Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 18 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:35 a.m. to consider 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.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I thought it would be appropriate for the full committee to meet this morning so we can inform all members of the work being done on the orders of reference we have received from the Senate, and the study we have undertaken on the revised Rules of the Senate of Canada.
In addition, to advance in our study on the broadcasting of Senate proceedings, I have asked Sebastian Spano of the Library of Parliament to walk us through a note he prepared on the broadcasting experiences of upper chambers.
[Translation]
First, I would like to spend a few minutes going over the committee's various studies.
[English]
As I indicated, today we will continue our study of the reference with respect to the broadcasting of Senate proceedings. Also, you will recall that last week we discussed a draft survey, and Senator Fraser suggested changes to it. These changes have now been made and, with your permission, we will take it to the steering committee. If the steering committee approves it, we will circulate it to all honourable senators to solicit their views on the matter of whether the Senate should be televised, et cetera.
Last week, I made a few introductory remarks before we had our first witness, Martha Fusca, the Founder, President and CEO of Stornoway Communications. I will repeat the remarks because a number of members of the committee were not here.
I said, "I would like to observe that there are some fundamental questions our committee needs to come to grips with in reflecting on our order of reference."
Near the end of the meeting, Senator David Smith summarized what the witnesses had said and posed a number of philosophical questions, or questions of principle, that we, as a committee, should address.
Here is what I said last week:
. . . do we believe that televising our proceedings is a necessary and good thing to do? If so, what is the objective of televising our proceedings? Would it be openness or transparency or education, the promotion of our work, or all or none of these normative questions? Are there aspects of how we conduct our sittings that should be addressed in order to improve the flow of our business in the Senate without impacting on the substance of what is done? Are there behaviours that may change as a result of the presence of television cameras . . . and is it the desire of the committee to identify and address any of these behaviours?
Senator David Smith also summarized those questions. He said we really cannot go too far before we have a general discussion.
The steering committee that met last week decided that, before we can have that general discussion, it is important to hear from Blair Armitage, who can put dollars and administrative background on the table about what is involved should the committee and the Senate decide to make a recommendation in relation to further televising.
Mr. Armitage will give evidence next week on this point.
Next, I will say something about the working group on the revised Rules of the Senate of Canada. You will recall that those who are members of the main committee have not met recently, but every one of those meeting spots has been used by the so-called working group on the revised Rules of the Senate of Canada. The working group has had many meetings in the previous weeks, and today will be the sixth meeting of that committee since September, including two times last week.
I thank all senators who participated in these difficult and laborious proceedings — Senator Fraser, Senator McCoy, Senator Nolin, Senator Smith and Senator Robichaud. I thank them for the intensive work and time they have invested in the Senate rules.
For your information, the task of the group is almost complete, and we probably will be in a position to present a draft report to this committee before the Christmas break. You will recall that this working group was mandated not to revise and change the Rules of the Senate, but to look at the revised rules prepared by table officers under Speaker Molgat and Speaker Hays.
Our rules are often criticized because it is thought that they are difficult to understand. Often, the French and English are different, and the quality of language used can be improved in many instances. The project that commenced under Speaker Molgat and Speaker Hays sought, among other things, to improve the quality of the language used in our rules and to organize them in a more coherent manner, without making any material change to the substance of the rules.
The subcommittee, the working group, kept those criticisms fully in mind during all six of the major deliberations they have taken. It is so important, I want to repeat: To improve the quality of the language used in our rules and to organize our rules in a more coherent manner, without making any material change to the substance of the rules.
The working group, with the help of Charles Robert, has continued this endeavour. Each senator was assigned to look at different parts of the rules and to report back to the group as to whether the revised rules are an improvement and do not affect the substance of the rules. We looked at the revised rules and, as I said earlier, can report to the committee with a draft report likely before we leave for the Christmas break.
The report of the working group will include the revised rules, along with the current rules, so that members of this committee can easily compare the two sets of rules. While the working group's mandate does not allow it to make amendments to the substance of the rules, certain anomalies have been found. The working group will draw to the attention of the committee any of these anomalies that were found in the rules in the course of our study.
In the end, this committee will decide what it sees fit to recommend to the Senate. The working group will meet again when this committee adjourns today. As soon as we adjourn, the working group will continue its work.
[Translation]
Finally, in connection with our study on the Senate committee system, a document prepared by the Library of Parliament setting out the issues and options was sent to all senators last week. Members of the committee, all senators were invited to provide you with their comments before the break for the holidays. In that way, we will be able to resume our work on the matter when we return.
[English]
That concludes the overview that I have given. It was important, I felt, for members of the committee who have not been meeting to know what has been taking place in our time slots. That overview suggests what we have been doing.
The floor is now open, if anyone has suggestions or comments on any of the studies and the work that is taking place, our study on broadcasting or of the Senate proceedings.
Senator Smith: This is not in the form of a motion yet. It is a draft motion, I presume.
Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: That is the order of reference. It was moved by Senator Segal. It is an abridged version.
Senator Smith: On the subject of whether we can proceed with the installation so as to broadcast from the chamber, I think we are probably there. However, we might as well hear this report from Mr. Armitage as soon as he is able to provide it because it is better to have that background before we start discussing motions.
The Chair: I think some of the things that Mr. Armitage might tell the committee about next week are, if the Senate were to proceed with some form of broadcasting of the Senate, the kinds of administrative and structural changes that will be needed. Will a booth be required, and where will it be located — outside the chamber where the Speaker comes in or in the back somewhere? How much will that booth cost and what kind of personnel will be needed? We have not had this kind of information yet, and we need that information before we can consider in depth the philosophical questions that Senator Smith put to us last week.
Senator Smith: I have a good idea on some of these issues. Some of them still need to be studied more as to whether coverage is constant or edited down to almost the sort of thing the ichannel people talked about.
It is premature to deal with that issue in a meaningful before we hear Mr. Armitage's report.
Senator Duffy: Ms. Fusca from the ichannel has been in contact with me again. She wants to have a meeting with me and anyone else who wants to come tomorrow at about 5 p.m. in my office.
I believe she is thinking about proposing a kind of step-by-step proposal, where maybe the ichannel will be interested in live coverage of the Senate committee hearings rather than the delayed process we have now with CPAC. Our committees will be seen on the ichannel during real time, whenever they occur.
Then I think her idea — and this information is based on a brief conversation — is to enhance coverage further of the committees, that is, maybe have a camera with interviews afterwards by some objective host; and further down the road, some distance away, look at the chamber itself. She is talking some years there, because they realize the amount of disruption there would be in the chamber.
In other words, the time to put in the equipment is when they rebuild the chamber. Right now, it would require a lot of chopping and banging in that historic place. I think she would like to see it start one small step at a time.
The Chair: I think, Senator Duffy, that if she is meeting with you and other senators, that it would be good if she could prepare a report or a piece of paper that can be sent to this committee to supplement perhaps the evidence that she gave last week, so something formal is before this committee.
Senator Duffy: I think that is what she has in mind, plus perhaps a DVD. However, the first step is to move committees off delay. Her idea is to allow CPAC to continue with its access, broadcasting in its time, but her network is keen to broadcast meetings live.
Senator Smith: I cannot resist. How do you characterize an "objective host"? You used that phrase. Is that host someone in the category of a Mike Duffy Live objective host?
Senator Duffy: I think we are some distance away from defining such a person. I think of Stephen LeDrew.
Senator Fraser: Obviously, Ms. Fusca is free to meet with anyone she wants and Senator Duffy is free to meet with anyone he wants.
Senator Duffy: This meeting is totally unofficial.
Senator Fraser: Sure; I am grateful for your suggestion, chair, that Ms. Fusca be asked to provide a written supplement to her submission to this committee last year.
However, I have grave reservations about the portion of her proposal last week, and I gather to be reiterated this week, that part of their package will include a chat session afterwards, something like Mike Duffy Live, Don Newman, or whoever, following a committee. While such programming is extremely valuable and contributes to public discourse, it should not be part of the Senate's package as there is no such thing as perfect objectivity in this world. The mere selection of questions, guests and topics the host would choose to zero in on would impact how the public viewed the discussion. The Senate's package is to provide, in the most accessible way possible, the basic information and then let the media, the public and others do what they like in terms of commenting and drawing conclusions.
Senator Joyal: The text of the motion in front of me is: "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 Chair: This wording is an abridged version and not the actual motion from the Senate.
Senator Joyal: Yes; if we are to consult the honourable senators, should we wait to obtain the input of the majority of senators as to where they sit in relation to the broadcast of the Senate proceedings before we adopt the motion? It seems to me that, if we are to consult the senators, we should wait for their answers before approving anything.
The Chair: There is no intention of trying to move this motion today.
Senator Joyal: I hope not.
The Chair: No, there is no intention whatsoever.
Senator Joyal: I totally concur with that position. I speak for myself, but as much as I support the broadcasting of committee meetings, which would probably meet with a large consensus — I do not want to presume the consultation — as much as I have observed the broadcasting of the proceedings in the chamber.
To illustrate my reservation, think of what happened last week in the chamber. We stood most of the items. There was one speech a day. I do not criticize any senators in particular for that situation, on either side of the chamber, but it is clear that in a live broadcast, someone could question the usefulness and cost of the Senate. In this country, everything has a price, and we do not seem to think that democracy has a price. Anyway, that is another question.
In the present context of the Senate proceedings, I have great reservation in approving in principle broadcasting Senate proceedings in the chamber without the proper system of reorganizing the proceedings for the broadcasting initiative. That is essentially where I stand at this point.
I am not in a position to put the cart before the oxen. We should go step by step starting with a large consensus in the committee. Maybe we can prepare a pilot for organization of the broadcast in the chamber so we know exactly on what grounds we are moving. Various options are possible. I am reluctant to approve a system in principle and then try to fit within that system. I think it should be the other way around.
The Chair: We still agree there is basic, fundamental work to be done yet. First, the questionnaires will be sent out so we can hear from all senators, because the matter is one of fundamental importance and we want to hear from everyone. Senator Fraser had excellent suggestions last week for improvements and we have made those improvements, subject to the final approval of the steering committee.
Second, we need to hear from the administration, and a number of these matters, as well, are under the purview of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Nothing can be done without ensuring that Internal Economy is onside as well.
We will send out the questionnaire to involve all senators; we will hear from the administration next week on some of the practical matters, and today we will hear from the Library of Parliament about examples of what has been done in other jurisdictions.
With that background, perhaps I can turn to Mr. Spano to give us some explanation.
Senator Cools: When staff present information — and it is desirable to hear from them — we need permission from all the senators for strangers to speak this way, so I give my permission.
The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed.
Sebastian Spano, Analyst, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Section, Library of Parliament: Thank you. I should clarify first that the paper that Senator Oliver referred to is a co-authored paper. It is a revised version of the paper that James Robertson, a colleague of ours who is also our director, prepared in 2006. I understand the paper was prepared as background to a similar motion that Senator Segal brought on the same subject of broadcasting.
When I was asked to prepare a report comparing broadcasting in other upper chambers, this paper was brought to my attention. I updated it to include the experience in the U.S. Senate and to make other revisions to other parts of the paper, so you know the background.
The easiest way to go through the paper is to talk about the structure. I have laid out the order of reference and broken it up into bullet points according to the major aspects of the order of reference.
The paper goes through the history of broadcasting, the broadcasting experience in the Canadian Parliament in the House of Commons and in the Senate. The paper summarizes the experience in most of the provinces and some of the territories, and then it describes the systems that have been put in place in the U.K. House of Lords, in the Australian Senate and in the U.S. Senate.
I propose to talk briefly about how broadcasting has evolved here in the Senate. I know you are all familiar with its evolution, but this information is to provide context.
We know that proceedings in the Senate are not televised on a regular basis. The Speech from the Throne perhaps is an exception. Other proceedings are televised pursuant to special orders of the Senate, for example, historic votes, granting Royal Assent and the investiture of a new Governor General. We know that four committee rooms are fully equipped to have proceedings videotaped by the Senate. A live feed from these rooms is available for broadcast.
We also know that the audio portion of all Senate proceedings, including committee proceedings, is distributed throughout the precinct via the Oasis system; however, this system is considered a closed-circuit system and is not a true broadcast. Oasis is accessible to journalists and others to broadcast the sound for news or public affairs programs.
There is a contract. CPAC has been contracted to broadcast 20 hours of Senate proceedings per week, at specified times according to CPAC's own block schedule. Proceedings are filmed and recorded using Senate equipment and personnel supplied by the House of Commons.
CPAC can provide more than 20 hours of broadcasting if it wishes, but it may also pre-empt Senate proceeding broadcasts for late breaking news. One other drawback of the CPAC arrangement is that, in accordance with its licence from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, it must provide live gavel-to-gavel coverage of House of Commons proceedings. That arrangement sometimes results in the situation where the broadcasting of Senate proceedings takes a back seat, if you will, to house proceedings and is assigned to inconvenient time slots.
As you no doubt heard from the executives from CPAC who appeared before this committee, CPAC has a well- developed webcasting capability. CPAC describes itself as a pioneer in this regard. It was the first TV channel to stream its programming live, 24 hours, seven day as week. CPAC indicates it has three simultaneous web streams, hosts nearly 8,000 hours on demand, over 3,000 hours of audio podcast files and offers live web-stream service for free. Also, the content is archived on CPAC's website. I added that last information to the paper because it was provided to us by the CPAC network after the paper was prepared.
As you can see from the paper, at page 6, we provide an overview of how broadcasting takes place in the legislatures of a number of provinces. I highlight for you the experience in Ontario and Saskatchewan because I suspect they may have lessons for us.
Ontario currently has five discrete remote-controlled cameras that record the legislature, and they employ three modes of operation, known as "manual," for fast paced segments; "semiautomatic" for regular debates; and "fully automatic." These cameras are designed to be operated by a single technician. The broadcasts are bilingual, live without delay, and the video records are available to television stations free of charge.
In accordance with guidelines developed by the legislative assembly, the purpose of the cameras is to provide an accurate record, and not to dramatize or editorialize. The guidelines are enforced by the Speaker, and it is noted that complaints are not to be raised in the house. Any complaints about the way broadcasts are carried out must be taken up with the Speaker in private.
Saskatchewan was a pioneer in Canada in broadcasting its legislative proceedings. In 1983, the assembly introduced a fully automated, computer-driven television system, which was, at the time, unique. The assembly was captured by five remote-controlled cameras with switching mostly prompted by voice-activated technology. At the time, the system required a director of television and two technicians for a total of three employees. The total cost of the system, including renovations, was approximately $1.5 million, with annual operating costs of $100,000.
In the paper, we also cover three foreign jurisdictions, namely, the U.K. House of Lords, the Australian Senate and the U.S. Senate.
With respect to proceedings in the U.K. House of Lords, a separate company was set up and is referred to as the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited, PARBUL. This company was established in 1991. It replaced an entity referred to as the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Limited.
PARBUL is owned by the major broadcasters: the BBC; Independent Television Association Limited; Channel 4; and Channel 5 Broadcasting. Each broadcaster is a shareholder in the company. BBC holds four shares and the other entities own one share.
The company, PARBUL, is directed by a board of 18 directors; nine directors represent the broadcasters- shareholders, and nine represent the two houses of Parliament.
The company is operated according to a licence or, at least, it is structured under a licence arrangement. It has exclusive copyright licence to produce the television feed of proceedings and to market the feed. The licence was issued by the Speaker of the Commons and the Clerk of the Parliaments on behalf of the lords.
The companies that make up PARBUL have access to the feed, and they pay a fee for the access. PARBUL funds the cameras, the control room for the chambers and the staffing costs for the operators, while the U.K. Parliament funds the infrastructure costs, the costs of remote-controlled camera operation for committee coverage, the sound systems, and the operators in chambers in most committees as well as the Parliamentary Recording Unit. I will talk about that unit later.
The PARBUL company has employed an independent facilities company to operate the cameras in Westminster and to make the audio and video feed available to the broadcasters of PARBUL.
In 2001, the contract was awarded to Bow Tie television.
The other important element of the broadcasting system in the U.K. is something referred to as the Parliamentary Recording Unit. This unit originally began as the Parliamentary Sound Archive Unit in 1978. It was established by both houses to begin sound broadcasting of the proceedings on a permanent basis.
The Parliamentary Recording Unit is responsible for preserving and making available to members and other authorized users the tapes of the clean sound feed from both houses.
An arrangement is in place with the National Sound Archive, or the British Library Sound Library, whereby pre- 1985 audiotapes have been transferred for permanent preservation. A program of video archiving is also in place with the National Film Archive of the British Film Institute. The archive has now been named the Parliamentary Recording Unit. The unit provides MPs, lords and broadcasters with video and audio material from both chambers and committees. It is also made available to foreign broadcasters, and broadcasters such as C-SPAN in the U.S. make use of it. Other government departments make use of the material, as do educational organizations, charities and others, subject to the broadcast select committee guidelines.
The U.K. has also begun a webcasting process or system. This was started in 2002. Proceedings in both houses and some committee proceedings are available on a website known as Parliament Live TV, www.Parliamentlive.tv, and a number of media companies, including the BBC, the Press Association and others, have a PARBUL licence to use parliamentary material on their own websites. By means of a licence, they can then use the material.
I will talk now about the U.S. Senate's system. Under this system, the Senate exercises effective control over the broadcasting of its proceedings, primarily through controlling the broadcast signal. The signal is made available to any broadcasting network free of charge on the condition that a broadcaster not profit from the availability of the signal and that broadcasts not be used for partisan purposes. C-SPAN is the principal broadcaster that makes extensive use of the signal, although other networks such as Fox News and CNN also obtain the signal and broadcast selected Senate proceedings.
The Senate has invested in a state-of-the-art recording studio, which has been in place since December 2008. Permanent cameras and other equipment necessary for broadcasting are installed in the Senate chamber. Rooms where committees normally meet are fully wired or are on their way to being fully wired to enable audiovisual equipment to be set up. Although permanent recording and broadcasting equipment has not been installed in all committee rooms, mobile audiovisual equipment is available to be moved to committee rooms where Senate committees request that their proceedings be recorded or broadcast.
Because of a peculiarity of the Senate's rules of procedure, the committees themselves effectively control their own procedures with respect to broadcasting, so they can make their own rules about what is broadcast and what is not. On request, a private broadcaster or C-SPAN, with approval of the committee, may install their own equipment in a committee room.
There is no central webcasting channel or facility for the Senate as a whole, but instead, each committee has its own website. The quality of the websites varies. Some are good, and others are basic. These websites are available broadly.
With respect to editing and packaging of proceedings, the Senate's broadcasting and recording facility does not engage in editing or packaging. The idea of creating an editorial or producer function to go along with the recording and broadcasting of proceedings was considered in the 1980s, but this idea was rejected because of concerns over satisfying all the parties that packaging would be fair and balanced.
The whole process and broadcasting system is overseen by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who effectively acts as the chief operating officer of the Senate. The Sergeant-at-Arms is accountable to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the committee establishes rules that govern broadcasting generally within the chamber.
It is worth commenting on some of C-SPAN's work or C-SPAN's relationship with the Senate and its role in the broadcasting. As I mentioned, C-SPAN is the principal broadcaster of Senate proceedings. C-SPAN is a non-profit, cable, public affairs network created by the cable television industry, similar to our own CPAC. The network receives no government funding and no advertising income. Its operations are fully funded through subscriber fees that are charged to cable and satellite affiliate companies.
C-SPAN provides the coverage through a number of mediums or channels. C-SPAN provides uninterrupted live coverage of proceedings in the House of Representatives. C-SPAN2 provides uninterrupted live coverage of Senate proceedings. C-SPAN3 covers other events on Capitol Hill, such as press conferences. C-SPAN radio provides audio broadcasts of most proceedings in Congress. All of C-SPAN's video and radio channels are available through C- SPAN's website using videostreaming technology.
With respect to archiving, C-SPAN maintains a video library of every C-SPAN program aired since 1987. More than 157,000 hours of programs can be viewed on-line free of charge. All the material is indexed by C-SPAN itself.
Finally, I will talk briefly about the Australian Senate. The Australian Senate's broadcasting system is composed of two main elements. One is the services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which provides live radio broadcasts and television broadcasting of Question Time. The other component is what is known as the house monitoring system, which operates an internal and subscription service.
The proceedings of the Senate and proceedings of committees, when televised — and they are not always — are available live in sound and visual images on the Internet. Apart from the live broadcasts, radio and television stations are permitted to use recorded excerpts of Senate proceedings. These exerpts are subject to a number of rules, the principal one being that excerpts are to be used only for purposes of fair and accurate reports of the proceedings.
With respect to committees in the Australian Senate, the proceedings in the committees that conduct public hearings are broadcast by radio and television on the house monitoring system, not on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation system. Excerpts may be used by the media in accordance with the orders of the Senate relating to committees.
All estimate hearings and most other hearings of Senate committees are televised within Parliament House and excerpts may be used by broadcasters and other individuals. Resources effectively determine how many committees may authorize other broadcasters to cover committee proceedings when the committee meets outside of Canberra.
I think that is all that I have to say. I am happy to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that good overview. Everyone has a copy of the document, so they can read it in detail. I will start with Senator Fraser because she had two points before and only finished one.
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much. There is a little bit of overlap here. In the matter of ichannel, I wanted to recall the difficulties that might arise with CPAC if we enter into pilot projects with ichannel. On the one hand, the two of them can be useful from our point of view as negotiating levers, the one against the other.
I seem to recall, and Senator Furey will know this situation better than me, that CPAC, when it came to negotiating, despite their kind words to this committee, was never that enthusiastic about broadcasting Senate material because it interferes with all the other lovely stuff they prefer to broadcast. I wonder whether, given an opportunity, they might not be delighted to say, "You obviously do not need us anymore."
I am a little leery about that situation. I do not know when our contract with CPAC will expire, et cetera. I assume Mr. Armitage will be able to advise us.
Mr. Armitage: It is on an extension right now, and it can be extended by agreement between the Internal Economy Committee and CPAC on an annual basis, using a particular clause in the agreement.
Senator Fraser: Do we pay them?
Mr. Armitage: No.
Senator Fraser: No money changes hands, then?
The Chair: The cable companies finance them.
Senator McCoy: Thank you, Mr. Spano, for this overview. I am curious about the French Senate. I am reliably informed that they are masterful in their comprehensive approach to communications. I would like information on their approach of the same calibre that we have received here. Regarding their webcasts, I think I can obtain a translation so I can understand it in English, though I have not been there in years. That is a facet of the Canadian scene that is not made available in most other jurisdictions in Canada.
Is it possible to gather some information?
Mr. Spano: Yes, it is.
Senator McCoy: In particular, can we gather information to present a thumbnail sketch of the integrated way in which they handle their full public information dissemination system?
The Chair: Yes, that is possible and we will look into that system for you.
Senator McCoy: Thank you very much.
Senator Cools: In passing, it seems the issues emerging are whether the Senate will be in charge and in control of "its own broadcasting." In the brief few minutes that we have looked at this particular document, it seems clear that the Americans are firmly in control of what is happening there. I think our Senate is a long ways from even beginning to think of how such control can be exercised.
This point brings me to a major point: Senators are supposed to be in charge of the Senate. People would never believe that when they walk around this place. It is crystal clear to me that, if we want to entertain in a serious way the possibility of going down the road of broadcasting over and above what now exists, a senator or a group of senators will have to be in charge of that initiative. Senators have not been put in charge of anything for a long time, so that control will take a lot of discussion, but it must be.
I am not a television person, but whenever I am at the gym and watching CPAC and the House of Commons proceedings, I am always impressed by the number of mistakes that I hear and see regularly. I often wonder who is in charge of all of these things.
I come back to the point I made last week. The Senate is not supposed to be run like a department of government, with staff in charge of all the different features of the Senate. When the Senate was first created, it was never intended that the bureaucracy and the staff under the Clerk of the Senate would expand exponentially as it has.
I bear in mind that we will have to deal with some hands-on control from the senators themselves.
My question is in respect to page 6 of your paper, Item C, Nova Scotia. This paper is a summary of what has happened; no opinions are expressed. However, you raise a case which, I believe, is somewhere in the late 1980s — 1988 or 1989 or somewhere in there — of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly and the case brought against Speaker Donahoe by the New Brunswick Broadcasting Corporation. I assume that you read the case.
Mr. Spano: Yes, I did.
Senator Cools: The case is well known to some of us, but my recollection is that the issues there were not so much the assembly wanting to broadcast its own proceedings, but rather that a commercial media unit wanted to be able to broadcast them.
There is a lot in the case that is relevant and important. However, I do not find that case too relevant, as stated here. Maybe I am wrong; I have not looked at the case for a couple of years now. However, I assure you that I studied this case well at some point in time. The problem was that the New Brunswick Broadcasting Corporation was seeking, as a commercial unit, to have access. If you recall, that incident coincided with the fact that press here in Ottawa were trying to obtain access to the Senate's Internal Economy confidential meetings.
There was a huge context around this case that should be known and understood when we look at the positions. Anyway, can you tell the committee what the real issues were in Donahoe? He is a nice fellow, by the way.
Mr. Spano: Yes, I am happy to do that.
The Chair: He was my former roommate.
Senator Cools: He went to the U.K., remember, to work for the commonwealth.
Senator Duffy: His father was a senator.
Senator Cools: Yes, he was.
We could bring him as a witness, maybe.
Mr. Spano: I went back to the Supreme Court case when I updated this part of the paper. The essential issue and controversy was control: Who is able to control access? In particular, could the media freely roam around the gallery and take random images of the members of the Legislative Assembly. As I recall, by the time the case made it to the Supreme Court, there was no dispute about televising the proceedings in the Nova Scotia legislature.
As I understood that point, it was generally agreed that proceedings should be televised. The question was whether the house itself should control the televising or whether the media could bring their portable cameras into the gallery and take random shots.
That point was the only one that went to the Supreme Court, and the court essentially ruled in the legislature's favour. The case is a leading case on the meaning of the scope of parliamentary privilege, and also on the point that it effectively trumps the media's section 2(b) rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the freedom of the media.
I think the important lesson there is that legislatures are free and parliaments are free to control the proceedings and media access to their proceedings. That is the one lesson we take from that case.
Senator Cools: I thank you for that explanation; often when people talk about this case, that fact is overlooked. The court upheld the exclusive rights of a house to its own proceedings and to the publication thereof, which is a long and well-fought fight, supported by many significant cases.
The issue is there. What is before us is whether we want to go down the road, but it is clear that the court upheld every parliament's and legislature's rights — there is a difference between a legislature and a house of parliament — to control its own proceedings and publications. Thank you very much for that point.
Colleagues, sometime perhaps as we proceed, we can also look at the sister case to that one because the two proceeded — maybe Senator Duffy will remember — roughly in parallel. I do not remember the name of the journalist, but the case was a major one here for us at the time.
I think it was that Southam Press, The Ottawa Citizen, was trying to gain admission to meetings, especially in- camera meetings, of Internal Economy. I should look that case up. We should understand what happened. The first level of that case was rough on our law clerk. We should take a look at the case.
Perhaps, Mr. Spano, you can pull up that case. I have a copy of it somewhere. It is important because it all came out of a particular bad incident that happened with Internal Economy. Perhaps you could take a look at that case.
Mr. Spano: I will be happy to.
Senator Cools: We can see how the courts approached this phenomenon of exclusiveness and also how the two courts, Nova Scotia and here, proceeded on different premises. We all ended up at the same place; they all came together at the end, but it will be most interesting reading.
Mr. Spano: Are you referring to the Vaid case?
Senator Cools: No, the Vaid case is recent. This case took place in 1989 or 1990. The name eludes me, but I think it is Southam Press versus — it must be the Senate. However, there is a lot in that case about what a committee can and cannot do and so on. One of the judges was rough on the Senate.
I may have the judgment close at hand with the relevant passages underlined. I tend to do that.
The Chair: Honourable senators, if there are no further questions arising from the report from Mr. Spano, perhaps we can end the committee report.
Senator Joyal: Before the committee adjourns, I bring to the attention of the members of the committee two articles that have been published in The New York Times Magazine, one on November 15, less than a week ago, and the other on June 21. The articles are about the future of television versus the World Wide Web, and how the web will use television to reorganize what the television programs put forward online and how broadband will change completely our use of television.
It will useful for us to see what the next generation use of the web will be. If we are to put together a system, I think our system should be state of the art and take into account the kind of developments that will take place.
The Chair: That is an excellent point.
Senator Joyal: Perhaps, Mr. Chair, you can ensure it is circulated among the members.
The Chair: If you leave it with the clerk, we will circulate it to all members. Thank you very much. That is an excellent point.
If there are no further points, perhaps we can adjourn this committee.
Senator Cools: Can we perhaps talk about future witnesses on this issue?
The Chair: The steering committee will do that.
Senator Cools: The steering committee should take names.
The Chair: We have heard the names suggested today.
Senator Cools: Two names have come forward in the last two weeks. Maybe we could look at them. Does the steering committee bring its reports to the committee? They should.
The Chair: This morning, I gave a detailed review for all committee members on everything that has happened with the ad hoc committee, with the steering committee. I thought I gave a comprehensive overview so that this committee is aware of everything that has gone on.
Senator Cools: I was thinking that more than being aware, the larger committee should vote on the decisions of the steering committee, if required — when they so require and so ask. I put that comment out. That is how it should be.
Senator Duffy: Mr. Chair, I wonder if members of the committee are aware of the range and breadth of C-SPAN activities in the United States. We heard about it in our report today, but their activities are remarkable. I wonder, for members who have perhaps been able to view only a little bit here and there, if it might be of interest to members of the committee to see if we can obtain perhaps a DVD from C-SPAN showing some of the highlights of what they do, because it is remarkable and interesting and seems to have been done in a non-partisan way.
It might provide comfort or reassurance and perhaps a bit of a model as to how — if we proceed, and we have not taken that decision — it would look or the kinds of things that have been achieved in the past. It is civil and moderate, some would say boring, but what they do is good.
The Chair: This meeting is now adjourned, but I ask all members of the working group on the revision of the rules to stay so we can continue our deliberation.
(The committee adjourned.)