operate now—and be able to do that.

It's intriguing to be able to say they're going to help us transmit our information to Canadians by providing us with the capital, the cameras and the personnel, instead of the taxpayer and the House of Commons having to pick up $500,000 per room to operate. However, they've said that this is provided the ownership of the material is theirs. It's therefore not available to anybody else, including us.

• 1135

I think Chuck asked what would happen if he wanted to get a little clip. That wouldn't be allowed. Therefore, I want you to deal with this particular issue. Can we frame an agreement based on information, as opposed to news? Can the proprietorship of the information that they gather also essentially lie with the House of Commons if in fact those were to be some of the terms and conditions of an agreement with the media?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think there will be an agreement with the media, Mr. Chairman. Proceedings out of room 253-D are not broadcast by CPAC, they're broadcast by House of Commons staff. We control the cameras and we control the guidelines. CPAC is the carrier.

Actually, the agreement with CPAC is one that I've used several times at conferences to demonstrate how the public sector and the private sector can come together in a very beneficial partnership. We were paying better than $2 million for the use of the transponders after CBC got out of the business. CPAC came forward as a consortium of cable operators who said they would absorb that cost if they could have the downtime for public programming. We had all this downtime that just showed, “The House of Commons is adjourned until September 19, 1998”, for example. That would sit there on the screen for two or three months, throughout the summer. The advantage for private sector broadcasters in this situation is that under the terms of their licence—which is dictated by the CRTC, of course—they are be able to do some other public programming with that downtime. Yet on the public sector side, we were guaranteed the coverage of the House and its committees.

Mr. Joe Fontana: CPAC is the distribution system, but let's face it, we can't afford to provide the personnel ourselves in every committee. You'd be talking some mega-millions of dollars then.

Suppose a private sector distribution system other than CPAC came along, though. If it wanted to enter into an arrangement and was prepared to pay the capital and personnel costs in order to achieve a greater distribution, albeit through something other than CPAC, surely one could devise a contractual agreement that would take into account some of the questions that were raised by my colleagues.

The Chairman: Very briefly.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If Newsworld came forward with a proposal to the committee and said it wanted to run—

The Chairman: Gavel to gavel.

Mr. Robert Marleau: —yes, gavel to gavel, x hours of committee time, we could build into that agreement whatever you like. What you'd have is an alternate outlet to CPAC. It could be the Rogers community channel, with a very—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Or it could be a pool.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Or it could be a pool amongst the networks.

The Chairman: Okay. Stéphane Bergeron, then the chair, Chuck Strahl, and Gurmant Grewal.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have indicated from the outset that at least theoretically, I am somewhat favourable toward making the rules for permission more flexible, in the sense of allowing the electronic media to take part in committee work. The question is now knowing how to do this.

We had a number of discussions concerning this Tuesday, and now we are continuing on that theme. I think we should say a little bit about why. As I pointed out on Tuesday, this and other committees have been looking at the matter for a number of years now, and the more we delay in applying a decision adapted to the modern world of telecommunications and globalized information, the more out of date we become. We must take action soon.

We are not only out of date, but unfair in our way of dealing with the media, because the print media has full access to the committees, while the electronic media are much more limited.

I understand what we are up against. But we must now determine how we can deal with the various constraints and reach a solution acceptable to everyone.

The first concern is providing the media with pictures and sound of what is happening in the committees, so that they might relay them to the public. This was the first concern shown by the Press Gallery. In addition, there is another concern, namely this: is our objective to provide information to the public, or to provide extracts that can be used in many ways?

• 1140

With this n mind, I find it interesting that you gave us an extract from the National Post where, just beside the photo that you were talking about, there is a short article by Paul Wells, where there is an extract from what I said to establish a position. I jokingly remarked that the popularity ratings of politicians had dropped since the televising of the debates. There was really no cause and effect relationship. It was just a joke. Paul Wells concluded that the Bloc Québécois was against the televising of committees. So you can see how an extract can be blown out of proportion!

Is that the direction we want to head in, or do we want gavel- to-gavel coverage of committee work. Two questions must be answered here. First of all, is the work going to be done by the Press Gallery or the print media, or are we going to be responsible for it? If we do it ourselves, it might cost too much. Perhaps we should consider something between the present situation and a possible situation in the future, because there are plans for some work to be done.

The other problem facing us is that of the broadcasters. The Clerk told us that CPAC had limited capabilities and would not be able to broadcast all of the committee work. Room 253-D already has a pretty full timetable. If we added new rooms equipped for broadcasting, things would become even more complicated. There is also a limit in the number of broadcasters who would be able to do this kind of broadcasting work gavel-to-gavel.

The first question I would like to raise is this: in the work that is to be done in the West Block, where there are already a few committee rooms and where new construction is scheduled, would it be possible and financially feasible to equip these rooms—and this would provide some economies of scale—all in one stage with equipment for cabling and cameras and control equipment as well?

My other question is this: what about having one or two other parliamentary channels specializing in committee work? My feeling is—and we can talk about this—that for a number of reasons, we should take this in hand ourselves rather than entrusting it to the media.

On the one hand, in so far as the media are concerned, there are a number of technical problems surrounding the fact of having cameras in the room, and on the other hand, there are problems relating to parliamentarians gaining access to various extracts.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I will try to be brief. Concerning the work planned in the West Block or any other building set up for parliamentary committees, we plan for the whole infrastructure in each room. That would be the time to do the cable. It would greatly reduce the costs.

At the present time, in 1998, it costs about $400,000 to set up control rooms and purchase cameras. The second control room, in another building, would be just as costly, but could be used for a number of committee rooms. Moreover, the one in 253-D could be used for the reading room if you decide to add cameras there. So there would be economies of scale.

The problem continues to be the one you raised, namely distribution. If you broadcast an entire committee meeting and multiply that by a certain number of committees, it can be a problem. As you pointed out, putting it all in the same package would be virtually impossible.

• 1145

A second channel, that would be the committees channel, is technically possible, but in 1998 dollars it would cost between $2 and $4 million for satellite access and redistribution. We would also have to see whether the cable broadcasters would want to add it to their grid. This brings up another dimension of negotiation and regulation altogether.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In light of the current situation, with which you are quite familiar, since you have worked on it in this Parliament, in the previous Parliament and in others, and in light of what I just talked about, what would you suggest? You, of course, will not be the one to make this decision, but since you are the servant of the House, let me ask you the following question. Over these many years, have you thought of possible solutions that would be economically feasible and would bring our committees a little more up to date in terms of media coverage?

Mr. Robert Marleau: One of the things that has changed since 1991, when I last made a detailed presentation to the committee, is the presence of all the news networks that were not there at that time, such as RDI, Newsworld, ONTV and The Sports Network. There is a whole range of new, highly specialized channels now, with very narrow areas of coverage.

Perhaps one of these networks or channels would be interested in devoting some of their time to this, either through a pool managed by the Press Gallery or otherwise. The House could do the broadcasting itself, according to standards established by you. I said it in 1991 and I will repeat it now: the rules you established for broadcasting in the House and in the committees lead to a somewhat distorted view of things. A person who sits in the Gallery can see exactly what is going on in the House, but you don't see the same thing on television. It is less evident in committees because of the intimacy, to a certain point, but the picture is nonetheless being controlled. What you see on television is not the same as what a person sitting in the House sees.

You might try to go over the famous guidelines in order to obtain better interaction, especially in committees, despite the fact that it's quite easy to grasp, because of the nature of committees. On the other hand, it's not so easy in the House.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

It's the chair, then Chuck Strahl, and then Gurmant Grewal. I want to ask you about two things, if I could.

First, I know it's none of your business, but what is happening in the other place? Have you heard any rumours? Do you have any information? That's one.

The other is with respect to your letter to me of May 14, and it concerns televising committees in rooms other than the equipped room, using portable equipment that the House acquired some ten years ago, the equipment being brought back into service and so on. What is that equipment? Is it still available? How is it used? Also, with regard to that, the televising of committees in other rooms, what is the significance of allowing committees to televise on the Hill without the express authorization of the House, in other words, using that equipment but without...? What is the significance of that to you?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'll try to answer those three points, Mr. Chairman.

What's going on in the other place is that they are currently negotiating with CPAC for time. We have, through Mr. Bard's services, again in a spirit of cooperation and in a spirit of economies of scale on the Hill, signed a contract so that we will direct that broadcast for them under contract. They will pay for that, but it's more economical than setting up a totally independent broadcast system. There are some issues that have to be worked out between CPAC and the Senate. The Senate is going down that road as well with CPAC.

• 1150

The Chairman: In other words, they're approaching where we are, is that right?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, that's right. They have equipped one room and I don't think the contract is final yet with CPAC, but they're very close.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: In terms of the letter I wrote to you last May, it was reported in the Hill Times of last week that I somehow supported more TV for committees. And if I'm being cautious—and I remember saying I was being a little cautious—it's because I can't enter into the substance of your debate. As a servant of the House I can address the technical approach, but whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is something that ultimately the committee will have to decide. I can talk about the consequences both ways. So if I'm being cautious about solutions, it is that some of the solutions are in the will to do so and otherwise.

In the May letter I was not advocating more TV for committees. I'll answer the last two questions together. We've been in a position for some time now, particularly last winter, to use some of the portable equipment we have in other rooms than 253-D. The rule says room 253-D only. Because a couple of times it was the will of all House leaders, or the whips, to get this particular committee covered in 209 West Block using our AirPAK equipment, which is older but still functional and usable, we'd do it. But I felt uncomfortable, and that's what I think I said to you in the letter, that the letter of the House order says only 253-D, and only when authorized by the House in other places.

Now, we stretch it. If it's within the precincts, it's another committee room, we have the equipment and we are accommodating. But if you wish us to continue down that line, we need clarification from the committee to say this is okay, this is what was meant by the House order. I don't need another House order, I just need some direction of your political will that we continue down this road. This is what I meant by that letter.

That equipment is still usable. If you are going to authorize this, then we need a couple of small rules. We moved it from the reading room to the West Block in less than 40 minutes one day at great expense to the fitness of our crew. We would need things like four hours' notice for set-up time, those kinds of things, so that a committee doesn't just say at 2.30 p.m., “We're meeting and we want to broadcast at 3.30 p.m.”

My letter was one in which I was trying to, I think, be accommodating without someday being accused or criticized by the House as having gone beyond the order of the House.

The Chairman: It's a matter of making more effective use of—

Mr. Robert Marleau: The equipment is there.

The Chairman: Couldn't we have it also meeting a particular type of demand?

Mr. Robert Marleau: And we have the staff.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Surrey North, Ref): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Marleau, for coming. If you think you're nervous about your quotes in the Hill Times, in the article that's beside this picture, I'm quoted as saying that “Chuck Strahl was worried that great footage of, well, Chuck Strahl might be wasted.”

That was apparently what I said last week, and of course that would be a waste.

An hon. member: But you couldn't say it on camera.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, I couldn't have said it on camera. But it was a tongue-in-cheek article, and it was kind of fun.

I have a couple of questions on this. You've travelled to see other parliaments and other jurisdictions. Are there any guidelines there that strike the balance you're looking for that provides access but where you have a proper balance between the rights of parliamentarians and the rights of the media to have access to them? Is there something in some place in the United States or in another Commonwealth country, perhaps, that gives you that kind of comfort that there could be some balance?

Mr. Robert Marleau: C-SPAN in Washington has made agreements for distribution with the local press gallery and the Congress for pools of coverage of committees—and not necessarily entirely gavel to gavel but a prime witness. And often it'll be the whole of the testimony, which may take an hour of a three-hour meeting, of a particular witness that will be covered, rather than just, say, coming in for a 90-second clip and walking away. Washington has more flexible rules in that sense.

• 1155

Consider Great Britain. I have an article here that I can leave with Mr. Robertson that was prepared for Parliamentary Affairs: A Journal of Comparative Politics in 1992 about essentially the experience in the late 1980s with select committees being covered by TV in Great Britain from gavel to gavel. That was for certain meetings only. That was the type of arrangement with either the BBC or ITV.

There again, distribution was an issue. BBC had more distribution and capacity. So it gave more coverage to the committees than did the other networks that chose this.

But essentially, the article is not a very positive response in terms of what it has done to enhance the status of committees. Essentially, it ends up somewhat on the negative side such that it may not enhance the role of parliamentarians. It may have enhanced more knowledge of the issues before the committee that day. That's roughly where that article goes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear then, on the American experience, for example, we see a lot of coverage of American committee work, whether it's interviewing potential Supreme Court justices or on some of the sexier things they may be dealing with. In other words, when they come in to have their pooled coverage, do they make an agreement ahead of time that says they can come in to do the testimony of the witnesses but then they must leave? Do they make those kinds of specific committee-by-committee contractual arrangements or agreements, or is it at the discretion of the networks?

As near as I can tell, that's what Mr. Oliver was getting at. It should be saying that this is an issue of equal rights of access. They should have the right to come in and do as little or as much of it as they want. They can clip it the way they want. They can talk about whomever they want. They can use it as news. It's just news to them. The news is theirs; it shouldn't be up to anybody to restrict that.

Is that what they do elsewhere?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'm not familiar with the details of the agreement between the press gallery and the congressional house administration committee.

What has been reported to me is that some of the committees through their counsel... There's global agreement in terms of the number of cameras, the positions, the notice, how much ahead of time it is, and decorum. That sort of thing is ironed out, and it's pretty well uniform.

But a committee might say that if they're coming in today, the committee will want them to cover the whole testimony of the witnesses in fairness to the issue. Those kinds of behind-the-curtain negotiations go on all the time. In other cases, the committee may not care, so they'll come and they take a clip, and then they're gone.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a last question. I find this interesting because we see a lot of American committee work specifically. We do see a fair bit of that. So I'm just interested in how they would handle... Would you suggest guidelines or is that what we need to develop? Perhaps we need guidelines that would allow us to do that.

It does seem to me that if you're going to open the door to electronic coverage, then everybody needs to understand what the game is and that it's not going to expand. This is a minor transgression, but it's a slightly expanded role for a still camera shot. It seems to me that even if they come in and do all the witnesses, it's one thing to tape it all, but if they don't replay it all or they don't show it all, then it's still not gavel to gavel or even on witnesses. They'll just say, yes, they taped it all. But then they clip out the 10 seconds they think is newsworthy and throw the rest of it into the garbage can.

So it's just a matter, I think, unless I misunderstand it, of developing guidelines that everyone's going to be comfortable with. The media are not going to be comfortable if there are any restrictions, but it's just a matter, I would suggest, of developing those guidelines, whether these have to be global or committee by committee.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: As I said earlier, you could develop the guidelines to have a common agreement between the broadcaster and yourselves. My concern remains the same as at the outset: to them, it's newsworthy material; to me, it's a parliamentary proceeding in and of itself. I think it should stay within the control of the committee. That's my recommendation as a clerk. What you give up in the process is in those negotiations.

• 1200

The Chairman: We'll now go to Gurmant Grewal, followed by André Harvey, and then Bob Kilger. I'd like to wind it up at that point, if I could.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chair, despite many warning shots having been fired, it seems to me that Mr. Marleau “uncomfortably” is in favour of TV cameras.

There is another aspect, I think, if we look at the productivity of the members of the committees. To me it looks good, but I don't know how everyone else will perceive it. The presence of TV cameras will be more demanding on the members in terms of, for instance, discipline. For example, many committees are adjourned because of lack of quorum, and that might not happen if TV cameras were there. It makes committees a joke sometimes when we have to adjourn because there is a lack of quorum. Also, it would be more demanding in terms of better preparation on the part of members. They will have to read their notes in total. I don't say they don't read them now, but there would be an increased demand for them to prepare their questions to the witnesses in a deeper sense.

I have a concern related to the recording that is presently done of the committees. I assume that committee minutes are public information and that anyone could have access to them. When the yellow sign is on, the audio recording is done. I don't know if the media has access to the audio recording at this time—I'm not familiar with the guidelines—but broadcasting is done and anyone can record. I have seen micro-cassette recorders being used during committee meetings.

I don't doubt the integrity of the media, and I'm not blaming them, but I see that with the advances in technology, there's the possibility that someone could use a micro-camera to record what's happening in the committee rooms. Are there any guidelines? I have not seen any no-camera sign in the committee rooms. With regard to the micro-cameras, can they record or are they prohibited from recording?

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: There are three parts to that question. With regard to the issue of better performance by committee members because of cameras, I think I'll let you judge what happened in the House prior to 1977 and post-1977 in terms of whether or not the impact of television has enhanced the role of members or caused them to perform differently. Certainly, we don't thump desks any more. We clap. I've even heard members say they dress better because of the camera. Far be it from me to comment on that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Robert Marleau: However, in terms of audio recording, there's no limit. Any reporter can plug in and record any part thereof and use it either for print purposes or to play back on radio. There are absolutely no guidelines. They have to respect the general essence of representing what happened in the House without necessarily distorting it. That applies to the print media as much as to the recorded media. There's no doubt that on the electronic side the press gallery feels somewhat aggrieved that they don't have the same sort of unfettered access. The issue is that we already have the concept of an electronic Hansard for the House and whether or not you want to vary that for committees.

As far as a prohibition for cameras is concerned, there aren't any no-camera signs. It has been a general rule for committees for as long as I've been here that any form of camera—we even included pictures in the past—is a form of broadcasting, and you needed the authority of the House. You needed the power conferred by the House on the committee to take it outside, if you like, the parliamentary precinct by television or otherwise.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: How about video-conferencing? In the U.S. the use of video-conferencing is increasing probably more than the use of the Internet. I think if we look into the future, not at 1999 but maybe 10 years down the road, there will be the possibility that we will have video-conferencing. If that happens, broadcasting won't be restricted even if we decide—which I think is what we want—that cameras should not be allowed. But how about that possibility? Are we restricting ourselves from taking advantage of advanced technology in the future?

• 1205

Mr. Robert Marleau: Video-conferencing is now available to Canadian House of Commons committees over in La Promenade Building, and it has been used. It's underutilized, if I can put it that way, because I think it could be better used and used more.

We've had discussions Commonwealth-wide on the issue of conferencing, such as with the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments and the commonwealth presiding officers, as to whether or not it is broadcasting. We've taken the view that it is not. In the parliamentary sense, it's still a proceeding that's in the control of the committee. A witness might be 6,000 miles away, but he or she is participating in a committee proceeding. It might be a little harder to control a recalcitrant or disorderly witness who is 6,000 miles away. There are issues, but we fundamentally feel that they're covered by privilege as long as they're acting within that particular proceeding. It's the same for a committee that sits in the Holiday Inn in Saskatoon. Once the committee is constituted, it's covered by privilege. It's within the precinct of Parliament per se.

So video-conferencing and using those technologies is still possible. The broad interpretation is that it is not a form of broadcasting. It's a way of collecting evidence.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thanks.

[Translation]

The Chairman: André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I get the feeling, Mr. Chairman, that our Clerk, with his customary wisdom, is giving us a Politics 101 course. He is telling us that it's no use opening up our hearts, the toilets, and our own offices, because the media will not necessarily promote the elected representatives. That's the impression I get. Even so, they are showing a good deal of restraint.

I asked the question the other day. If, as elected representatives, we wish to have cameras everywhere and increase the quality of information content, in the medium and long term, will this improve the perception of our work among Canadians?

I might be mistaken, but if I remember correctly, the members of the Press Gallery, among others, have not told me that this would necessarily be the effect.

By opening up all our parliamentary work, both in committees and elsewhere, we might see the image of politicians deteriorate even further—I'm not being adamant about this, Mr. Chairman, I'm just thinking out loud, and I would like to know what the Clerk thinks. My perception of my colleagues is a positive one. I see them work morning to evening, very often six or seven days a week. If this present desire to open everything up by no means improves the perception of the work we are doing... I believe that is what the Clerk is saying to some extent. He's saying that even if we open up Parliament totally, it would not have the desired effect. I would like him to be more explicit.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I do not know whether I should thank Mr. Harvey, Mr. Chairman. It is somewhat difficult for the Clerk to say whether or not television has improved the House. It is definitely different.

I had the privilege of being here before television, and I know that the Members would come in to the House and talk to one another. If Mr. Diefenbaker came to the floor to talk at 8:45 p.m., the House would be full. People would leave their offices to come and hear him. Today, not many debates involving our best speakers attract this kind of attention. The members can see the debate in the debate in their offices. They can even see it rebroadcast on CPAC in their riding, if they wish.

So television has had an impact. Whether good or bad, as Clerk of the House, I hesitate to comment. The House is different, the role of the members is different, the nature of the debate is different, and some of the excesses—because there were also some excesses before television are also different. For example, the act of placing a salmon on the Prime Minister's desk would not have had the same effect before television.

• 1210

There were excesses in the past, and there will be in the future. Perhaps there are different reasons for some of these excesses.

Would the same thing occur in committees if there was more coverage? In my opening remarks, I said that human nature... People are always going to act like people, as they say in your part of the country.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think Thomas Aquinas said that.

Mr. Robert Marleau: These things are going to happen in committees, because people are the way they are.

Getting back to the basic question raised by Mr. Bergeron. What do you seek to accomplish? Do you wish to give committee access to people who produce daily news, or do you wish to open up the parliamentary committees to people? That is what you must decide upon.

It is very easy to open it up to the media in a very orderly way, and I said a moment ago, in 98% of the cases, they will not abuse the 90 seconds. What would be the impact of 90 second- segments over six or seven years? I do not know. Would it be good or bad for the committees? I would not want to predict. But I do want to tell you that after six or seven years of interaction with the media, you will have lost control. Our Constitution is different from that of the U.S.A., and we have the Charter of Rights. After six or seven years, if you decide that things have gone downhill, it will be very difficult for you to undo things.

If I had to recommend something, I would say, “take it very slowly.”

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That answers my question.

[English]

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall, briefly, in place of Bob Kilger.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'm sorry to have missed part of your presentation. I was out trying to protect my reputation from being sullied by a certain journalist.

I am trying to understand this issue of privilege, and I think part of the problem we're having in this discussion is in not being clear that there's a difference between recording Parliament and reporting Parliament. We have a written Hansard, but that's not the same as a newspaper story about what happened in Parliament or committee. We have an electronic Hansard, so-called, but that is not the same as media coverage by television. It's a totally different thing.

I'm really trying very hard to understand how that affects the privileges of Parliament when, as far as I'm aware, the fact that these meetings can be covered by a radio reporter with a tape recorder or a journalist with a pen and paper has not. The fact is that there is a reporter in here and there has been one for years. What's the difference? I see the practical difficulties with large equipment, but I really don't see the distinction otherwise.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'll try to clarify what I see as a distinction, Mr. Chairman.

The physical aspects and the agreement with a pool, all those sorts of things, are matters of negotiation, imagination and agreement. I don't think they are issues. The issue is the control of the proceedings. You have the same dichotomy, if you like, in the House as you have in committees. The written media can come and sit in the gallery and have access. They take their notes and leave in the middle of Question Period. We have expanded for the print media the photography possibly. But the electronic media still has the same disadvantaged position, in their perspective, in that they can't just come in and take what they want and leave; they must take it off the feed of the electronic Hansard.

The electronic Hansard is in full control of the House because it's produced by House personnel. Any abuse of those guidelines is accountable to you through that process, whether in the privilege context or the administrative context.

If you go to the issue of control of your proceedings, which is fundamental in terms of the control over the precincts in the House, in the Westminster-style model, you had the Donahoe v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al. case in Nova Scotia, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. The CBC said they wanted to come in when they wanted and cover it all or cover a little. The Speaker said no. It was challenged. It all went to the Supreme Court of Canada to defend, under section 18 of the Constitution, the right of the House to control its proceedings and access, whether that's electronic or physical.

• 1245

That's where I think you would usurp that over time. Once you allow that kind of access over a long period of time—you may have conflicts from time to time—I feel that you would give it up essentially, yet not give it up for the House. Do you want to give it up for the committees? When will you give it up for the House? That's the privilege situation I see: you're giving up the control.

You set up the controls for the House. The entire proceedings have a format and a content that's in your control. There's the archival value and the historical value, which is not being offered by the press gallery here. All the committees we tape for you and rebroadcast are also archived and maintained for historical purposes, research, and everything else. That's another dimension. It's not privilege as such, but that archive is privileged in terms of control by House.

What I'm saying is that you're setting up a two-tier system, where you've protected the proceedings of the House, and if you go to the pool, you're not, in my view, protecting—giving privilege over time—the same coverage over those proceedings.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have just one final comment. I appreciate that. It just seems to me that if we've given up control over our proceedings, we did it when we allowed the first radio or newspaper reporter into our committee meetings.

The Chairman: Colleagues, before I thank our witnesses, I'd like to say my thought is that assuming a sort of summary of this meeting and last Tuesday's meeting could be available on Monday and it could be circulated to members of the committee on that day, we will meet again on this topic at 11 a.m. on Tuesday. If that's not possible, it would be 11 a.m. on the following Thursday. Is that okay?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If it's not possible—

The Chairman: That's if we don't have notes for members by Monday summarizing our two meetings. Is that okay?

I'd like to thank our witnesses, Robert Marleau, the Clerk of the House, and his colleagues, Louis Bard and Rob Walsh. We greatly appreciate your being here and the time you've taken. It's been a very interesting meeting for us. As you heard, we'll continue with this matter next week.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.