Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 19 - Evidence, December 8, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:39 a.m. to study the broadcasting of Senate proceedings; and, pursuant to rule 86(1)(f)(i), for the consideration of procedures with respect to witnesses testifying before a committee.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I extend a welcome to everyone today.
We resume our study today on the broadcasting of Senate proceedings. You will recall that last Wednesday, Blair Armitage, our clerk, appeared before the committee in his capacity as former principal clerk responsible for broadcasting. He is now Principal Clerk, Communications. Hélène Bouchard is Director of Information Services Directorate.
Mr. Armitage's presentation was instructive, and senators had many questions of him, so many, in fact, that we did not have time to ask all of them, so we asked him to return today. He agreed to do so, along with Ms. Bouchard, to help us address the issues he raised at the last meeting.
Mr. Armitage, before we ask you further questions, can you give us an overview of what you said last day. You will recall that last day, some senators asked for more statistics and information on questions they had posed, and I am sure you have that information today as well.
Blair Armitage, Principal Clerk, Communications, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be pleased to recap the facts and figures from last week and to update others. I wish to thank Ms. Bouchard for accompanying me to the committee. Her knowledge of PRISM the Internet and the infrastructure, and the fact that her office is responsible for maintaining the television equipment, makes her a useful resource as well.
On the subject of committee proceedings currently televised in a regular sitting week, we estimate that of the 56 hours scheduled in the time slots within which committees typically sit, on average approximately 48 hours belong to committees that regularly televise. The other hours belong to the corporate committees: Internal, Rules and Conflict of Interest.
Under current resources, we are capable of televising three committees per time slot, meaning a total of 37 hours during regular time slots. Of those 37 hours, on average we receive requests to televise approximately 25 hours per week.
As I mentioned last week, we have three time slots where we have regular conflicts to resolve. In other words, we have to choose which of the four committees asking for our services will not be televised on Tuesday and Wednesday when the Senate rises and late Thursday morning.
In addition, when special committees arise, we see the same problem on Mondays where they are typically scheduled.
[Translation]
I was asked to determine the costs of a fourth team. The estimate I was given was that it would cost less than $100,000. This is under the contract that we have with the House of Commons, which provides the full-time and part- time staff that we need. Our contract with the House of Commons is currently $325,000 per year.
[English]
On the matter of equipping the Senate chamber and its operations, I informed the committee that this cost had been calculated at approximately $2 million during an exercise in 2004 that proposed to the Building Components and Connectivity Program, BCC, a project to equip the chamber and to create a control room. We estimate that those costs have stayed roughly the same. Inflation in certain areas has been offset by lower costs in others. This estimate, though, depends on the results of a necessary engineering analysis and the impact of a review by the Federal Heritage Building Review.
[Translation]
Using the current schedule of Senate proceedings and adding a minimal amount of post-production work, we estimate the cost to be $100,000 for the team needed to operate the equipment.
[English]
I then proceeded to outline work the Senate administration has undertaken to enable video streaming and video on demand for the Internet. A prototype will be available to Parliament Hill users by the time we return following the Senate adjournment. Once certain issues have been addressed by The Standing Committee Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, the capability will be made available to the public.
While we are still trying to compile useful data on Internet traffic, I have it on anecdotal authority that when a webcast fails for a particular committee meeting, Senate employees who receive the immediate calls from alarmed users find that they come from interest groups following the committee generally; from people belonging to the organization currently participating as a witness; from journalists from both the Hill and communities across Canada; and from family members of the witnesses themselves.
Finally, I distributed a document entitled The Senate Broadcast Service, which contains the mandate, guiding principles and authorities as approved by Internal Economy. I could not recall, when asked, what date that document had been approved by Internal Economy. I checked our records and found it was approved on November 23, 2006.
I believe that summarizes the main points I made last week.
The Chair: Can you tell us again about the uptake of Question Period on CPAC now as compared to a few years ago in the other place, so that we have current data on that uptake?
Mr. Armitage: I believe that when CPAC testified before the committee, they said that Question Period reached a peak of about 200,000 viewers in the early 2000s and is currently at about 20,000. There has been a significant drop.
The Chair: When you gave your evidence last week, you spoke about a service level agreement with the House of Commons. Can you explain what that agreement is?
Mr. Armitage: Certainly; the House of Commons had a readily available infrastructure of personnel and equipment when the Senate first entered into its pilot project in 1997. We hired on contract one of their senior directors, John Howard, who finished out his career in service to the Senate. When it was determined in 2004 that we would formalize our service and make it a permanent feature of Senate committees and begin increasing our capability, we continued that agreement with the House of Commons and increased the personnel as required.
The Chair: How many personnel are there now?
Mr. Armitage: We have about four full-time personnel — a senior director, two associate directors, and a technician who operates the character-generation machine.
As we have more committees in one time slot, those personnel disperse among the three committee rooms and we call up part-time technicians to operate the cameras and the character-generation machines.
The Chair: How many are called up?
Mr. Armitage: For each committee, we require three people in the control room. At full strength we have nine.
The Chair: Why is the Senate not hiring its own people? Why do we still have an agreement with the other place now that we have our own dedicated Senate system?
Mr. Armitage: It has been an economically advantageous agreement for the Senate because we do not pay for the benefits and pensions of the personnel in the House of Commons. On the other hand, we now have a functional program that is well established in the Senate. Committees appear to appreciate the service, and I think it is worth looking at what the risks are of relying entirely on the House of Commons to provide our personnel, versus the costs of patriating those jobs within the Senate and making those people full-time Senate employees.
The Chair: Do those employees work in the House of Commons and for the Senate at the same time, or are they dedicated specifically to the Senate?
Mr. Armitage: I believe that from time to time they undertake tasks for the House of Commons, if their operational requirements with the Senate do not require them to be here. However, the senior television director, David Turriff, works 100 per cent for the Senate. The other personnel do not necessarily.
The Chair: Have you calculated what it will cost to bring those employees into the Senate?
Mr. Armitage: There are rule of thumb costs that we can apply. Pay and benefits is 17 per cent on top of full-time personnel salaries, as well as accommodation. I know that accommodation for administration personnel is tight, and that accommodation would have to be factored in as well. However, they already have temporary space for when they are working for us.
I estimate it would be about a 20 per cent increase over the four full-time personnel that we have, plus any additional personnel that might be required for televising the chamber.
The Chair: When three committees are meeting, you need nine people so you bring in part-timers, which the Senate pays for now.
Mr. Armitage: That is right.
Senator Smith: I can probably understand why you might bring in part-timers but maybe you can explain something to me. Parliament sits about 28 weeks a year. What do these full-time employees do when Parliament is not sitting, or on Fridays when we never have committee meetings? What do they do?
Mr. Armitage: The full-time employees cover off. On Tuesday and Wednesday nights, they work more than a full work day so they have quite a bit of overtime. Then there is a lot of post-production work to clean up meetings where there are long suspensions or pauses or where the changes between witnesses were not that clean. It takes time to clean up those productions before we hand them over to CPAC.
From time to time, they reciprocally cover off work in the House of Commons, but I said earlier is that they will cover off work in the House of Commons but reciprocally, the House of Commons will send us personnel when we are short-handed.
Senator Smith: I assume that 24 weeks a year we do not sit, and the fact that you have enough to staff three committees, how many do we need?
Mr. Armitage: In the course of the sitting period of Parliament, from September till June, those personnel are here full-time, regardless of whether there is any television taking place, because staff use the weeks that the Senate and the House of Commons are not sitting to catch up on post-production work.
The summer period and a little bit of the winter adjournment are used the way committees and others use these periods; they get rid of overtime and vacation time, and undertake training and upgrading of technical facilities.
Senator Smith: I understand we have to be cost effective as well.
The Chair: Are there other questions of the witness in relation to what was said?
Mr. Armitage, can you go over the $2-million figure that you gave us last day? What is the $2-million cost again, to have it fresh in our minds?
Mr. Armitage: The equipment for the control room is the largest cost. We estimate it to be about $1 million.
The Chair: The control room is needed if there is to be televising of the activities in the Senate chamber, not in committee rooms?
Mr. Armitage: That is correct. We will require a new control room for that purpose, and equipping that control room will be about $1 million. The other million dollars goes to cameras, wiring, infrastructure, construction, and engineering and project management.
The Chair: Have you talked to the Federal Heritage Building Review Office, FHBRO, to find out where you can put a room without destroying this heritage property that is the Senate?
Mr. Armitage: We have looked at a variety of sites. We have not done it with FHBRO, but we have done our own internal review and we have several locations potentially in mind.
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: It has to be under the Senate chamber.
The Chair: Does it have to be literally underneath it?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes; we are talking about the control room. We were looking at the vault. First, we do not have enough space to continue to put our archives in those vaults so we need bigger vaults. We were thinking of having those control rooms under the Senate chamber in the vault.
We are talking about the control room.
In terms of the cameras in the Senate Chamber, we have not had any meeting with FHBRO to see where the cameras can be located, so once the project is underway, this is something that we will have to discuss with them.
The House of Commons had the same issues and found ways of putting the cameras in. I am sure FHBRO will do everything they can to accommodate the Senate to have the cameras in the chamber.
The Chair: The Senate Chamber is not as big as the House of Commons chamber. How many cameras are needed in the Senate chamber?
Ms. Bouchard: We are looking at six. At one point we were looking at only four, but it would be worthwhile to have two additional cameras in the Senate chamber, for a better view.
Mr. Armitage: As I mentioned last week, because the Senate entertains different kinds of activities, we will want to have an independent engineering report to make sure that whatever camera plan we thought would meet the needs of debate in the chamber would also meet the needs of covering the opening of Parliament, the installation of a Governor General, Royal Assent, and some of the other parliamentary-related ceremonies that are held in the chamber.
The Chair: There is also the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Armitage: Of course: I should have said too non-parliamentary ceremonies that are still important to Parliament Hill, such as the Remembrance Day ceremony.
Senator Harb: You spoke about the heritage element with regard to running wiring. Have you looked at the wireless option as a possibility and, if so, what will the cost be?
Mr. Armitage: We have not specifically looked at wireless. Until we receive some sort of a formal go-ahead and project budget, it is difficult to spend money on speculative ventures.
If wireless were considered to be at the same standard as cabled cameras, then it would be of interest. Honestly, I cannot speak to that subject at this point.
Senator Harb: Especially, this option should be of interest because I am told we will be off the Hill for a number of years for renovations and retrofitting. One could look at that option in the interim; then when the time comes and we want to go for the Cadillac, we could.
However, to deal with what is before us now, in bringing forward an option, presuming the committee and the Senate decide to go ahead, the wireless option might not be a bad thing to look at.
Senator Furey: Senator Harb touched on my question. If we were to make this type of expenditure now of $2 million, and I asked this question when we had our CPAC people at the committee hearing, how portable will it be or how feasible will it be to move all this equipment to another site when we move off the Hill?
Mr. Armitage: The preparations for leaving the East Block have included the creation of a committee room to replace the committee room that we will lose in the East Block, and it is envisaged there that we will recreate the television environment in that committee room. I have to think that relocating cameras into a facility that is being purpose-built will not represent a large increase in costs, especially since cameras are relatively portable for reinstallation somewhere else. Perhaps I should let Ms. Bouchard speak to that issue.
Senator Furey: I am thinking as well about moving the control room, the whole kit and caboodle, once we move out of Centre Block.
Ms. Bouchard: The equipment is movable. The only thing that will have to be done is the cabling. Cabling will be reinstalled from the control room to the new cameras. Everything else is movable. That equipment can be placed somewhere else. For cabling, wiring and infrastructure, we are talking about $100,000 to reinstall the infrastructure.
Senator Furey: We have to make the facilities available in any new move.
Ms. Bouchard: Yes; if we move, they will reinstall a Senate chamber in the East Block. Public Works and Government Services Canada will take that equipment into consideration and the wiring will be put in place to ensure that our equipment will fit the new facility. During the long-term renovation, Public Works will take into consideration all the connectivities that are required for moving a facility or office.
Senator Furey: We have an estimate of $100,000. If we take a factor of 10, we should be somewhere in the ballpark.
Ms. Bouchard: We are talking about $100,000 or $150,000 now, so what it will be in 15 years — maybe you can add a few.
Senator Joyal: On a supplementary question, can you tell us or remind us what the contemplated date is for the moving, as it stands now?
Ms. Bouchard: Maybe Senator Furey can answer that question.
Senator Cools: These are matters for senators.
Senator Furey: The moving date, Senator Joyal, has changed so many times in the past five or six years, but we contemplate from our last discussions with the Department of Public Works that it will be within the next five years. That is the new date.
Mr. Armitage: One of the challenges about the Senate Chamber itself as a television environment is that, unlike the House of Commons, it does not have that rear space behind the curtains. Any amount of distance that we can get for the cameras flattens the line that is used. Those of you who use the committee rooms in the Victoria Building will know that, while the committee rooms are good television environments, sometimes the camera angles are a bit high, and that situation occurs because the walls are so close to you; just behind your backs. You have to put the cameras in a place where you will not knock your head on them. It elevates the angle, and the same challenge will be faced in the Senate Chamber. To provide a natural-looking view that is as close to eye level as possible will be difficult to recreate in the Senate Chamber because those back rows are so close to the back wall.
The Chair: I suspect the industry will continue to work on the technology of cameras so that problem can be overcome probably with technology by the time we are ready to move in.
Mr. Armitage, last week, and some members of our committee were not here last week to hear you, one of the surprising things you said was when you gave statistics and numbers about the current take-up of available time to air the committees of the Senate. You indicated that not a lot of time is taken up, and a lot of time is wasted where committees did not apply to have their committees recorded. Can you go through that information again, particularly for the benefit of the senators of this committee who were not here last week?
Mr. Armitage: Certainly; early in my recap I gave a quick overview of those numbers. Approximately 48 hours each week belong to committees that regularly televise their proceedings.
The Chair: That is the total available time for television?
Mr. Armitage: That is correct. With our current capability of three committees per time slot, we can televise 37 hours of those 48 hours the way we are currently organized. On average, we receive requests to televise 25 hours per week.
The Chair: We are not even using the time that is available now.
Mr. Armitage: That is correct. Now, of those 37 hours, I think I talked a little bit about how many of those hours are devoted to in-camera proceedings or short clause-by-clause meetings and that kind of thing, so considering those types of meetins reduces the gap to a degree. We figure about 70 per cent to 75 per cent in a given week of our capability is used.
The Chair: Are there further questions, honourable senators?
Senator Cools: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the witnesses. I have never heard from Ms. Bouchard before, so I especially thank you for coming before us; and Mr. Armitage, we know you very well. While I am at it, I want to thank Senate staff for the dedication and service that they render to the Senate. The Senate has to be the most blessed place in the world in respect of the number of committed, diligent and dedicated staff. I have said that for years, and I make it my business to have good relations and respectful relations with members of the staff.
My apologies that I was a little late but I am struck by the fact that senators are asking questions of these witnesses that only senators should answer. Some of these questions, to my mind, are not in the proper ken of staff, and Mr. Armitage knows my view on much of this subject.
Having said that, we are on the subject of broadcasting. As this committee continues its study, I have become increasingly aware of the absolute lack of information or knowledge that senators have of this whole phenomenon of its own broadcasting, so I wonder if Mr. Armitage can answer one or two questions for me.
Senators are supposed to be the masters of their own house. We do not see it, but in theory they are supposed to be. First, what senators are involved with you and Ms. Bouchard in respect of this area of activity? Second, is it possible — and this may be an opinion, but everybody's been asking for your opinions, so I will as well — to have successful broadcasting, and I would say successful broadcasting policies, without serious involvement from senators themselves? I have been listening to the proceedings for the short period of time that I have been here. As I said, the lack of knowledge is staggering. It is not proper, and the system never intended that those who serve the houses should be more knowledgeable than the members of the houses themselves.
Mr. Armitage, do you have any opinions, thoughts or comments, as you see fit, on those two points?
Mr. Armitage: First, thank you for your kind remarks about the staff. I know my colleagues have a lot of pride in the service they provide.
With respect to the senators involved with broadcasting, the document I distributed last week that was approved by the Internal Economy Committee has a section on authorities, and it was put in there specifically to be sure that there was a clear governance of broadcasting by the Senate itself. The Internal Economy Committee is responsible on behalf of the Senate for approving the mandate of the the Senate Broadcast Service, SBS, its guidelines and policies, and for resolving unprovided cases and considering resource requirements, so the committee has a general administrative, broad oversight.
In cases where competing demands create a conflict as to which events will be televised, the party whips will be consulted for final determination. In the cases I discussed earlier where we have four committees looking to televise and only three can do so, the party whips, using the criteria outlined last week, make that determination.
With respect to the importance of senators to the success of broadcasting, I could not agree more. In the early years, it was the driving interest of senators themselves, individual chairs, who helped create a particular Senate flavour to the way we broadcast our committees. Senators were willing to expand the envelope and explore different ideas, and they are largely responsible for the eventual product that broadcasting has become. Senators are the ones that looked for a more encompassing camera plan, of shooting reaction shots. They were the ones who insisted on putting the text boxes on television so we could provide more information to the viewers. They were conscious of the impact that television can have. In the guide that I distributed last week and which all senators have received, we talk about the impact individual senators on a committee can have on the perception the viewers have at home.
The more you are aware of the fact that people are observing you in your work and the more you show that you are engaged in what the witnesses have to say and what other senators have to say by taking notes, nodding or reacting to what is said, the more the director can include everyone around the table in the dynamic of what is going on. The way the director put it to me is that the director uses the same mentality as when shooting a political panel. It is not only about the interplay between the witness and the senator; it can also be about other senators in the room. The challenge, of course, is maintaining a sense of balance that properly reflects the mood of the room and does not tend to favour one mood over another or one view over another.
Senator Cools: Some of this information is extremely important; more important, I think, than we recognize. You have said, Mr. Armitage, that the Internal Economy Committee adopts the overall, I think you called it, mandate, guidelines and something else.
Mr. Armitage: The guidelines and policies, and resolving unprovided cases and providing resources.
Senator Cools: Over and beyond the adoption of that report, and the debate and study this report entails, what involvement then does Internal Economy have in the whole broadcasting phenomena or in your Communications Directorate on a day-to-day basis?
Mr. Armitage: As I conceive it, anyway, the idea behind going to Internal Economy for the mandate, the guidelines and the policies is to make it less onerous on Internal Economy to be asking routine questions continually. The guidelines are meant to address routine questions.
We have not had any situations where we have had to go to Internal Economy to help us with something we had not thought through with respect to our routine operations. We have been pleased about that. We have gone to Internal Economy when innovations have been proposed to us that we believe will have an impact on resources, or may involve issues that the Senate would naturally be concerned about such as copyright, archiving and things like that.
Senator Cools: There is a vast area of concerns that we have not even begun to touch yet in this committee. I thank you for bringing that information forward.
Do I understand from you that you are reticent to go to Internal Economy except when necessary?
Mr. Armitage: I always welcome input from senators and —
Senator Cools: I was getting there, Mr. Armitage. I was working my way there, but you got ahead of me.
Mr. Armitage: Naturally, Internal Economy has an important role in the overall administration of the Senate. I would not not go to Internal Economy, if I could help it. I am always happy to speak to the committee.
Senator Cools: A lot of these matters involve day-to-day life. I am a great believer that more senators should be involved in the day-to-day life in every aspect of this institution, and I have served in this institution when many more senators were involved in the day-to-day life. I am not telling any tales out of school, but there is many a Senate report that I personally put endless hours into scripting. I do not know how much of that activity happens anymore. I have not seen it for a while.
I sincerely believe that senators should have a hands-on involvement and that staff should feel free to go to senators, especially those who have expertise in the respective fields, for opinion, guidance, advice or sometimes only to canvass ideas and also to canvass your own perceptions.
Mr. Armitage, do you think it would be useful if Internal Economy were to name a particular senator to work more closely with staff on these kinds of matters, particularly broadcasting? I am not a television watcher, but I do watch Senate committee meetings and some of those activities, and there is not a day that I do not look at them and think how much better it could be if only some senators would take the initiative.
The Chair: Senator Cools, I do not think that is a fair question to put to this witness; asking this witness if he thinks a committee of the Senate should do something to . . . that is putting him in an unfair position, I think, and I —
Senator Cools: You think so, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes, I do.
Senator Cools: I think asking him to testify is putting him in an unfair position, so maybe we should debate that point. I do not think he should be testifying before us. He should not be asked any of the opinions he has already been asked, and I do not see that my questions are substantially different from anybody else's.
The Chair: I do.
Senator Cools: What is the difference between my opinion and yours?
The Chair: You are asking the witness to give an indication as to whether he personally, as a member of the administration, feels that Internal Economy should do something by making a direction of a certain senator to do something.
Senator Cools: Let me put it another way, then.
The Chair: Excuse me; can I at least get my statement out?
Senator Cools: Certainly, but you have been cutting him off all morning too. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. I am all ears.
Mr. Armitage: I am in the hands of the committee. Basically, operating procedure is to operate within the guidelines and the Senate administration rules. I am always happy to consult with Internal Economy or the steering committee, as the case may be, depending on the circumstances. I believe I am no different than many of my colleagues who regularly try and touch base with individual senators they know are interested in their particular area to provide feedback on an informal basis.
Senator Cools: Yes.
The Chair: I have Senator Cordy on my list, but I know that Senator Furey, the chairman of Internal Economy, would like to respond. I will ask —
Senator Cools: I was not finished, chair. You cannot cut a senator off the way you did, chair; point of order.
Mr. Chair, I was speaking and you cut me off. You cannot do that. It is not even nice. You cannot personally, without citing some authority, take objection to something I am saying and cut me off.
The Chair: I asked the witness to respond, and the witness has responded. I have Senator Cordy's name on the list who wants to make an intervention; it has been there for some time. Senator Furey is the chair of Internal Economy.
Senator Cools: I know.
The Chair: Your question asked matters about Internal Economy, and Senator Furey indicated that he wants to make an intervention on this point.
Senator Cools: He may, but I was not finished.
The Chair: I want to hear Senator Furey on this point.
Senator Cools: I do not care what you would like to hear; I was not finished, chair. Perhaps you should rule on that point. I was not finished.
The Chair: Senator Cools, please proceed.
Senator Cools: Thank you.
Mr. Armitage, I was not intending in any way to put you in an awkward position. You have spent a lot of time here at this meeting today and at other meetings answering many questions. It is my view that too many of the staff here are burdened — I am sure honourable senators know this and have heard it around here and in committees — by having to do things that senators should be doing themselves. It is a matter of great concern to me.
We have had a situation in this place in the last, I would say, 10 to 15 years where the number of areas of activity have expanded exponentially, yet in terms of senators' supervision of those activities, that supervision has not expanded at the same rate. I assume people know what we mean by exponentially.
I was wondering if you, Mr. Armitage, felt that by having access more than in the informal way that we have because contrary to what Senator Oliver — Mr. Chair, I am speaking — contrary to what Senator Oliver says, many staff here over the years have had excellent relationships with individual senators and have consulted informally on an ongoing basis. You know who they are and I know who they are. I think they are wonderful relationships, and I uphold them and I praise them.
I was wondering if you, Mr. Armitage, think that you could be assisted if there was some formal way at some point in time of making particular senators available to you. That is what I was asking. That question is quite in order.
The Chair: Mr. Armitage, would you like to answer the question, please? Then I will move to Senator Furey.
Mr. Armitage: I am conscious of how much is demanded of senators and their time. I am reluctant to force an additional formal responsible on senators. However, we are actively inviting input from senators through the reference guide to senators for any senator interested in the process of broadcasting Senate committees. Input is based on mutual feedback. If senators want to learn about what we think about televising Senate committees and how their image can be improved, we can provide that, but we also ask for regular feedback through the guide and any publication we release.
Senator Furey: I want to respond to Senator Cools' point. I think she raises an interesting point in terms of oversight for the entire operation. I would be happy, Senator Cools, to meet at any time to discuss this issue and to bring it to the full committee for debate.
Senator Cools: Absolutely; I thank you for that, Senator Furey.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for the booklet you distributed. Since I am a visual person, the pictures are good at showing what committees can do to improve communication to the viewing public.
My question relates to something you raised last week regarding technology. The e-consultation pilot project was put in place by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology when we studied mental health and mental illness. We were able to develop a questionnaire. We had excellent response that helped us to write a better report. People who, for a variety of reasons — including that our country is so large — were not able to come to Ottawa were able to answer the questions we were asking specific to what we wanted to write in our report.
I think last week that you said this project was pricey. Technology is changing at a rapid rate. A number of senators have blogs. Those kinds of things are cost-effective. Can you talk about the e-consultation pilot projects that have taken place, and perhaps other ways that are as effective in gathering information but that are perhaps more cost- effective?
Mr. Armitage: I am not, in any way, shape or form, an expert on e-consultation. I have followed it as it has been practiced here and in other locations.
For the Parliament of Canada to engage in e-consultation, we double the cost and complexity because of official language requirements. Whatever cost we have from another jurisdiction, we would have to consider that requirement.
Another difficulty is that when we consult, it implies a two-way conversation. I have trouble imagining who that conversation will be with. Will it be with the staff of Parliament? Will we do that on your behalf or will it be done by politicians on various committees? That consideration is important.
It would be a sanitized and neutral conversation if I were asked to engage in it with Canadians on your behalf. I do not know how satisfying that would be for them.
Senator Cools: Yes, that would be terrible.
Mr. Armitage: Senator Oliver referenced a report that came out a few years ago authored by Deborah Grey, Carolyn Bennett and Senator Biron. The study was undertaken under the aegis of the Library of Parliament with those three parliamentarians. They produced a document called The Parliament We Want. They engaged the services of a public opinion company. One observation stuck with me when I read the report. It was that Canadians are expressing a degree of frustration about the fact that they are being consulted, but there is no evidence they are being heard.
I have one caution. Other aspects need to be explored carefully in terms of how it will work, how much it will cost and who will participate. The one value-added piece of information I will give is to ensure that Canadians feel that whatever is said, something about that is heard and acted upon — that it has an impact. That is the main message from that particular part of the report.
Senator Cordy: That is an excellent point.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Armitage, I want to come back to your analysis that we use only 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the time allotted for Senate broadcast on a weekly basis. If a fourth room is equipped with proper personnel, would that situation increase our input to 100 per cent or should we rely on better informing the chair of the committee of the availability of time to fill 100 per cent of the available air time?
I know the question is a difficult one.
Mr. Armitage: It is a difficult question because it is almost two separate issues. If I added the fourth crew, we would have an additional six hours out of those three time slots each week. That additional time is almost guaranteed every week because committees are fighting with each other constantly for that air time.
Information on why committees are not picking up on broadcasting in the other time slots is anecdotal. We touched on it last week. Some senators were not 100 per cent certain that all of their order of reference will be covered by television, and they do not want to short-change the few witnesses who would not be televised in favour of everyone else. It would not be proper for me to speculate on other motivations.
From being a committee clerk, I know that some committee meetings are held at the last minute, details change or witnesses are only confirmed at the last second. Part of the process of confirming television coverage is that they have a witness confirmed. I do not think we will ever reach 100 per cent if we leave it in a situation where the committee is requesting television because, in part, it will be last minute and they may not feel that the extra work and drama of changing the room in which the meeting is held and that kind of thing are worth the effort.
Senator Joyal: Does the House of Commons fill its 100 per cent of allocated time?
Mr. Armitage: I have not thought to ask that question. The House of Commons does not have as much capacity to televise as the Senate does, so I imagine their rooms are busy.
The Chair: Are there any other senators who wish to pose questions to the witnesses?
Senator Smith: I want to speak when they are finished, but not until the witnesses are finished.
Senator Cools: Mr. Armitage or Ms. Bouchard may know something about this situation. I received an email and a phone call from Nanos Research that is conducting a study for the Library of Parliament. I may have this information wrong or partially right, but bear with me.
Mr. Armitage: You are correct so far.
Senator Cools: Apparently, the initiative rests in the U.K. House of Commons, whose library has somehow invited libraries from a few other parliaments to participate. They asked me if they could speak to me. I assumed it is because I am a huge user of the library. I discovered that they are not looking at library needs of the future. They are looking to engage the public in the future, which is a different sort of thing.
I have a lot of concern for the old books. For example, last week I was working on a set of 1856 House of Lords debates. The records are in tatters. The staff at the library asked me if I could raise the issue with someone to do something about it.
I thought the U.K. study was studying the of Parliament needs of members with respect to the library. Apparently, they are dealing with the same thing that you raised and that was covered in the Carolyn Bennett and Deborah Grey report.
Have they spoken to you, Mr. Armitage? If so, is there anything in which we should be especially interested in respect of this study?
Mr. Armitage: It is an excellent question. I was reluctant to raise it simply because it is not specifically related to television, but I am happy to answer the question.
The Parliament of Canada, through the library, is engaged in responding to a survey conducted by Nanos. It is under the aegis of something called Parliament 2020 and it is out of the U.K. Parliament. There was a related conference in Washington, D.C. earlier this fall to which the Library of Parliament sent a representative, Sonia L'Heureux, who appeared before this committee on another subject. Ms. L'Heureux gave the management team here a briefing on what she had heard. Innovations are being undertaken, not only by well established democratic parliaments but also by developing parliaments, that are impressive in terms of citizen engagement.
The survey that Nanos is undertaking will be conducted with staff and parliamentarians alike. It will talk about the dynamics that are particular to the Canadian situation and how they will affect or shape a democratic consultation process for Parliament.
Senator Cools: I met with two delightful young women but, as I said before, my expectation had to shift because they were not working on the work of the Library of Parliament per se in respect of books, storing information and the entire knowledge base industry. They were looking at public engagement.
Mr. Chair, perhaps we can consider hearing from Ms. L'Heureux with respect of the relevance of such a study, because it seems to be a major study. Perhaps we can see if there are common underpinnings or common interest with the issues before us.
As Mr. Armitage has so ably pointed out, we continue to come back to this yearning in the public to engage with the people who represent them. Honourable senators, I think that yearning is at the basis of so much that is happening today. Mr. Armitage said something interesting. These polling and surveying companies always call me, and I usually decline to answer because I prefer to let them go on to someone else. However, there is a great yearning, which shows up in study after study, and not only in this study, by the public to engage with us; to know what we are doing, and to understand this massive process.
It might be a small window but it could be an opportunity to obtain insights into what they are doing and some of what they are discovering without compromising in any way their research or their report.
The Chair: Thank you for that suggestion.
Senator Fraser: I have one question for Mr. Armitage and one comment about the future work of the committee on this topic. I will come back to them later, if you wish.
The Chair: I want you to ask the question of the witness now, because Senator Smith and I will say something about our future work and we want you to participate in that discussion.
Senator Fraser: That is tactfully put.
It is like a dream to me that my office has been contacted by the Nanos group and that I said, "Set it up." It has not happened yet, so I am speaking from complete ignorance on this issue.
If I heard you correctly, I do not understand why the Library of Parliament consults Canadians. I thought that was what politicians did, given my rooted suspicion of opinion polls.
Mr. Armitage: If I implied that, I did not intend to. They are not consulting Canadians. They are consulting the senators and the MPs on the Hill —
Senator Fraser: That is what they are engaged in now, but I thought I heard you say that the envisaged outcome of this study was that the library would be finding some way to provide democratic consultation for Parliament.
Mr. Armitage: Maybe I expressed it incorrectly. The library is trying to collect information on how digital technology, primarily the Internet, can be used to allow for an ongoing consultation with parliamentarians, as is being done throughout the world.
Senator Fraser: By parliamentarians, not by the library?
Mr. Armitage: By parliamentarians, yes. This study was authorized by the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, to make the parliamentarian connection and approval clear.
The Chair: A questionnaire has been sent to all senators. The responses are coming in and will be accepted until December 10, I believe.
The second thing we had planned for today was to talk about future work of the committee on this study; where we go from here after the witnesses we have heard to date. The steering committee will take directions from the committee on where members want to go. Do we need more witnesses? Having heard what we have heard so far, what do we want to do next?
I will ask Senator Smith to give that overview and then to thank the witnesses, and then I will hear from Senator Fraser on the same point.
Before you go, Mr. Armitage, I will call on Senator Smith to provide the summary and the overview.
Senator Smith: I believe we should see whether we have a consensus to proceed with the first stage, which is to recommend the $2-million expenditure for the fourth committee room and the installation of the equipment in the chamber itself with the control room, which, without necessarily making definitive long-term decisions on exactly what we are trying to have coverage on, gives us the options for coverage from the chamber.
I am trying to develop a feel for whether we have consensus on that issue, because this committee has always tried to develop its decisions by consensus.
I am comfortable at this point. I think that if we have the fourth room, we will wind up having close to 100 per cent committee coverage. I, and I think most committee members, feel that committee coverage is how we achieve the most recognition and appreciation. I think that having the option of moving toward certain segments of coverage in the Senate is logical at this point.
We need to see whether people are comfortable with that option in order that we can finally start toward having these options available to us.
Senator Fraser: You may not be surprised to know that I am not comfortable. I would be more than happy to see a fourth committee equipped. I think that is where, for those who care, the most instructive coverage of the Senate is for the public.
Before we move from there to walking down the road of televising chamber proceedings — and you will recall my distinction between television and the Web — there was some discussion earlier in our proceedings on this matter, chair. We discussed asking members — former members, probably — of the other place who have had experience with television to come in as witnesses, perhaps those who remember even what it was like before television and who saw the impact of television on their proceedings, for good and ill.
I know there are members of the Senate who have experience in the House of Commons. At least two of them are sitting at the table as we speak. However, I also want to hear from people who come purely from a Commons perspective, if you will, and who have given these matters some thought. You may recall one person I mentioned, Preston Manning, because I was struck by a commentary I saw from him, but there are undoubtedly others. I wonder whether we could at least arrange for a panel of people who were on the pointy end of it all, if you see what I mean.
The Chair: Good suggestion; thank you.
Senator Furey: Senator Smith, I assume that we are talking only about outfitting a new committee room as opposed to proceeding further with televising the chamber, as Senator Fraser is saying.
Senator Smith: I am comfortable with the first package, which is both, in other words, having the option and the availability of the cameras in the chamber, with the control room. The total for this package is roughly $2 million. There is no point in trying to word an exact motion unless there is a sense of consensus at this point. If there is no consensus and people want more witnesses, then I will listen to more witnesses. That is what I am trying to develop a feel for.
Senator Furey: I tend to agree with Senator Fraser. I think we can do more with respect to televising in the chamber, especially. Any suggestion we make with respect to moving forward must have the caveat that it is subject to available money, because all of this installation will require new monies. I do not need to impress upon senators the strange economic times in which we live right now.
Senator Smith: That is why I am not moving a motion at this point.
The Chair: As honourable senators know, we have sent out a questionnaire to all senators and we have asked all senators to give their views on a number of the issues we have been debating in this committee for the last couple of months. Only a few responses have come in. When the responses come in, our assistants from the Library of Parliament will tabulate and collate them, and prepare a report on them. That report will also form the basis of some of the future thinking we will do. I wanted to throw that out again; that we have to wait to hear from all senators.
We made the decision, as the committee, that this change is so fundamental that we want to have the views of as many honourable senators as we can gather. The way we chose to gather those views was to invite them to appear as witnesses, which some did; and second, to have them fill out the questionnaire, which will be tabulated.
Senator Wallace: Listening to Senator Smith's and Senator Fraser's comments, there are two distinct issues here. One is the further televising of the committees. Although I am the newest senator around this table, one tends to come to some conclusions; however, as I have found in the past, one should probably understand the place before one starts coming to those conclusions, especially when it comes to recommending changes. I am still at that stage.
From what I have seen to this point, in approaching one year in the Senate, I see the value of the Senate committees. I think televising those committees is beneficial for the Senate and for the public. Generally speaking, I see advancing that initiative to be something that makes sense, and I would be interested to hear more discussion on that subject.
On the issue of televising in the chamber, again, as you point out, chair, we will hear from other senators on that issue. However, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to what the advantages would be, to the institution and to the public, in televising from the chamber. I look forward to that discussion. I think we should focus on that point: What are we trying to gain? What are the advantages in televising from the chamber?
We have had comments that it will improve the archival nature of what goes on in the chamber, and I suppose that is true to some extent. On the other hand, does that mean that Hansard is not up to the job and that we should be further ahead than what Hansard provides?
As a lawyer, case law comes from the written decision. That is what we pore through. We do not have to see what goes on in the court proceedings; it is the written word that is important for our archival purposes. I tend to think somewhat along the same lines in regard to Hansard.
The short of it is that I would encourage us to have a full discussion at some point on what is the objective. What is the objective and the gains that we will see — from the public perspective, from the nature of the institution and from each of us as senators — in televising? Right now, I have a huge question mark, but I look forward to hearing from other senators.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: To answer Senator Smith's question, yes, I am in favour of dividing the decision, splitting it into two. We should decide on a fourth, properly equipped committee room. That decision would be subject to the approval of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. We have to do things as they are supposed to be done. That is a decision for the Committee on Internal Economy, which will decide whether funds are available. If they are not, they will have to dig to find them. That is the responsibility of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
As for the chamber, we have to keep talking. I do not think that the time is quite right yet. We have heard several opinions. I am anxious to see the results of the survey that you circulated to our colleagues. We will see if the time is right in the new year.
Senator Wallace's opinion is very sound. Looking just at the archival issue, he raises a problem. I feel that we have to continue the debate on the objectives we want to achieve. As for the committee room, I am in full agreement.
[English]
Senator Smith: I have a question for Senator Nolin.
I hear what you are saying and I am comfortable with maybe proceeding only on the fourth committee. I am never trying to talk people into cameras going into the chamber. I am open-minded on that issue. I do not think we should televise there unless there is a clear consensus, and I am not sensing one.
Do you feel we are at the stage — and I think I agree with you — that we can make the recommendation for the fourth committee room?
Senator Nolin: I think so. The way the terms of reference are written, first we can split the authority, the mandate. It is up to Internal Economy, but I think we are ready to make that decision. Maybe we should have done that many years ago. It is up to Internal Economy to decide that.
Senator Keon: This comment will be quick, because it has been said by Senator Fraser, Senator Wallace and Senator Nolin. I do not think we are at all ready to make any expenditure on equipment or anything else for the chamber. However, I think we are in a solid position to make recommendations about the fourth committee room.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, before turning to you, I just received a note. I will ask our witness, Mr. Armitage to speak to it. The note indicates that we currently have four committee rooms. We have four committee rooms currently, and two require upgrades.
Mr. Armitage, can you clarify that information for the committee?
Mr. Armitage: When we talk about being able to televise a fourth committee, it is not that we do not have the room but rather that we do not have the crew to televise it. It would be an increase to our agreement with the House of Commons to provide more personnel to be able to shoot four committees at one time.
The two committee rooms that require upgrades, 257 East Block and 160-S, are using cameras on tripods, which are in the rooms themselves. The cameras create a bit of an obstacle and they provide limited four-camera coverage of the room, as opposed to the typical six-camera coverage.
We would be looking at those kinds of upgrades, along with improvements to respective control rooms.
The Chair: Do you have a price for that upgrade?
Mr. Armitage: Not off the top of my head, no.
The Chair: It is certainly not the $100,000 figure, is it?
Mr. Armitage: The $100,000 figure is the estimate on what the extra crew will cost in a year.
The equipment upgrades will be more than $100,000.
Senator Furey: Those costs will be ongoing costs; they will require person-years per interval, PYIs. The expenditure is not a one-shot deal.
Mr. Armitage: Yes, the $100,000 is an annual operating cost that will be added for a budget.
Senator Joyal: I do not have a supplementary question, but a general comment.
The Chair: We will go to Senator Fraser first, then.
Senator Fraser: On the matter of the questionnaire, December is a busy month. Can I suggest that you and Senator Smith mention it in caucus and ask senators to fill out the questionnaire. You know what it is like now; we are into the rush.
The Chair: That is a good point.
Senator Joyal: I want to add some comments and principles about the decision.
I think if we take the decision of recommending that a fourth room be fully equipped, or that all the four rooms be at the same level of capacity — equipment and personnel — we are moving rationally. We can see that the three committees that are normally broadcast on a regular basis have not changed in terms of the way the committees have done their work. I sit on some of the committees regularly, and I have not noticed that televising the meetings has changed the ambience or the way the Senate approaches issues.
In committees, we are not trying to score partisan points but to understand what we are requested to do, which is essentially to give consent and advise the chamber.
For as long as I have been a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, a committee that is broadcast, I have not seen that the presence of TVs or cameras, or the fact we are broadcast, has changed the way senators individually approach their work on that committee. If we move forward with televising a fourth committee, I presume it will be in the same.
If we televise the chamber, it will be another game. In the chamber, there is more politicking. There is politicking in Question Period and sometimes in Senators' Statements, which have become like subjective preoccupations, and there is generally a different tone when there is not a debate, per se, on an issue that commands, or that calls upon, each individual senator to take a stance.
Before moving to broadcasting the chamber, I would think twice. I wonder if we should postpone that decision, and I know you are part of it, until after the Standing Committee on Internal Economy reviews those aspects of our exchanges in the chamber — Question Period, Senators' Statements and so on. Until we have revisited the formats in which those issues take place, I do not think we should take that decision.
I do not want to be part of a decision whereby we increase the politics in the chamber. I think it is "non-senatorial," per se. It is not what we are called upon to do here. Of course, we have party lines for a specific purpose, which is adversarial debate; we need to have pros and cons to have a debate. If we all share the same opinion, there is no debate. It becomes only an exercise in congratulations. To have a debate, we must have conflicting points of views, and those views are rooted in the fact that have different political labeling.
However, I would resist moving forward quickly without measuring all the impacts that it will have on the chamber in terms of increasing the "politicizing" of the chamber, as much as the Senate is what it is now. If the Senate's structure or composition is changed, and if senators are elected, re-elected and so forth, the Senate will be a different ball game.
As much as we organized now, according to the Constitution we have now, it is important to keep that element in mind.
Senator Cordy: I think the subject of the fourth committee room, as others have said, must be divided in two: the committee room and the chamber. The fourth committee room being subject to the approval of Internal Economy is a way to start.
We still have more work to accomplish in determining whether the Senate chamber should be televised.
Senator Wallace talked about the purpose, and I think we have to determine a clear purpose: What is the clear rationale for putting cameras in the chamber? I know we have excellent speeches and debates in the chamber that we do not necessarily find on the other house. How do we provide those speeches to the public? Is it necessary to have something in addition to Hansard? That is something we have to determine.
I think it is important to look at the Order Paper. Will the Order Paper change? Do we go through a day where we have stand, stand, stand, a situation that is not inviting for the public.
There are many issues to consider, when we look at televising the Senate.
Senator Fraser had a comment about inviting former members of Parliament who were in the House of Commons when it was televised, and when it was not televised. Perhaps we can invite even former Speakers from the House of Commons who have been in both situations who can tell us whether there are obstacles, or who can tell us about the positives and negatives so that, when we make a decision, we make it with our eyes open.
We need to receive a lot of feedback from other senators. I believe Senator Fraser made the suggestion that the chair and the deputy chair talk to their caucuses about ensuring that we ask as many witnesses back as possible.
I think we can go ahead with the idea, subject to the approval from Internal Economy. However, there are many unanswered questions in terms of televising the chamber.
The Chair: I have Senator Cools and Senator Smith. Before I turn to Senator Cools, I wanted to make a brief point about our procedure.
We are discussing this issue of broadcasting in response to a reference that came from Senator Segal and Senator Banks. Once this committee makes up its mind what it will do, this committee will prepare a report and table the report in the Senate. The Senate will determine what will happen with that report. The Senate may well say that A, B and C should take place, and therefore we invite Internal Economy to develop a costing, to make recommendations and to deal with it.
This committee's next job is not to send something to Internal Economy or have Internal Economy do something. It is to report back to the Senate on the order of reference we received from the Senate with respect to broadcasting, started by Senator Segal and Senator Banks.
Senator Cools: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for clarifying the situation. I have been sitting here wondering why we are having the two discussions concurrently, since one of them is an order of reference, as moved by Senator Banks and Senator Segal. I was wondering why we are having a mixed discussion. I would have thought we should have proceeded on one and then the other.
Having clarified that point, Mr. Chair, I want to speak to the second question first, which is the question of the committee's agreement or desire regarding the fourth committee room.
Senator Smith, you mentioned the figure of $2 million.
Senator Smith: That also included the chamber. It is less for only the committee room.
Senator Cools: I think it is fair to say that I agree wholeheartedly to go ahead on the fourth committee room and all that project entails.
On the first point, which is the order of reference, I have a little statement. I will come back to Senator Wallace in a few minutes. On the question of the order of reference that is currently before us, I am of the opinion that we have only scratched the surface of this issue. We have not even touched upon the law of Parliament. We have not touched upon a vast set of areas on this matter. I am in favour of our continuing study on the reference. I do not think, chair, that we are nearly ready, or even close to being ready, to present a report on the subject. I am clearly in favour of continued study.
In respect of this study, I had suggested a witness, an able gentleman. His name is Patrick Boyer. This suggestion fits perfectly with Senator Fraser's suggestion of Preston Manning, because Mr. Boyer served in the House of Commons. I do not remember when, but he has been gone for some time.
Senator Champagne: It was 1984 to 1988.
Senator Cools: Thank you Senator Champagne; Mr. Boyer had clearly served in the House of Commons in another time. He is learned in these matters. The important thing about Mr. Boyer is that he has been working on this subject of bringing matters of Parliament closer to the public, which I think is the intention or the purpose for this study. Having said that, honourable senators, I do not know how we will proceed.
I want to add a brief remark to Senator Wallace, who said lawyers rely on the written word. Parliamentary proceedings are the oral word. It is an oral tradition. Many people come here and do not understand that. I have to train staff that they cannot use parentheses and square brackets and so on, when I can find the staff that knows how to use them.
Having said that, Senator Wallace, you suggest that case law has become the preserve of lawyers — I read a lot of case law — and so should all read the proceedings of Parliament. I heartily disagree with that statement. The proceedings of Parliament are preoccupied, yes, with the law, but there is a vast area of other issues. I believe we have a strong obligation to bring these matters closer to our various publics who belong to no brotherhoods. You belong to the brotherhood of lawyers. You also belong to the brotherhood and sisterhood of senators. I believe we have an imperative duty. Perhaps we can begin the debate on that note: What is our obligation in respect of the public?
This whole tradition that we have full-fledged, proper records of debates is only recent in the history of Parliament. When I say proper records, I mean extremely sufficient records. I believe it is only around 1916 that the Senate started keeping good, almost verbatim reports. We have to remember that the first many years of existence of the houses, post- Confederation and even before that, members of Parliament used to rely on favourite newspapers to make daily reports of proceedings of Parliament. I am sure that those of us from Ontario especially know of the history of some of those papers in terms of more favourable reports for friends than for opponents. In any event, the history of George Brown is an interesting one.
I have said enough on that subject. What is clear to me from everyone is that there is no consensus here on the readiness of this committee to report. The general consensus is to continue the study.
The Chair: The order of reference that we received is found in the Journals of the Senate of Wednesday, June 17, 2009:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cochrane:
That the Senate approve in principle the installation of equipment necessary to the broadcast quality audio- visual recording of its proceedings and other approved events in the Senate Chamber and in no fewer than four rooms ordinarily used for meetings by committees of the Senate;
The four-room reference is included in the order of reference.
Senator Cools: Is it? That is good. I was mistaken. Then I retract my remarks on the Order of Reference. I apologize.
Senator Furey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with your previous comment, Mr. Chair, that our responsibility as a committee is to address the order of reference, and our reporting is to the chamber, not to Internal Economy, but I think we have to make allowances in any report we produce for costs.
Senator Cools: Absolutely, and people agree with you on that point.
Senator Wallace: I want to make a comment on Senator Cools' comments: If there is a need for clarification, and there must be, having —
Senator Cools: If I misunderstood Senator Wallace, I am sorry.
Senator Wallace: I will clarify. I hope that others do not interpret my comments to mean that we are to turn the chamber into a courtroom. That was not the purpose of the comment. I made that comment to say that in the legal sense and with case law, the archival records are obviously critically important. The written word has carried that importance. That is not to say that is all that has to be the case in the chamber, but obviously the importance of archival records is critically important to the chamber. I draw case law as an analogy that could have some relevance, but that is it.
Senator Cools: I thank you, Senator Wallace, for that clarification. I thought I heard you say something about lawyers rely on it or something, but let us be frank. We all rely on written records. Those of us who probe deeply rely on these records. They are invaluable, and I think that is the real thing. The bridge we have to cross is that we are moving into a new era. We cannot ignore the world that is becoming digital before our eyes. We ignore it at our own peril. Thank you for that. I know your good intentions. I am well aware of your good intentions, Senator Wallace.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I now want to say thank you to Mr. Armitage and Ms. Bouchard for their helpful information and responses to questions today. The evidence has been transcribed and will be taken into consideration by the steering committee as we work to figure out the next activities of this committee. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much.
Honourable senators, before we can go, we have one other matter before us. You will recall that at the last meeting the question arose about the employees of the Senate and the Library of Parliament appearing before committees and giving evidence as witnesses. I have asked Michel Bédard of the Library of Parliament to prepare a note of information on the question. I will circulate that note to everyone now so we can have a discussion and make a determination. It is being handed out to everyone as I speak. We will discuss this matter in camera.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Chair, I think you need a motion to go in camera. I do not think this meeting was previously in camera.
Senator Cools: We have to move into camera.
Senator Fraser: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Fraser that we continue in camera. Agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)