HAFF 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]

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

• 1106

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, colleagues.

We're continuing with our review of the possibilities of increasing television coverage of our House committees.

Monsieur Guimond, I understand you have a point of order. At this precise moment in time, we do have a quorum for hearing witnesses, but we're just a little bit short of a complete quorum for dealing with a point of order. I'm prepared to come back to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Chairman, our quorum is set at nine members and if we include you, we have a quorum.

[English]

The Chair: You are a better counter than our clerk.

Mr. Michel Guimond: First try, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I would say not only a better counter....

The Chair: That's fine.

Monsieur Guimond, you're correct. If you have a point of order, I and your colleagues are delighted to entertain it.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm sure.

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to last Thursday when unfortunately, we had to adjourn for the weekend. Mr. Mahoney had moved an adjournment motion on a point of order, which, by the way, was out of order. However, that is not what I want to talk about.

I want you to know that in my view, you have no right to limit a member's speaking time in this committee, when a member rightfully has the floor and that moreover, this is completely illegal according to our Standing Orders and more specifically, the rules of procedure as spelled out in Montpetit-Marleau. I refer you to pages 856 and 857 of Montpetit-Marleau which outlines the authority of the Chair. I think this second paragraph of this section bears mentioning:

The Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose remarks or questions are repetitious, or not relevant to the matter before the committee.

I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that my comments were neither repetitious nor irrelevant to the matter before the committee, namely shedding some light on the role of the Prime Minister in the Grand-Mère hotel and golf course affair.

I would further like to draw your attention to the following section in Montpetit-Marleau which begins on the bottom of 857 and which deals with the right to speak of committee members. The following is stated:

• 1110

[...] committee members are free to discuss a matter for as long as they see fit.

Therefore, I say again, Mr. Chairman, that moving to limit the time committee members have to speak to two minutes...

I've consulted the blues, Mr. Chairman, and you limited my speaking time to two minutes. You imposed the same time limit on Mr. Jordan, although he did not complain. I don't have the exact page reference, but at one point, you stated:

[English]

“Mr. Jordan, you have two minutes.”

[Translation]

In response, Mr. Jordan stated:

[English]

“I won't use two minutes, don't worry.”

[Translation]

In order to dispel any ambiguity, I want it to be clear in the minds of committee members that - and this is my opinion, just so you don't think I have a wish to chair meetings - that the Chair does not have the right to impose a two-minute time limit on their speeches.

Having said this, I want you to know that I intend to appeal your ruling not to give consideration to the letter signed by four colleagues who are also members of this committee. To my mind, you made a political decision and by ruling that this request for a meeting did not fall within the committee's mandate, you overstepped your authority as Chair.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on your ruling, for everyone's benefit, because obviously, I challenge your decision.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Monsieur Guimond, and thank you for putting your position succinctly.

Mr. Michel Guimond: More than two minutes, I hope.

The Chair: That's right. I'll let the record show that it was more than two minutes.

I want to say that where you believe the chair is in error, you are correct in challenging. You should do that on behalf of yourself and other members of the House of Commons just to keep our records straight around here—and correct. I accept as quite appropriate your perceived need to challenge my ruling. I will just reply as I see the rules, in the hope that it will help, and I will put the appeal or the challenge momentarily.

In terms of what we were debating the other day, we were dealing with points of order. We were not in a debate of an issue. I've read House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, and you've correctly pointed out elements of their commentary. It is my view that where there are no specific rules of procedure governing committees, the committee will generally follow the rules that are followed in the House of Commons itself. There's reference in Marleau and Montpetit to that structure as well.

First let me say that there are no committee rules dealing with the procedure for debate or for dealing with points of order. Therefore, I refer all colleagues to the House of Commons, where when there are points of order taken up, the Speaker quite strictly controls the amount of time that is used and spent by members in arguing the points of order. A member rising at a point of order in the House does not have unlimited time to make his or her point. The Speaker will routinely ask a member to wrap up or to be brief, so that the Speaker may deal with the issue. So I am simply following that same routine that the Speaker uses in the House of Commons when dealing with points of order.

• 1115

The subject matter—by my recollection—in the past meeting was a point of order. That's why I felt free to impose a time limit, or I could have asked a member to wrap up. I did not consider that we were in debate on a motion. You will recall that I had ruled the motion out of order.

I leave for future reference or future discussion or debate the question of time-limiting debate at committee. You'll recognize that we also limit questioning of witnesses at committee. We do that routinely. Chairs routinely, with the support of members, require all members and witnesses to work within time limits in dealing with witnesses.

The question of time on debate is an open one. If, in your challenge today, you are challenging all of the ability of the chair to time-limit questioning, debate, or points of order, that's okay. You can challenge all of that. But I want the record to show where I was coming from when I made that decision last week.

I can see you want to say something else on this, continuing on your point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I merely want to correct your interpretation of the facts. I have the blues and we can take a look at them, or as they say in French “vous visiterez les bleus”..

An Hon. Member: ... I think they say “vous revisiterez”.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I think the interpreters will agree with me that in the House, some Francophones say “on va visiter les bleus”. In any event, you can consult the blues and you will see that I was not speaking on a point of order. You had given me the floor and I quote:

[English]

“Does anyone wish to speak to this?”

[Translation]

I was not speaking on a point of order. That's not the issue. You confused the time limit imposed on questions, points of order and debates. I think we have a duty to be as clear as possible and I simply wanted to clarify this interpretation slip.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could you clarify the basis of your objection?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

Mr. Guimond has asked members to consider an appeal of my ruling—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On your decision.

The Chair: —on my decision at the last meeting to—what's the correct wording here—time-limit Mr. Guimond—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, no, no.

Mr. Michel Guimond: No, no.

The Chair: Just a minute. Mr. Guimond, which ruling? Would you just clarify which ruling you're appealing?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I made a comment earlier and I would like to move on. I said I disagreed with your decision to limit my speaking time. I do, however, want you to know that I plan to appeal your ruling to disregard the letter signed by four colleagues on the grounds that consideration of this matter is not within the committee's purview. That is the ruling that I wish to challenge.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Okay, colleagues, I've heard that, and I think the best thing to do would be just to put that. It's a simple appeal—

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): May I ask one question first? I was not at the last meeting—

The Chair: Point of clarification, yes. Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I was not at the last meeting. I understood that there was already a challenge of that ruling, and that the committee supported the chair's ruling.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, no, you weren't there.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, I'm mistaken then. My apology.

The Chair: No, we had a good discussion of the chair's ruling after the chair ruled, but it wasn't an appeal, so....

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was at the end of the discussion. No challenge—

The Chair: Colleagues, all those who would support Mr. Guimond's appeal, please indicate.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I request a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: A recorded division.

• 1120

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

The Chair: The chair's decision is sustained by the vote. Thank you, colleagues, and thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

Let's go on to our witnesses for today on the issue of televising of committees. Elaine Diguer is the chief of INet and multimedia for the House of Commons. A whole lot of other things are in her title, but I'll leave it at that.

I welcome you. You might wish to introduce the person with you.

Ms. Elaine Diguer (Chief, INet and Multimedia, Information Services, TV and Radio, House of Commons): Thank you. Jean Leduc is the manager responsible for television and radio services.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Colleagues, we've invited our witnesses because we believe we need some clarification on how the House currently acquires video-recorded material of our proceedings. How it maintains it, keeps it, collates it, segregates it, categories it, and archives it, we're not sure. The reason we're asking is that as we look at increasing television coverage of the House, including videotaped or live coverage by broadcasters in committee rooms, we are not clear on just what we should be doing on behalf of the House and all of our colleagues in either obtaining copies or properly dealing with that material, depending on whose possession it is in.

Ms. Diguer, do you have something you want to begin with, or do you just want to take questions?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: It might be a good idea just to revisit what we do, look a little bit at the history, and maybe go over what we do as a service, very briefly.

The Chair: That's fine. Please do that.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Perhaps I can also go over whether the House of Commons does archive, and then we can take questions from there, if you like.

The House of Commons television and radio service, of which Jean Leduc is the manager, captures and distributes a gavel-to-gavel live feed—English, French, and floor language—of committee proceedings, using permanent equipment installed in room 253-D and portable equipment used in room 237-C.

Committee proceedings in those two rooms are broadcast live on the internal parliamentary television network, and distributed live to CPAC for broadcast and to the press gallery offices for media coverage. Copies of the proceedings are available through our demand video services.

The House of Commons also provides video recording services from other areas of the parliamentary campus using portable equipment. Those proceedings are recorded in video format—again, in English, French, and floor—for subsequent distribution to CPAC, the media, and demand video services.

That's a little bit of what we do.

Does the House archive the videotapes of chamber and committee proceedings? The House of Commons approved the broadcast of the proceedings in 1977, and in 1991 the proceedings of committees were also broadcast with the adoption of Standing Order 119.1.

While the House of Commons approval to broadcast proceedings did not include the formal mandate to archive the audio-video record of chamber or committee proceedings, the House of Commons has kept the collection of chamber tapes dating back to 1977, and the collection of committee proceedings dating back to 1991.

In response to a recommendation from the Board of Internal Economy, the House of Commons is presently finalizing a memorandum of understanding that will allow the House to transfer the collection of videotapes to the National Archives.

• 1125

The mandate of the National Archives—and this is straight from the archives—is to preserve the collective memory of the nation. It does so by acquiring, conserving, and facilitating access to private and public records of national significance and serving as a permanent repository of records. It considers our collection of national significance.

The House would have suggested keeping a tape of electronic media broadcasting for three reasons. One, the House of Commons presently provides a video demand service. Today, all parliamentarians and their staff, including the Senate and library, can request the replay of or a taped copy of any chamber or committee proceedings televised by the House of Commons.

The House of Commons would like to provide the same service and access on a demand basis to all members of Parliament for those proceedings televised by the electronic media.

The House of Commons would also like to provide a copy of the videotape of parliamentary proceedings to the National Archives, of other electronic media, as part of its ongoing transfer of the video record to that organization for conservation.

Finally, in its November 3, 1999, report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended in paragraph 1E of the report that:

During the trial period, the electronic media shall be required to respect the principles of balanced coverage to reflect the work of all committees of the House, as outlined in paragraph D above.

Paragraph 1D essentially speaks to how the House of Commons broadcast group should do the same.

In order to be able to provide the House affairs committee with a report on those committees that have been televised by the electronic media and the nature of the content televised, videotapes of the proceedings televised by the electronic media will be required.

That's my statement. For a person who had no statement, that's a long statement, isn't it.

The Chair: That's fine.

I'll go to questions or a discussion on this.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I have a question that flows from this. I think one of the concerns I have with respect to the way in which things are being televised is the fact that we're operating, for the most part, with one channel for the delivery of the services.

I'm not sure whether you're involved in that segment of it, but it strikes me that to get some variety for the public to look at, it would be better if there were two channels functioning, whether it be on satellite or on cable. I don't know whether that's feasible or not.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: The way the House broadcasts, as you were saying, is that we do distribute it to CPAC. They are the ones responsible for broadcasting it across the country. Currently they do that through affiliates. They broadcast the three formats, the French, English, and floor, via satellite, and then the affiliates pick up that content and broadcast it locally. Any change in that really is under the direction of CPAC and not the House of Commons.

Mr. Paul Macklin: So you have no influence on that decision?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: We are at the end of our agreement with CPAC this year, and we are, I think, about to begin negotiations with CPAC. The CPAC mandate, before the House, is really decided by the Board of Internal Economy.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl and then Mr. Saada.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): In the report we'd put together there is quite a bit of talk about electronic media. Is electronic media defined as the film industry? Is that the electronic part?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: From what I understand from the report, electronic media was defined as members of the press gallery wishing access to committees to televise.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: To televise. But let's say it's not televised. Is there an archiving of the tape of every meeting?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Of the audio tape?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No. The audio tape is not archived.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So the audio is not archived. Let's say a reporter—Tim Naumetz, say—was in the room recording everything we said. There's no provision that he would give us a copy of that tape for archiving?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No.

• 1130

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So this is all about the video.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That, of course, is accompanied by an audio, but yes, it is only about the video.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So there would just be a Hansard recording of this meeting, no audio recording—there's no archiving of audio?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: The audio, I believe, is for the purpose of transcription. It is used solely for that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. There's always a fuss from the people in the video business, asking why they are treated differently. That's not your problem, but we're probably going to hear that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Saada, then Mr. Tirabassi.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I know absolutely nothing about this matter. My problem is that as a member of this committee, I have to ask questions that will leave me slightly more enlightened at the end of the day than I was in the morning. Therefore, I have two questions for you.

First of all, CPAC broadcasts the proceedings filmed by the House of Commons.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That is correct.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Who owns these tapes?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: The House of Commons.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I see. The reason why we are even considering this is that we've all agreed more or less on the fundamental principle. We're looking into ways of giving the work we do in committee a higher profile. Isn't that correct? I believe that's our guiding principle.

Other than financial ones, what types of problems need to be surmounted if we are to extend this service to a much larger number of committees?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: From the standpoint of long-term renovations, we're looking at the possibility of outfitting new committee rooms with cameras to allow all committee meetings to be televised. I get the impression that the electronic press is a little frustrated at not having access to all committees. To date, we have already made a number of reports calling for room 237 to be designated, along with room 253, as a permanent room outfitted with portable equipment for the televising of committee meetings. We haven't looked at the cost of broadcasting all committee meetings.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Therefore, technical considerations are not the main problem. It's the final cost.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That's true, but we are equally concerned about the existing infrastructure at the House of Commons. This explains the emphasis on new committee rooms and long-term renovation plans. As things now stand, only those meetings held in rooms 253 and 237 can be televised.

Mr. Jacques Saada: What are the advantages of portable equipment over permanent equipment?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: With mobile equipment, we can record the proceedings, but we cannot hook up a direct feed to CPAC.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I see.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: You do?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to have this straight. Your department—the one you manage, Mr. Leduc—is responsible under this proposal for taking gavel-to-gavel with no editing, correct? But at some point you turn these tapes over to CPAC and to members of the press gallery, correct?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No, we don't pass it along to CPAC. We keep them as part of our archival collection in the Wellington Building. We do distribute live to CPAC and the press gallery. And we distribute to our parliamentary television network for live broadcast on the Hill.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I see. So it's live when it's actually proceeding, but the actual—

Ms. Elaine Diguer: If a meeting is in 253 or 237, we have the infrastructure in place there to be able to televise live. And when we do so, as I was saying in my opening remarks, we do distribute live to the parliamentary television network, to CPAC, and to the parliamentary press gallery, so that they have access to those proceedings.

Mr. M. Jean Leduc (Operations Manager for Multimedia Services, House of Commons): As you know, the House has priority, so committees are replayed at a later date. CPAC would then record our live feed with their own equipment and play it back, knowing that we're archiving it.

• 1135

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: How would a member go about retrieving a tape if, let's say, a member of a committee wanted to review a tape of the proceedings? What would be the procedure to retrieve the tape?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: They'd call our demand service, 995-1318, and speak to an operator, who will retrieve that and play it back on the parliamentary television network or give them a copy in tape format.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Any single member can request that?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Any member can request that.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Very good. That's it for now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi. Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Basically, there are four main points to this report. The first is an obligation on the part of the media to broadcast the proceedings of a committee in their entirety, bearing in mind a number of criteria such as keeping the camera trained on the speaker, and so forth.

The second requirement is that the media provide balanced coverage. Thirdly, the media is asked to give sufficient notice, not only to allow the committee time to organize itself accordingly, but also to give committee members sufficient time to prepare for the meeting. Lastly, a copy of the recordings must be preserved for the House of Commons and for the benefit of the general public and future generations.

The media were critical of these four key components, the very heart of the report, and they called upon the House of Commons to back down on each one. Earlier, I had the opportunity to point out to the Chair and to committee members that I was willing to consider, as part of a pilot project, some concessions on various points, for instance, the requirement that proceedings be broadcast from start to finish, the requirement to provide balanced coverage of different committees and the requirement to give advance notice. I was willing to make some concessions on these points.

However, no concessions are possible when it comes to archiving. This brings me to my next question. You stated that the Press Gallery currently follows a certain modus operandi. As a rule, when the Press Gallery would like images of a particular committee the proceedings of which were recorded, the material is handed over and is not censured in any way. Shouldn't we at least, having conceded on all points, maintain this friendly arrangement with the press? Then when the press takes pictures, they could provide us with copies that could be archived for the benefit of the House as well as future generations.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That is the point we're trying to make, Mr. Bergeron. One reason why the House may want these tapes is so that it can ensure some continuity in its services to members and non- elected officials and so that it can provide a copy of the recording to the archives. Furthermore, this will enable us to report to the committee on the pilot project. We'll be able to identify which committees were televised and what their proceedings were about. Whether or not a decision is made to televise the proceedings in their entirety, we'll be able to tell you what kind of coverage was provided and produce a report on the pilot project.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In other words, you've weighed in with an additional argument in favour of maintaining copies of the recordings done by the press. This will enable us, as parliamentarians, to fairly assess the success or failure of the pilot project.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Correct.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a brief technical question. How durable are those tapes? How many years do you expect them...? Monsieur Bergeron was referring to preserving them—

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Good question.

Mr. Julian Reed: —for subsequent generations, but they do have a life span, don't they?

• 1140

Ms. Elaine Diguer: They do, and in fact we have a moratorium on tapes dating back ten years right now, because of the fragility of them. That's one of the reasons it's so important to transfer them to the archives, so that they can now do the good job of preserving the tapes. They would apply selection criteria to the tapes they do keep. From our negotiations, we understand they normally keep 5% of a collection. In our case they want to keep up to 20%. What they do is develop selection criteria in cooperation with our own library, with the National Archives, to ensure that the important part of it, as determined by our National Archives in the context of their entire collection, is preserved. If we continue just to collect them and keep them in a temperature-controlled environment, they'll come to the point where they're beyond access.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you.

The Chair: I have a few questions here. I understand there are some audio tapes made of committee meetings. Are there any?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No.

The Chair: There's no audio done at all of committee meetings?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No, only back-up recordings and audio recording for the purpose of transcription. We do not keep an archive collection—

The Chair: No, I asked you if there were audio tapes made.

Mr. Jean Leduc: For transcription purposes, there are.

The Chair: Okay. So there are audio tapes made.

Mr. Jean Leduc: That's now been changed over to digital.

The Chair: I realize that might be another department, another form of media.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: It's not tapes, by the way, it's a digital recording system.

Mr. Jean Leduc: It's a digital audio recording system.

The Chair: Okay, so there are audio recordings made. That's really what I'm asking.

Mr. Jean Leduc: Yes.

The Chair: There are, okay. Who—

Ms. Elaine Diguer: But they do not keep those tapes.

The Chair: I didn't ask you that.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Okay, sorry.

The Chair: Who makes them?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: The recording of the committee proceedings is carried out through the Parliamentary Publications Directorate.

The Chair: Your group does not record those.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No, because they are responsible for the transcription.

The Chair: I understand. Thank you. Do you know how long they keep their audio tapes?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No, I can't say.

The Chair: Or their audio digital recordings?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: I can't speak to that.

The Chair: You don't know, okay. You don't know either, Mr. Leduc?

Mr. Jean Leduc: No. If I may add, they are in five-minute bites and it's kind of a complicated system. It's not your typical one-hour tape, just for clarification.

The Chair: Would I be wrong in inferring that they don't keep them beyond what they need them for in producing transcription?

Mr. Jean Leduc: Correct.

The Chair: So, to your knowledge, they're not archived.

Do you know how much the raw cost of archiving is? Has there ever been a cost figure put on the archiving that comes out of the railway room, for example?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Do you mean the cost to keep a tape? We haven't done an assessment on that, but it's a small room in the Wellington Building where all the collection is housed. That's probably the only direct cost related to the archive.

The Chair: The storage?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Yes.

The Chair: And what about the tape itself?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: The tape is something we do anyway, because we like to play it back. The cost of the tape would be something that we would have incurred anyway.

The Chair: Okay. If I'm a taxpayer, I might want to say, how much is all this costing me? Does anybody know how much this recording and archiving is costing?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That would be very easy to report back on, but I don't have that cost here. I would be glad to report back to the committee on that.

The Chair: Some members have asked, what does a tape cost? Nobody knows—it's either $10 or $100.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: The format we use is SVHS, and it's about $5 a tape.

The Chair: This is just basic VHS tape then?

Mr. Jean Leduc: No, it's one step up. There are three levels: broadcast, industrial, and commercial. Commercial is what you'd buy for home from Zeller's, or wherever you buy your three-packs of tape. Industrial is what we're using, which is called SVHS. However, the media will use a broadcast quality that ranges up to $43 a tape.

The Chair: That's very helpful, thank you. That's good.

Do you know the kind of demand you might get for copies of recorded material? I'm really speaking about committees here. Can you give me an idea of how often copies are requested and by whom?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: I can come back with detailed information, but I can say that most of the demand we get for House or committee proceedings comes a very short time following the event. In terms of the numbers, I can't tell you the exact numbers, but again I would be delighted to report back to the committee.

• 1145

The Chair: Well, I'm really just looking for the general case. Can you give me an idea of who are the kinds of demanders of this recorded material? Who is asking to see it?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: They range from staff to people who would like a copy of their own testimony before the committee—people who want to replay what's happening in a committee. It's usually the people appearing before the committee or people who have a direct interest in what happened in that committee.

The Chair: So an example of someone who would demand a copy of a committee proceeding video could be a witness—a witness who appeared—and you would provide that.

Mr. Jean Leduc: Again, some of the committees have high-profile witnesses, and people will say we want to see that committee because he was appearing. That will determine as well.

The Chair: Yes. The public can get a copy of a committee proceeding.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Witnesses who appear before the committee, yes.

The Chair: Witnesses but not the public. Witnesses who appear can get a copy of their own testimony.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That's right.

The Chair: All right.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: And I should say, we never receive requests from the public for the committees.

The Chair: You don't get requests from the public.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The public asks their MP.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: I think you're right.

Mr. Jean Leduc: That's the procedure.

The Chair: I think Mr. Bergeron may have a partial answer there. But if the public requested, you wouldn't respond.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: We don't provide a direct service to the public, no. That's not our mandate.

The Chair: One of the things the committee has been looking at here is the possibility of broadcasters themselves videotaping committee meetings or portions thereof. The question comes up, how could your functions be accommodated by these third-party broadcasters? How would one go about obtaining copies of this video-copied material?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: If it were done by the electronic media?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: If they provided us with a copy of what they had televised, we would then keep that in our demand service...[Technical difficulty—Editor]

The Chair: Okay. How would they—

Ms. Elaine Diguer: By calling a number and requesting access to that.

The Chair: Back up a little bit. I'm sorry about the sound. There's a whole lot of static coming through the sound system.

But just to go back, you are suggesting that the broadcaster deliver a copy of what they have taped? You're suggesting that the broadcaster could provide a copy of what they have video recorded to you?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Yes.

The Chair: They use a different kind of tape than you do.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That's okay.

The Chair: You don't mind.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Not at all.

The Chair: But there would be some specifications of standard required or—

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No, whatever format they use we can adapt to.

Mr. Jean Leduc: Basically it's the members' decision. Then we would supply the appropriate equipment to do that. If you say we will now play back tapes from the media, we would keep them and play them back. We assume that would be part of our new challenge and work.

The Chair: Okay. All of the tapes you have now are provided by the House of Commons.

Mr. Jean Leduc: Correct.

The Chair: If you were to ask a third party to provide copies of tapes, how would we...? I'm not so sure we should be relying on them to pay the cost. Is there some way, in terms of the way you do your work, that the cost of those tapes could be borne by the members of Parliament who want the copies made?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: If you would vote the envelope, we would be glad to do that.

The Chair: If we...?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: If you vote for an envelope for that, we would be glad to support that.

• 1150

The Chair: That is estimates jargon for increasing their budgetary allocation, for the record. Did the translator get that right? Okay.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: I guess the pilot would allow us a little bit more information to answer that seriously. If we had more of a sense of what the pilot would give us, we might be able to respond as to whether it's something we can absorb or whether it really represents something important in terms of cost. I think that would be the serious answer to that question.

The Chair: Yes. But the only thing we're all aware of now is that it would be something like $5 a tape—whatever the raw tape would be.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: No, they're using a different format. They're using a different format from the House, so I don't know what the total cost would be. I can't speak on behalf of the electronic media.

The Chair: Yes. But I suppose they could take their broadcast-quality piece, duplicate it onto an industrial-quality tape, put it in an envelope, and send it to you. So it would cost them a postage stamp, a copy of a tape, and a non-budgetary envelope—a big brown one. Is that about right?

Mr. Jean Leduc: It could.

The Chair: Witnesses are nodding, yes, it could.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Sorry. Yes, it could.

The Chair: All right. That's fine.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. I have two very quick questions.

[English]

We are debating informally at this time, I understand, but we are still debating the possibility of having video conferencing. If we did have video conferencing for committee meetings, how would it impact on your job? That's my first question.

I would like to put both of them together. The second question is about DVD technology.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Well, I'll answer both. In terms of the video conferencing, we presently do support video conferencing. We've just purchased two video conferencing systems for use by committees. They're being introduced to support you in your role as committee members. We can also allow for the televising of that conference, or you can have a conference that's just about bringing in witnesses from remote areas. So it can be both, or you can televise that conference.

The opportunity to start to introduce that as a basic technology in committee rooms today would again be as part of the long-term renovations. But because of our infrastructure, it's very difficult to introduce those technologies into the existing committee rooms. So we do the best with what we have, and with that, we've introduced two video conferencing systems.

The other thing is the DVD technology. We're working right now with legacy systems—I guess that would be the best way of putting it. A lot of the equipment that we have for broadcasting and for recording has been around for a long time. Right now, we're planning—again through the long-term renovations—to modernize the way we do that. That's when we'll be able to explore other ways of capturing and distributing the audio and the video.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Would that answer apply also in the case of the material that is archived over some time, which might need....?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: I don't want to use jargon, but one of the things we're looking at is a digital asset management system, which allows you essentially to capture it, tag it—so that you can have some intelligence around what it is you're capturing—and store it in digital format. Then it allows you to use it either for providing through the web—our parliamentary web—or for providing on demand. It could be on demand through your personal computer or through an interactive television.

Essentially what we're looking at is capturing it in digital format that will allow us to reuse it—repurpose it—in ways that we cannot use it right now.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Paul Macklin: I was just coming down with the same concept, and I was wondering what the cost would be of transferring from the video film format to a digital format.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: We looked at that. I think there was a submission to the Board of Internal Economy a few years back. It ranged from $4 million to $12 million to do the conversion of all the collection to digital format. It's very expensive. And adjusting for time and changes in technology, I still think it's very expensive today. I think that assessment was done about three years ago.

• 1155

Mr. Paul Macklin: Do we know the possible cost if you were able to do a DVD or equivalent digital system directly? Can you do that directly?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Today, no, but we are looking right now, again as part of the long-term renovations, at rethinking the way we actually do all of that. It will allow us to replace what is essentially an old analog broadcast system. That's essentially what we're doing.

Mr. Paul Macklin: What's the technical reason why you can't do it?

Mr. Jean Leduc: The problem is you're looking at 25-year-old legacy systems here.

Mr. Paul Macklin: What do you mean by “legacy systems?”

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Do you mean the conversion of tapes?

Mr. Paul Macklin: Yes.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: It's because the cost is very high.

In terms of the negotiations with the archives, if I can just step back a little bit, we have to recognize that we're not archivists. We're not the ones best suited to do that. We were never mandated to keep that archive. Having said that, I think somebody had the great foresight to keep that collection, and right now the National Archives is chomping at the bit, if you like, to get their hands on it so that they can now play their role, which is really essentially to apply some selection criteria to that collection and convert it to a format that will allow them to conserve it as part of their mandate.

Mr. Paul Macklin: So do you realistically see us going to a digital system then?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Yes.

Mr. Paul Macklin: And those are the recommendations you would be bringing forward?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Yes.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I was somewhat disturbed by what you said earlier. You stated that the National Archives of Canada are presently considering archiving approximately 20 per cent of the work done by the House in previous years.

According to what you said, given the current state of technology, it would be far too costly to capture all of the archived material in digital format.

Has the archived material from the 1970s deteriorated to the point where we can't wait for more appropriate technology to be employed, such as recording all material on DVD?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: An independent report was done on the state of the archives and we do run the risk of losing some of the older material if we wait too long. Demand for access to some of this material is quite low. It's more important that we turn this material over to someone who has the capability and the mandate to preserve this collection.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I understood you correctly, they are going to take the tapes from the 1970s, keep 20 per cent of this material and throw the rest away.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: I doubt that. I think they will concentrate on copying and preserving approximately 20 per cent of this material. I don't think they will discard the rest immediately. Instead, they will likely preserve debates that meet certain selection criteria.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And what are these selection criteria?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: I can't list them off the top of my head for you, but in a few weeks, we will be filing an application listing the criteria with the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: However, what criteria do you use to select the proceedings that will be recorded and those that will not?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Surely you don't mean “recorded” because all proceedings are recorded.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I meant to say “copied”.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: These selection criteria were drawn up by our library, by the archivists of the National Archives of Canada and by ourselves. It was a cooperative effort and we will be submitting them to the Board of Internal Economy.

• 1200

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Might the agreement in principle that could be reached with the National Archives of Canada also include a requirement that the tape be preserved so that if technology becomes more affordable, so to speak, over time, we can capture all of the material in digital format?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Yes, that's possible.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Good.

Now then, should we decide to move forward with the pilot project and require all electronic media to provide us with a copy of their recordings for archival purposes at the House of Commons, what, in your opinion, would be the most appropriate course of action under the circumstances? Would they do the recording and make a copy to be forwarded to us? Or, would we supply them with a tape that they would copy before sending it back to us? Or, would they tape the proceedings and send us the material that we would then copy before sending the originals back? What do you feel would be the most appropriate procedure to follow under the circumstances?

Ms. Elaine Diguer: We could sit down with the members of the Press Gallery and decide together on the best approach to take. However, any one of these options would work for us We are quite open to all suggestions. Ultimately, what we want is a copy to ensure continuity in our services and the other two areas we mentioned. We are willing to consider a range of procedural options.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: For my personal enlightenment, and perhaps for the benefit of colleagues, you mentioned a cost of about $5 per tape. How many hours can be recorded on one tape?

Mr. Jean Leduc: A maximum of two hours.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Therefore, at most a $5 tape would be needed for each committee meeting.

Mr. Jean Leduc: One or two tapes. However, you have to remember that broadcast quality tapes used by the media are always more costly. It depends on the format. Betacam can cost up to $43 for a 90-minute tape. The cameras they plan to use hold 20-minute tapes. Many factors need to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: However, we would copy material onto two-hour tapes that cost $5.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: That we can't do. However, we could use equipment that would allow us to view the tapes in their original format. We do have equipment like that.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Getting back to my earlier question, if ever we do arrange with the Press Gallery to make it less expensive for taxpayers, instead of copying the material onto a $43 tape, perhaps we could copy their $43 tape onto one of our $5 tapes.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Perhaps.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It would be cheaper this way for taxpayers. The quality may not be as good, but at least we would have an audio-visual record of events.

Mr. Jean Leduc: At one time, we used broadcast quality tape, but the cost was too prohibitive. Studies were conducted and industrial quality tape is adequate for one or two recordings. It's simply a matter of not recording over previous material continuously as the press does. The problem with this, however, is that the press may not have the same equipment as us. They may say to us that there is no way for them to do what we are asking for $5.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: All of which means that we should arrange to do the copying ourselves using our $5 tapes.

Mr. Jean Leduc: As Elaine was saying earlier, maybe we could come to some kind of arrangement with the Press Gallery to work out the details. However, we are open to all suggestions.

[English]

The Chair: I want to thank Ms. Diguer and Mr. Leduc. Your evidence has been very helpful this morning.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: Thank you.

The Chair: It will be helpful to us as we further consider this issue of committee broadcasting.

Thank you.

Ms. Elaine Diguer: It was a pleasure to be here. Thank you.

The Chair: You're free to go now.

Colleagues, I want to deal with some administrative matters in terms of future business.

There are three prominent items on our agenda. It looks as though we will not meet this Thursday. We would then go over to the Tuesday when we return from the Easter break.

The three items we have are the matter of privilege, and it appears that the most appropriate and convenient time for the Minister of Justice to appear would be Thursday, April 26, which is the Thursday after we come back. The Tuesday is unavailable.

• 1205

I'd like to try to get some more resolution to the issue of televising committees, and I understand that we may have to spend some more time on the House calendar issue. If you would allow the chair some latitude, I'm suggesting that on the Tuesday we return we have a smorgasbord or one or two of those items on the agenda for the morning, followed on Thursday by the Minister of Justice et al. on the privilege matter.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Not that I want to accuse you of having selective recall, but I believe you forgot at last Thursday's meeting that we were supposed to discuss the distribution of papers...

[English]

The Chair: You're quite right.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: ... in both official languages. I see that you have forgotten. Let's be certain to begin with this item at our next meeting. You'll see, it won't take long, no more than two and half minutes in total.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Guimond still has a sense of humour.

Yes, you're quite right, Mr. Guimond, and I neglected to include that on our list. That was to have been discussed at the last meeting. I did intend to, but it rolled off the end of the agenda by accident. We could take that up as part of what I call the smorgasbord agenda—not that these items are unimportant—on the Tuesday we return. That's a good suggestion.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Why don't we meet this Thursday?

I'd also like to say something and you can confirm this for me. I understand that we decided to meet with Minister McLellan on the Thursday following the Easter break because this was convenient for her. However, this committee is perfectly entitled to call the minister to testify whenever it deems fit, regardless of her availability.

Finally, regarding the broadcasting of proceedings, I suppose we could debate the matter this Thursday, although some members may have prior commitments which might explain why we can't meet on this day.

My last question has to do with the parliamentary calendar. Why are we examining this issue again?

[English]

The Chair: I would plan to take up the parliamentary calendar issue on the Tuesday we return. That would allow sufficient time to prepare the issue for members.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But I thought we had already adopted the sub-committee's recommendation.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, we have reported to the House, and we have also forwarded the matter to the special committee. But I am led to believe by the forces of nature that the matter may return to this committee, where we might provide some value-added. I can't confirm that yet, and I'm speaking in advance of having received anything in writing. I'm speaking on the assumption that the matter will come back, and I'm sure colleagues will want to provide the value-added and do the work we have to do. I would bring that back on the Tuesday as well.

• 1210

In terms of the televising of committees, it is the view of the chair that this could use some discussion among members—not around the table but just informally—to see if there is a good consensus to change the existing rules. If there isn't a good consensus, then perhaps we won't change the rules, but I think we should try. In theory, I suppose, your chair and others could work between now and Thursday to try to do it. I just thought a longer period of time would be more useful, because it may also require some informal exchange with the group representing the broadcasters and the parliamentary press gallery. That's why I didn't schedule it for Thursday. I'm sorry, your chair would dearly love to be here on Thursday for another regular meeting, but in the absence of a meaty agenda, I thought we might take advantage of the hour or two respite from our routine work. If that's okay, we will not meet on Thursday.

We'll come back on the Tuesday and try to deal with the two or three things we'll have on the agenda.

With regard to Minister McLellan, I will point out that the minister did offer to appear this Thursday, but she could only provide about one hour and ten minutes, and it seems to me we might want more time than that—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: —for instance, a full meeting. The reason Tuesdays are not available is because, unfortunately, this committee meets at the same time as the cabinet. The Minister of Justice is a pretty regular contributor to cabinet. It's just unfair to ask her to avoid that when Thursdays are available. So the Thursday meeting is the first available opportunity.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of members of this and of all committees, am I not correct in stating that while it is customary for a committee to summon witnesses at the latter's convenience, ultimately, a committee has the authority to summon anyone, including a minister, whenever it sees fit, not necessarily when the minister or the witness deems it relevant?

[English]

The Chair: That is true. Members here have been offered the three windows of opportunity to meet with the Minister of Justice, and it was done informally by telephone.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And we agreed to this in deference to the minister.

[English]

The Chair: That's right. Mr. Bergeron, you're entirely correct that most of the business that goes on in our Parliament requires that Parliament and its committees decide when things should happen. But we try to do it with courtesy and deference to the needs of the rest of the world. Thank you for making that point.

We'll adjourn until our next meeting.