Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:33 a.m., pursuant to rule 48(1) of the Rules of the Senate, to consider the question that whenever the Senate is sitting, the proceedings of the upper chamber, like those of the lower one, be televised, or otherwise audio-visually recorded, so that those proceedings can be carried live or replayed on CPAC, or any other television station, at times that are convenient for Canadians.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, today's meeting is in reference to our order of reference to study the merits of televising the Senate chamber. In the fall, we canvassed all senators to tell us their thoughts on the matter and invited any who were interested to indicate their desire to address the committee. In front of you, there should be a briefing note from the Library of Parliament that summarizes the responses we received.
In addition, we are joined by three colleagues who indicated their interest in addressing us, Senators Atkins, Banks and Trenholme Counsell. The list is alphabetical, in case someone suggests we have a preference, and I propose we follow the order in which I introduced them to make their presentations, after which we will have a period of questions and answers.
Hon. Norman K. Atkins: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion that was presented by Senator Segal. When I first came into the Senate, Senator Phillips used to decide who was going to sit on what committee, and he took great pleasure in assigning new senators to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. That was part of our penance. He also gave another committee to anyone who felt they had been mishandled by going to the Internal Economy committee.
I recall those days vividly because Internal Economy did not sit every week then, and it was chaired by the Speaker when we started. Almost inevitably, the issue of television in the Senate came up and the kinds of questions raised then are the same questions we face today: the lighting, the sound, who will edit it, when will it appear, et cetera. However, it really gets down to three issues: money, equipment and personnel.
The money issue was a big discussion. If we were to assess where each senator was coming from, we would find that it was almost a trade-off for those who were in favour and those who were not. In those days, the costs were almost prohibitive. If we televise today, it is still a major consideration.
In terms of equipment, the technology has changed. It is a lot better today; and there are ways to deal with the use of television in the chamber, so that it does not really interfere with any of the activities that take place in that body.
Personnel is a very critical issue. Senator Banks pointed out there is always this question of whether or not to edit Question Period. I take the position that it has to be live; because who will edit it without some bias? I do not think anyone would be happy, so you would have to let it run as live television.
My bottom line is that it has to be done right. If we are considering television in the chamber, we should be talking about a separate channel for the Senate. I do not know whether that is a decision that is made by CRTC or whether it is in negotiation with CPAC. However, it is unbelievable that we are negotiating our time slots to try to get prime time out of CPAC. Their priority is the House of Commons and what takes place there; we should have our own separate channel.
If we were to decide to have television cameras in the house, then we would have to consider programming beyond the house and consider how to best utilize the coverage in committees and Committee of the Whole, and how to cover such events as annual veterans' services; Encounters With Canada, when youth can come into the chamber; the Forum for Young Canadians, the Teachers' Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, and mock parliaments. There are many opportunities for television coverage. If the Senate were to invest in the equipment, then we could produce the kinds of programming that would make a very interesting presentation to the public.
Some people — including my colleague here — say that as soon as the public tunes in to a Senate report or Senate Question Period, every television in the place would turn off. Well, so be it. Let them do it. We have a responsibility to sell the Senate and television coverage would act as an educational tool. British Columbia has full coverage of its legislature and each time I come across it, I turn it off. However, there would be more interest in what is shown from the centre of the country in respect to the Senate.
I would argue that there are so many opportunities where programming could be incorporated into a Senate channel. Therefore, if we decide to go that route and invest in the equipment, et cetera, we should strive toward making it happen. Certainly, it would require some personnel, and I am told that the production facilities are excellent. Perhaps we need a Senate commentator to lead into Question Period, so that we can sell the public on what is happening. We could do interviews of senators, so that the public would have a chance to get to know the people who are sitting in this chamber: where they come from, what they have done in the past, their interests and the current issues.
I leave senators with those comments. I read one of the reports from Senator Bacon in which she began her response by indicating that the Senate should utilize its resources to better familiarize the Canadian public with the flavour of the work accomplished by it.
Hon. Tommy Banks: Good morning, honourable senators. Senator Atkins and I rarely disagree on anything, but we disagree on this, at least in some respects. Senator Atkins said that people can turn off the Senate if they come across it on their televisions. My sincere worry is that they would not turn it off.
I was a neophyte when I came here and had a typical misunderstanding of the Senate, its operations, what it does and why it does it. Having since learned about the Senate, I now have an appreciation for the fact that it is the most misunderstood institution in Canada — with the possible exception of the CFL — and that, as Senator Atkins has said, we need to sell the Senate to Canadians. I discovered that people have been trying to do that for many decades, since about July 2, 1867, I expect.
Marketing is important, but, when we look at selling a product, we have to look at how others have sold that product. However desirable it might be in respect of transparency and seeing what truly goes on in the House of Commons, we might ask ourselves honestly whether the reputation and regard in which Canadians hold elected politicians has been in any way aggrandized. Some would say that it has been reduced to the level of used-car salesmen, meaning no disrespect to used-car salesmen, but this is not a package in which to sell our particular ``soap.'' Gavel-to- gavel coverage of the Senate would be the disaster of all time and, because of the non-sexy way in which we do things and the sometimes necessary lack of alacrity and the time we take to do things, would add fire to those who, as a matter of course, denigrate our institution.
If you were to recommend and if the Senate were to decide eventually that there should be television coverage of Senate proceedings, I would hope that you would be careful to ensure that whatever form it takes and however it is done, it would not detract from the already too little attention that is paid on television to the proceedings of Senate committees. All senators are well aware of the conventional wisdom that it is in committee that the Senate's most important work is done. To the extent that proceedings in the Senate chamber would any way detract from the current too-little broadcasting of the proceedings of Senate committees, should be guarded against.
Senators, imagine a viewer watching the Senate on a Thursday afternoon at five o'clock and then imagine what that will do in terms of selling our institution to Canadians. I have a crass and commercial appreciation from having been in the television business for 40 years, so I know a little bit about audience perception. I would hope that if we ever do televise chamber proceedings that Senator Atkins would be right and people would change the channel immediately. The image of the Senate will not be enhanced in any way by people watching gavel-to-gavel coverage. If it is decided to proceed with television coverage, I hope that senators will refer to the other aspect that to which Senator Atkins referred. As Senator Atkins said, we are trying to sell the Senate and its value in what it does for Canada. It is marketing, as well as having the intrinsic aesthetic value of transparency for its own sake.
When making a television program or a movie, there is a rule whereby the producer never lets the product be exposed into the public domain unless he or she has had the approval of the final cut. Edited properly by someone who has marketing aggrandizement and transparency in mind could make an interesting and valuable hour-long television program. It would be expensive, but the technology exists, so it could be done easily.
The technical aspect of it is no problem in terms of bumping into the business of the Senate, which is a concern raised by many senators in their responses to this question. The remote capability of television technology means that it would be completely unobtrusive. An advantage is that once the equipment is in place, it would be there permanently and in an unobtrusive way for such events as Royal Assents, openings of Parliament and Speeches from the Throne. The great huge structures currently set up for television coverage on those occasions would be unnecessary if we were to install available remote equipment.
My main objection to it, and the reason that I am adamantly opposed to the idea of gavel-to-gavel coverage in the Senate, is that it will have exactly the opposite effect of the one to which Senator Atkins referred: the selling of the value of the Senate to the Canadian people.
Edited highlights on a daily basis with a commentator would be a good idea. It would cost exactly the same and no less, if not more, to do that than gavel-to-gavel coverage. The technology would be identical, and there would be the additional cost of editing, which is not necessary when doing gavel to gavel. It would be, if anything, more expensive to do that, but we would then have a product that could be a marketing tool for the image of the Senate in Canada and provide transparency.
Hon. Marilyn Trenholme Counsell: Honourable senators, it is always nice when a woman gets the last word, although that may not be the case. I would like to spend the whole time rebutting some of the points that my honoured colleagues have just made. When I said I would speak on this subject, I did not realize it was to be as a witness. I thought it would be together as senators in a discussion group. I feel privileged to be here today and I feel passionate about this subject.
When I received the call to be a senator, I said, yes, without too much reflection. However, in the subsequent days and early months, I did not feel proud. I do feel proud now. I always felt very proud of what I was doing, but it was because of the public perception of the Senate that I did not feel proud. That has changed, because I recognized the incredible experience, talent and qualifications of my fellow senators, and also the hard work and long hours that are put into Senate work. Few Canadians realize those facts. From my circle of acquaintances and contacts, from what I read, see and hear, I believe that is so.
Therefore, I am totally in favour of televising and audiovisually recording the Senate to a greater extent than we are now. I realize the committee coverage is valuable and important. Let us consider the Canadians who watch the House of Commons. There is theatre there, but I feel there is theatre in the Senate, too, and I will elaborate on that.
We have to consider the people who watch the Senate coverage. Our audience is probably different, to some extent, because people know that they will hear serious discussion of important issues on the committee coverage by television. However, that would be a small percentage of Canadians. I support this to allow us as senators — and the entire institution of Parliament — to be become better known and appreciated; and perhaps even to help save this institution, as we all in the Senate honour it and believe in it today.
We also have to consider young Canadians and what is important to them. It is an audiovisual world for them. We have to be relevant to young Canadians.
Senator Atkins said it is the same questions today: dollars, equipment and personnel. I do not believe it is the same question at all. We are living in a different era. We have to be relevant; we have to be with it; we have to get it. We have been hearing these words from the House of Commons. To do that, we must be as modern as we can be, while respecting all the great traditions of this institution and the raison d'être as outlined by the Fathers of Confederation when the Senate was created.
In terms of what should be covered, a balance of Senate sessions and committees should be created. I would be totally against any kind of editing. I do not feel that is the democratic way. The public has a right to hear it as it is and to see it as it is. As senators, we would have the right to make it relevant and interesting and give it our best, which most — perhaps all — senators do now.
I do not like the idea of considering this as a product that you market. This is a part of our Parliament and part of our democracy. Canadians have a right to see it, feel it, learn about it and comment thereafter. In this 21st century, we have an obligation to do this as much as is possible. We are part of Parliament. For instance, many of the people I meet are surprised when I say we are part of national caucus. They say, ``You have a national caucus? I thought that was just the MPs.'' They do not realize how active and important we are in Parliament and how much we contribute. I feel this would be another way to show them.
When I listen to Question Period, there are a lot of non-answers. It has been ever thus, probably, on both sides. I am not just pointing my finger at the Honourable Leader of the Government in the Senate today, not at all, but when I listen to the House of Commons, there are certainly many non-answers there as well. There is more fire in the House of Commons, but some days we have a fair amount of fire. I feel the element of drama would increase if we were being televised. Being who we are, we would be responsible about that.
One of the great benefits would be that people would see the substance of our questions, the answers and, hopefully, our speeches. It is a shame that Canadians do not have a chance to hear some of the great speeches that I have had the privilege of listening to in the Senate, such as Senator Joyal, Senator Carstairs the other day. I can look around the room at all of you, including Senator Losier-Cool when she speaks about Acadia and the French minority all over Canada. It is a shame. These are great speeches. There are so many of them, yet Canadians are not hearing those. I do not believe those speeches are heard in the House of Commons. It is very important that we go gavel to gavel. There would have to be an element of selectivity about time, but I do not feel it should be edited. There would need to be advanced decisions about what is the subject today versus the committee work, and it would probably come down to time allocation.
Someone said, ``Imagine doing it at five o'clock on Thursday.'' I have often watched the House of Commons when there is one person speaking; the whole thing is not well managed. Sometimes there may be one person beside that member of Parliament, sometimes there is no one unless someone gets gathered up to come in. I am sure Senator Robichaud knows that all too well.
We have a wonderful story to tell Canadians. Televising would only help our image. It would challenge us more as senators. It would make us more relevant. It would make us a part of this age of information. I feel the benefits far outweigh the risks. My response to this motion put forward by Senator Segal is in the affirmative, with no reservations except that it would be a challenge to do it right.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I want to thank the three witnesses for their very interesting presentations. I must admit that I have been going back and forth since we started debating Senator Segal's motion. At times, I am in favour of the motion, and at other times, I am opposed to it. You have explained to us the pros and cons of televising the debates. At times when I am seated in the Speaker's chair, I thank heaven that the debates are not televised. However, at other times, I tell myself that it is unfortunate that Canadians cannot tune in to our proceedings.
Having said that, Senator Banks, you have explained that the purpose of this motion is to make the work of the Senate and of senators known to the public. During your three presentations, I thought about the possibility of our having our own television channel, instead of having to rely on CPAC. Take, for example, the Quebec National Assembly that has succeeded very well in getting across to the public the work that it accomplishes. I hope that the other provinces have the same kind of system in place.
In her presentations, Senator Carstairs stressed that the Senate must always be the master of its own proceedings. Therefore, it would interesting to look into this possibility. At first, I was thinking only about Senator Segal's motion that CPAC be entrusted to televise our proceedings. However, since we are a different chamber, it might be a good idea to have our own channel. I think I know more about the Quebec National Assembly than I do about the House of Commons. At least, I find its proceedings make for a more positive and more interesting viewing experience. I am curious to hear what our witnesses have to say on the subject.
[English]
The Chairman: That was suggested by Senator Atkins. Perhaps he wants to respond first.
Senator Atkins: The essence of my presentation is that the Senate should have its own channel. In regard to Senator Banks' comment about it being a marketing tool, I define it more as an educational tool. He also described it as ``gavel to gavel.'' In my view, Question Period cannot be edited, but the rest of the proceedings in a day can be edited, to a degree. We would not have to go through all of the procedures that necessarily take place, but anyone who speaks to an issue is important. Certainly, I would hope that if we take the television route, we have our own channel.
The Chairman: Before I ask others to comment, I will clarify a point. When you mentioned editing, I gather you were not suggesting that we edit a speech or a presentation by a senator but that we would cut out some of the procedural elements that add little or no value and that might take time. Is my understanding correct?
Senator Atkins: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a point for information on the Senate having its own channel. It is clear that CPAC is owned by the cable companies and has negotiated with both Houses. How do you propose that the Senate get its own channel? Would that be done through a negotiation with CPAC convincing them of our worth to have a separate channel or through some financial undertaking by the Senate?
Senator Atkins: I am not sure whether we have to go through the CRTC to get their approval. However, I would imagine that we would have to do it at the expense of the Senate. Currently, every time I have sat in on these negotiations and talked about what time slot the Senate will receive, we come up second to what is happening in the other place. I do not understand why that happens. Many witnesses that appear before committees will say that the Senate committee activities are far more effective than the committees of the House of Commons; and that the senators around the committee tables are better informed than committee members for the House of Commons. That addresses the point I am making: that television be utilized as an educational tool.
Senator Losier-Cool: It is my understanding that it will have to go through the CRTC.
[Translation]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I find Senator Losier-Cool's idea very intriguing, but it would take a considerable amount of time to make that suggestion a reality. Consequently, I do not know if it is a good idea.
We are a very important component of Parliament and if Canadians believe that CPAC is the parliamentary channel, then maybe it is to our advantage to have our proceedings carried on CPAC.
[English]
I do not know if that is clear, but the consideration might be that it is best that the Senate have its own channel. Canadians view CPAC as Parliament and we have to decide whether we want to share in an active and equal part of Parliament. This is about representing the Senate to the Canadian public and educating them on its role.
[Translation]
I think we need to debate this important matter.
[English]
Senator Banks: Bearing in mind that I am opposed to the concept, if we were to proceed with television coverage, the only way would be with a dedicated channel. Otherwise, as Senator Atkins said, the Senate will always be the ``second banana.'' We have the advantage of the rule that precludes Senate committees, in most cases, from sitting while the Senate is sitting. That is a great advantage in terms of ensuring that one does not bump the other from a time slot on the channel. It is also the case that the Senate sits almost always when the House of Commons is sitting and there is no doubt which House will be broadcast in real time — the House of Commons. I do not know about all provinces, but in Alberta, where I come from, the proceedings of the legislature are broadcast as they happen, gavel to gavel, every day that it sits. Again, I do not believe that provides an educational service because if the plan is to educate people, then one has to have their attention. That will be difficult, I am sorry to say, because it is bad television. We have to be hip and with it and we have to go audiovisual. However, we need a good — I am sorry to use the word — product to deliver. Parliamentary proceedings are bad television.
They do not educate because the attention of the vast majority of the people is lost. I have never had the privilege of sitting on a Question Period planning session, not once here, and obviously never in the other place. However, some of you have had the privilege. I would be willing to bet that those who have would agree that the considerations and priorities taken into account in a Question Period planning session in the House of Commons are vastly different. The values being considered are quite different when planning Question Period in the House of Commons than would be the case in this place.
We are human, senators. Please disabuse yourselves of the concept that we would somehow rise above the circus. That is simply not so. I did live television every day for 13 years, five days a week. I am sorry; when the light goes on, we are human.
The difference between Question Period planning sessions in this place now and how they would be if they were televised — let alone anything else — is night and day. The considerations and priorities are different, and the substance, senators, is gone. If you have any doubt about that, just watch Question Period any day in the House of Commons. There is no substance. It is theatrical nonsense. If that is educational, please let us not educate anybody.
The Chairman: I just wanted to inform you that we are preparing a report on this issue, including costs. Not that I want to limit the discussion, but unless there is a specific point, we may want to wait until the clerk and his staff prepare this report, which we will circulate for further discussion.
I would inform everyone that we do not need a CRTC licence. To the best of my knowledge, the Broadcasting Act, 1991 exempts legislatures, both federal and provincial, from licences. As the clerk reminded me, the other issue is that we would have to negotiate with carriers to carry this broadcast.
All of these issues are being researched. I am happy to continue, but if you feel there may be other parts of this dialogue or debate you wish to look at, maybe we can wait on the specifics of our channel, the costs and so forth, which we will provide to you as soon as we can.
Senator Fraser: Before I ask the witnesses my questions, for the record, in connection with the summary of responses that was prepared for us, I have high regard for the people who do this work. Let there be no doubt about that. However, I also have high regard for our widely esteemed former colleague Senator Christensen. Let it be noted for the record that she is a woman and that the personal pronoun referring to her should be ``she.'' I am sorry; it is the feminist in me, apart from anything else. Now to our muttons.
The Chairman: With sincere apologies on behalf of all of those associated with that, we did catch the mistake rather early in the piece and a correction was sent out. It still gave me a little chuckle when I saw it.
Senator Fraser: Like Senator Banks, I have done a fair share of broadcasting in my time and I, therefore, come to this issue with something approaching terror, on two fronts. One is that as soon as people are on camera, their behaviour does change. We are human. We are individuals perhaps, but collectively we are not immune to this universal pattern and it does not necessarily change for the better.
My other real concern has been the phenomenon we have seen with other legislatures, that when proceedings are televised, public appreciation of the work we do seems to go down, not up. I fear this might be worse in the Senate because of the nature of what we do; in particular with regard to our Question Period.
It will always inherently be the case in our Question Period that we will have usually only one, or maybe two, minister of whom to ask questions. That minister cannot be held to be an expert in everything, and that minister — we have seen it with every leader — will inevitably rapidly learn how to fill the dead air with clouds and clouds of words. I do not feel it will do us any good to have this televised.
However, as the debate has gone on, I have also been impressed by those who make the argument fundamentally that nowadays citizens believe it is important to be able to see what their legislators are doing.
Let me ask you if you feel we should broaden our consideration of this matter or perhaps shift the focus of it away from television, whether it is gavel to gavel, to the Web. The Web is increasingly being used. When my 72-year-old husband checks out stuff on the Web — including proceedings, not just words on screens — then, believe me, it is really taking hold in Canadian society.
Listening to you, it occurred to me that because of the nature of the Web, we could do a different form of editing of our proceedings. We could, for example, hit a button if we want to see the whole debate — over months — on Bill C-2, the clarity bill or whatever. As part of the package, I suppose we could include our Question Period, for those who really yearned to hit that button, although I explained why I do not feel that is such a great idea.
Do you feel there may be some merit in considering this, rather than saying we should have our own channel and be stuck with the grave difficulties of daily coverage of what we do? Often our debates are spread over months, but if read as a package, they are fantastic. What do you think?
Senator Banks: The pipeline is becoming almost immaterial. That would be a good idea because of the selectivity that now exists only on the Web. There is no doubt that will soon also be the case in other pipelines. The Web will become equally important, in terms of the amount of time that people spend looking at it, to cable channels, in the same sense exactly. It is a perfect analogy that cable channels now have usurped much of the time that used to be spent watching only major networks because that was all there was to watch.
When there is new information available coming down a different pipe, people go to that pipe. At the moment, the only way we can have the kind of selectively or editing that you are talking about will be on the Web, but it is only a matter of time when that will also be the case on ABC, CBC, CTV, et cetera. Those technologies are not far away. We can already stop, select, eliminate the commercials, and go back and watch the program later.
I want to point out that whether we do selective editing, as Senator Trenholme Counsell spoke about, by saying we will broadcast this part and this part, or editing after the fact, is almost immaterial. Editing is editing is editing. One cannot be partly pregnant and one cannot partly edit. We either have it stem to gudgeon and show us with all our warts, or we somehow become selective, and that constitutes editing. That would be a very good idea. It is another way to do it.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Being the mother of a high-tech person, I feel we should do both. We have to become as modern as we can, while retaining our traditions. The Web is very important and we have to decide how to approach this.
We do edit now in the sense that we do not televise all committees. I do not know who decides, but I sometimes hear grumbling that certain committees do not get broadcast often enough, so there is editing. I am not sure that the distribution of time among the committees is equitable.
I am not a member of this committee, but I would like to have a breakdown of the 24-hour parliamentary coverage by CPAC now. I feel they are sometimes trying to find fillers; there is repetition. Our Question Period or speeches could be on that channel, although not necessarily simultaneously. The programming must vary from day to day, of course. I am still very much in favour of live coverage. We are Parliament, and I am not sure it is good to have our own channel. We would have to look at whether there is a way that we could get equitable coverage in the 24-hour span that is open to CPAC now for Parliament.
Senator Banks: In respect of what Senator Fraser talked about, we can do that now. We have a Senate website.
Senator Fraser: We would have to have the cameras.
Senator Banks: The camera facilities and the editing facilities would be quite expensive, but if we had that we could call up all the debates on Bill C-2, for example. That could be done on the channel we now have. There is no impediment to that.
Senator Atkins: I want to address the question of negotiating with the cable companies. That would clearly have to be done. I agree with using all the technology available to us. However, the Senate does not sit in the mornings. Some incredible events take place in our chamber: the veterans' annual event, the former parliamentarian service and many others, including Encounters with Canada. Senators meet with the Forum for Young Canadians on a regular basis. Many events take place that are more educational, and that would be my marketing argument.
There are unlimited opportunities to fill the air time preceding Question Period. There are interviews of senators, Christmas pageants and other events that take place in the foyers. Any producer could think of all kinds of ways to develop programming. When the Senate is in recess in the summer, a slide is put up.
I agree with Senator Trenholme Counsell that there may be too much discretion in terms of which committees are being covered. Showing a Senate committee hearing once may not be enough. Some of those hearings are very interesting, especially on issues in which the public has some interest. If we go that route, there is opportunity to do much to make the programming interesting.
Senator Hays: I am very encouraged by what I hear from our colleagues as witnesses today and by the thrust of the questions, which are generally, if not unanimously, in favour of the Senate televising its proceedings.
If I am not mistaken, the Senate is the only legislative body in Canada, including city councils, that does not have some program to reach its broader public to let people know what is going on in the chamber. If one wants to know what is going on in the Senate, there are three ways to find out: first, go to the chamber and watch and listen; second, read the Debates of the Senate; third — which is not very reliable — rely on the media, who have a live feed of the Senate proceedings to write stories for the newspapers about what happened in the Senate.
I feel it is a great idea to focus on this and try to share with Canadians what happens in the chamber. It would be essential that it be edited, although I am not sure that is the right word. I do not believe the public is interested in going through the proceeding as it is carried out. No federal law comes into effect in Canada unless it is passed by Senate. The public are interested in what is said of value by various senators on a subject of great importance.
Webcasting is a very timely thing. We will increasingly get our information through that means. It is long overdue to have facilities in the chamber that allow us to record proceedings. The technology exists. Every year we lapse about four or five times the amount of money we would need to put in an editing suite and purchase the necessary cameras to achieve that. As Senator Atkins pointed out, we have proceedings ongoing in the Senate all the time. We bring the cameras in for one or two days and then take them out again.
Does the panel not feel that, as an important legislative body in Canada, we have an obligation to proceed post haste with this matter?
[Translation]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I think we have a duty to let Canadians see the remarkable work that the Senate is doing.
[English]
I must apologize for sounding very partisan in my opening remarks. I mentioned three Liberal senators who gave wonderful speeches. I apologize for not mentioning others, including Senator Andreychuk.
We must do this.
With regard to the Order Paper, I imagine that in the House of Commons they decide what goes on the Order Paper. I still look at our Order Paper in dismay. Items are on it for many weeks without any action being taken on them, without anyone speaking to them. That is not a good way to handle our business. I hope I am not ruffling feathers here.
Could there not be some way that the Order Paper is prepared with some advance notice of what will be dealt with that day? That is more work than leaving everything on there seemingly forever. It is not forever, because we only get 15 sittings.
However, if we were to go gavel to gavel, which not many people seem to want to do — I am not against it — we would have to operate smarter. We would have to plan more carefully. We would have to have more people speaking. When 15 sittings go by and nobody speaks on an item, how relevant is it? How much interest is there? I have felt this with my own child care inquiry. I have had a few speeches, but I wish there was more passion.
I agree with Senator Hays that you could not have what is happening now as that would cast a very bad image. I do not feel it is a good way to operate, even today without coverage.
Senator Atkins: The answer is yes, but the Senate will have to suck in its gut in terms of the cost because it cannot be done for $1.98.
Every time I have sat in on these sessions, you get into the argument of whether we are prepared to increase the budget to the extent that we can cover the cost of delivering this kind of proposal.
Senator Robichaud is shaking his head. He is one of the people who reminds us on occasion.
Senator Robichaud: I am?
The Chairman: Just before I go on, I wanted to inform you, Senator Trenholme Counsell, that I have been informed that the CPAC schedule appears on-line. We can make it available to you, but apparently they publish their schedule on-line on a daily basis, so we can see what portion and where and so on.
Senator Banks: I want to answer Senator Hays' question.
The Chairman: I thought had you declined. I apologize.
Senator Banks: No, I bootlegged a ``no'' before Senator Trenholme Counsell was able to speak, for which I apologize.
If you and the Senate decide that the intrinsic value resides in transparency, in Canadians being able to see what goes on, overriding or submerging all of the other considerations, then my answer to your question would be, yes. However, that would be putting aside all of the other considerations.
If you asked the same question of the Supreme Court, is it not right that our courts should be open? Is it not right that Canadians should see what goes on in the Supreme Court? I suppose the same principle would apply. The Supreme Court has decided — I believe wisely — that notwithstanding the practice in other lower courts, that its proceedings will not be televised.
Senator Hays: They are televised.
Senator Banks: Proceedings of the Supreme Court are televised?
Senator Hays: Yes.
Senator Banks: I thank the honourable senator for advising me of that. I did not know that. Where is it televised?
Senator Hays: On CPAC rather late at night.
Senator Banks: It is likely that the Supreme Court, given the nature of what goes on there, can probably say, since they are televised, that that does not have a real effect on what they do. However, that is not true in the House of Commons, nor in any legislature and it would not be true in the Senate.
If we could televise and be assured it would not change what we do, the way in which we do it and the priorities we had in mind when planning what we do and how, that would be a different matter. However, we cannot be assured of that, which is why I have allowed that if the Senate decides to recommend that there should be televised proceedings, they must somehow be controlled. Otherwise, it will have the effect opposite to the one that everyone subscribes to of education and — sorry to be crass — marketing.
Senator Cordy: I am one of those people who on one day will say it is a terrific idea to have the Senate broadcast because of the wonderful speeches we hear in the chamber, and the next day will say, ``What about all the people who are looking for their 30 seconds of fame?'' We are human, and we see what happens in the House of Commons. When I watch some of the theatrics in the House of Commons, I do not want that to happen in the Senate chamber. I guess I am still undecided.
How do we make this relevant to young people? Senator Trenholme Counsell raised that issue as did Senator Fraser when she talked about webcasting. I do not know many young people who watch CPAC unless their political science teacher in high school tells them they have to watch it or shows it in class.
If we start broadcasting, should we start in stages? Should we just start possibly with Question Period? If so, should we in fact make changes to the rules of Question Period? Senator Fraser is right; we get questions and answers that go on sometimes ad nauseam. Should we create a limit of two minutes to ask the question and two minutes to respond? This is a two-part question.
Should we start in stages rather than gavel to gavel, just to see how it works? If in fact we were to start with Question Period, should we as a chamber make changes to how Question Period operates?
Senator Banks: I will only answer the second part of the question because I do not have an opinion about the first part.
The second means because of television, will we change the procedures in the Senate? No.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We are having a great debate here.
We could change some aspects if we become televised. I believe we are considering this in many ways because we have to assess our relevancy in 2007 and onwards. We should all be open to change. Change is positive; change creates energy; change creates vitality. It stirs the imagination. I am certainly not against change. However, it is not always good. That is where judgment, valuation and so on come in.
Question Period probably would change to a degree, and that would not be bad either. I do not believe we would ever have the level of theatrics we have in the House of Commons, but it could be a lot livelier. We would all have to work harder.
The other consideration about young people, as Senator Cordy mentioned — although I was thinking more of young voters — with regard to our high school students, for instance, in their political science or social studies classes we would have a greater relevancy, that there would be more interest if this were available.
Our younger citizens will, after all, eventually decide our future. The more they think positively of the Senate, the more they know about the Senate, the more they hear the wonderful speeches and the more they realize that, yes, we work hard. That is all to the good for our democracy.
Senator Atkins: I do not think you can be half pregnant. It seems to me that you would have to establish a model, and that model would be all-inclusive, if you are intending to test the value of proceeding.
Senator Joyal: By putting the emphasis on television, are we not giving the priority to a medium that, in terms of use, is not as friendly or accessible as the Web? When we propose or consider opening the sitting of the house — and I am talking essentially of the house, not the committee — to the broadcast, are we making our work better packaged to exclude what is not as impressive as the direct contribution of senators, for instance, on second reading debate or on third reading debate.
Consider the younger generation and how they work; not only of students who are in political science, but all students. Some students might have an interest in fisheries, some with European issues, some with economic development, some with international issues and so forth. The best way to make our contribution to public affairs would be to give them access to our debates and thinking through the Web, which is much more user-friendly. For instance, let us take a bill that we debated in the last year, Bill C-2. Students, who would want to reflect upon this, could, through the Web, have access to all the debates at second reading, all the hearings of the committee that sat for 100 hours and so forth, hear the 120 witnesses we heard and then listen to third reading. They could punch in the name of a senator and know exactly what the senator in their region is doing with the bill and punch one word to get all the interventions on that subject in relation to the bill.
The Web is very accessible as a tool once the tool is managed. The younger generation, as Senator Cordy says, are educated with that at the primary school level. Canada is one of the most connected countries in the world at the school level.
If we are to reach the objective that all of you share, that our good work be made accessible, should we not resort to the means that are most accessible and workable? The problem with television, as I see it, is that it is more for the show than for its use. Of course, a program can be taped and heard later, but the Web is a technology that is even more flexible than television.
If we are to invest, as an institution, in ``broadcasting'' our work, should we not use the means that is the most user- friendly? Would it not be better to concentrate more on the substance than on the procedure — which is boring sometimes, and quite inimical to someone who does not know the procedure and is not versed on it — or the part of our work, which is the most interesting part? Finally, honourable senators, I do not feel Question Period is a very interesting part of our work. It is a recent existence in the Senate. It is not something that started with the Senate. Question Period was not seen from the beginning as being essential to the work of the Senate. In fact, any one of us who takes part in a debate on any bill, motion, resolution or inquiry has much more personal satisfaction in taking part in such than trying to stand up and get a question asked to make a point.
In the other place, it is a different ballgame, but in the Senate — I speak only for myself — the debate is the major part of the contribution of a senator, with very few exceptions.
While in a debate on a bill, motion, inquiry or resolution, the contribution of the senator is based on his or her experience, thinking and understanding of points from the regions from which he or she comes. Therefore, there is a different context for the contribution of a senator on those kinds of debates than in Question Period.
I wonder if we should not go after the real McCoy, to use a popular expression, rather than run after television to try to follow the House of Commons and, in fact, not give more access to our work. As you know, if we send the Journals of the Senate to a certain number of people who ask for it or have an interest to follow a certain issue, it would be much easier to have the Senate proceedings on the Web.
In today's context, that is what we should really ponder. As you say, Senator Atkins, should we establish our own channel with all the costs that that will represent, versus having the Web? I would need to think twice before deciding on the first option. I feel the idea of having our own channel would be a long way to go.
I do not know if you read the transcript of the hearings that we had with a representative of CPAC. CPAC is another animal in itself. If we are to renegotiate with the House of Commons for a share of the time, how much more can we get out of that agreement? We might get a little bit more. If we managed, however, to have our own web system of giving access to all the work we do on the legislation and on the study, it would have a better result. It would probably reach a much larger number of people than just having the traditional television. As you all know, the attendance of traditional television is not increasing in the years to come. As a matter of fact, it is decreasing.
Therefore, it is better to whip the horse that has a future than the one that is rather ``bringuebalant,'' as we say in French.
That is my opinion when I listen to you and the previous witnesses we have had carefully.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The only question with regards to your comments — and they are all very sound and wise — is that if you go on the Senate Parliament site, all of that is available now. You are suggesting a different format, but all of the Journals of the Senate and the committee work are on the Senate World Wide Web now, are they not?
The Chairman: It is available in print form, obviously, not televised.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, not televised.
The Chairman: The information is there.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The kind of research information, someone's name or a subject, that is all there now. Whether the format is as interesting and as modern as it should be, I am not sure about the technology involved, but it is all there, the substance that the senator is talking about.
Television is quite another subject. Viewership is declining; I believe it is in the 40 per cent range, from what I read. Still, people are interested. We manage to get 60 per cent or 70 per cent out to vote, but if 40 per cent are watching CPAC, I find that very high.
Senator Banks: I believe Senator Joyal has nailed it, which is why I would be in favour of a proposal along the line that Senator Fraser suggested. The pipe is already there; people already use it. It is in text form now, instead of audiovisual form — exactly the same thing.
This would not obviate any of the technical requirements. They would still be identical. We still need the same kind of cameras. In fact, there would be an additional expense because the content has to be edited and then streamed and programmed properly so it would work on the Web.
You are right, Senator Joyal, in saying if it is an educational tool, it will be used by far more people. They will see the Senate in action on the specific subject on which they are inquiring on the Web rather than on television, whether it is broadcast off a stick or on a cable channel or whatever. That would be edited, almost by definition. That would be a very good method that could be done quickly, but it would cost a lot of money.
Senator Atkins: I have no difficulty with incorporating the web system. It is a good idea; it is something that we should proceed with in every form.
On CPAC, the Senate does not have any prime time except on Friday. The rest of the time we are on late in the evening or at a time when the only people that will catch our programming are those who go through the system with a remote and all of a sudden pick up something that interests them.
Senator Banks: Those people will also be insomniacs.
Senator Atkins: Yes. I do not believe there will ever be a time when our friends from CPAC will cave in to what we want in terms of reasonable programming at prime time.
The Chairman: I was clicking through the television and I saw your face. I stopped and listened for about 30 seconds, which makes your point.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We often hear that the work accomplished by senators in committee is what sets us apart for the House of Commons. We conduct serious, in-depth studies and display far less partisanship than do members of the House of Commons.
If we were to change our format and televise the proceedings of the Senate, do you not think that this would shift attention way from the very serious work done in committee and thus change the image that is being projected?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Are you asking if Senate proceedings would receive the same kind of coverage?
Senator Robichaud: Perhaps I am not making myself clear. When we look at the work that senators currently do in committee, we note that the image they project is a rather positive one. We often hear say that senators are known for the good work they do in committee and that this contributes to their positive image. There is a sense that we accomplish the bulk of our work in committee rather than in the Senate chamber. I am not saying that that is generally the case, but at times this is true.
If we were to alter the format, would we not be moving away from committees to show events in the House? Perhaps the image that we would convey would not be as attractive as the one conveyed by our committee work?
Senator Trenholme Counsel: You may be right. However, I think that television coverage would perhaps encourage us to participate more actively in the Senate chamber and to pay more attention to our speeches, responses to questions, statements and motions. The level of debate in the chamber is not always that high. However, while possibly the public might not be quite as interested in our proceedings, that would represent a challenge for the Senate.
[English]
Senator Atkins: I believe you are making an assumption that people out there think that we are doing the good work we are doing in committee.
Senator Robichaud: We are saying that.
Senator Atkins: We are saying that, but again, the committee work is the product we have to sell. We should take every opportunity we can to cover our committee in action — especially when it is compared to some of the days in Question Period. We can provide a view, whether it is on television or wherever, that we are doing good work, which deserves the attention that it probably has not received up until now.
Senator Banks: In addition to our view that we do good work, there are probably 11 other people in the country who also hold that view. Most of them have been witnesses.
The Chairman: Does that include family members?
Senator Banks: Yes. I believe your worry was that doing what we are talking about would detract from people seeing the work of the committees; and I do not feel that is true. Using the concept that Senator Fraser and Senator Joyal talked about, if one searched to see Bill C-2, one would get the second reading debates on Bill C-2 that were in the chamber, but also the committee hearings on Bill C-2 and whatever else. With respect to television and trying to get time from CPAC, no doubt televising Senate chamber proceedings would detract from coverage of Senate committee hearings. There are only 24 hours in a day and it can be covered in only so many ways, whereas if doing this streaming and collective programming that would occur on the Web, none of that would be excluded. One would go to that subject and see the proceedings, including committees in their entirety, and that would be good.
The Chairman: Thank you for that. Senator Banks, just for a little humour, a workaholic friend of mine has been telling me all my life that there is no such thing as a 24-hour day. All you have to do is get up two hours earlier and make it into a 26-hour day.
Allow me to thank our colleagues for appearing before us. I hope that we can encourage others to come forth and share their opinions with us. We have had some others that have expressed that wish, and we will certainly encourage them to come before us at an earlier date.
Before we leave on this subject matter, we are attempting to schedule two other meetings. We hope in the next couple of weeks on a Wednesday to be able to have a video conference with the House of Lords. The other folks, who will share their experiences, are from the Australian Senate, and they have also agreed to appear by video conference. That will probably happen shortly after.
Once again we thank our witnesses and colleagues.
The committee adjourned.