Evidence of meeting #6 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proceedings.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In the context of a partisan political purpose.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Or you can limit it to an election campaign. That's fairly clear. But the problem remains, a weekend before election day it happens, it isn't broadcast again because the election has come and gone, and as a practical matter—and admittedly, I'm talking from the point of view of how you enforce these things—I'm left with asking what you are going to do, particularly when the member attacked got re-elected. Where are the damages? If he wasn't re-elected, can you attribute the loss of the election to that particular video, or might there be other...? It would be a very difficult thing to establish. In terms of the civil law process, you've got to show the offence was defamatory and so on.
Everybody here probably agrees with your concerns, but it's very difficult to enforce, I would think.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I think that, yes, it would be difficult to enforce possibly in a timely manner, but my sense is that you could have a hundred cases or a thousand cases, but if one comes to your attention, and an action is taken, you can bet it would be widely publicized. So then it becomes part of common knowledge of ordinary individuals that there are certain things you can't do, and that would, in itself, cause self-policing on the part of individuals.
11:55 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Typically, those examples that are taken up and prosecuted successfully are successful because they're rather extreme examples. And then there's a myriad of others who might think they're still okay because they're not going so far.
But I take your point, yes, one successful prosecution could well have a dampening effect on others.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I'm sure that people have heard about the case in Ontario about that MP candidate, and I'll bet you anything that political parties in another election will be telling their candidates this is something you can't do, because the political parties themselves would take on that responsibility and send out the message and the education, at least to their own people and their candidates.
Right. Thanks.
February 26th, 2009 / noon
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the more we discuss this issue, the more complex it appears to all of us. I think we can all agree that we should not allow, or at least encourage, distortion of the message. But when it comes to identifying satire or ridicule, those are pretty subjective terms. I just wonder how we could possibly even agree on where the boundaries are.
But extending it to electoral or partisan purposes, I would question how we could possibly do our jobs well, in terms of contrasting certain political stances of a party with our opposition when it comes to a specific issue. And especially you've identified here in this other note you're not only talking about web, you're talking about journals, minutes of meetings, as well as broadcast. I think you'd virtually eliminate our ability to contrast our position with that of the opposition, or vice versa.
So I'm just wondering how we could possibly live with a statement that's as all-inclusive as the one that's in it. I realize it's a discussion starting point, but I would think it goes to the point of eliminating our ability to contrast our positions with those on the other side.
Noon
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that observation of the member. It is difficult.
I think I'm right, Madam Clerk, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the bylaws or the manual currently allow for House resources to be used for partisan political purposes. If you were to say that reproductions of House proceedings could not be used for partisan political purposes, there's an inconsistency there. I think, again, it is partisan political material that's being recorded. Debates in the House are partisan debates. In committee, they're partisan debates--not necessarily unpleasantly so in every case, but sometimes even there.
How do you then tell members of the public who want to use this material that they can't use it for that purpose? You have, a fortiori, members of Parliament themselves wanting to use the material. The point you raised, it seems to me, is a valid concern.
Noon
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I don't have an answer; I'm just raising questions.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Reid, did you want to share the rest of Mr. Albrecht's time? There's about five minutes left on that one.
Noon
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Sure. I won't use all of that.
My objective was to provide a rejoinder to what Charlie had raised. Charlie talked a little bit about the way in which copyright can be used with an eye to respecting artists' creations.
I think there are many merits to that model for artistic creations. I would hesitate to use it for anything political, because it's pointless, just as you don't want to use something relating to an artistic creation to denigrate the artist, diminish their overall artistic production, or turn the piece of art into something that's the opposite of its intended purpose. That's one thing.
But trying to denigrate us and cause us to lose our jobs is what elections are about, right? It's about one group of people trying to take the job away from the other person, and it seems like a preferable alternative to revolutions, coups d'état, or the alternative ways we could have of changing governments.
As you can probably tell from my earlier intervention in favour of pretty wide-open use of this stuff, I think you either have to come down in favour of wide-open use for everybody or no use by anybody, including the members themselves. It actually should be fairly easy to police the members themselves, such as the use of their own video on their own website. It's just an editorial more than anything else.
Noon
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I'd be pleased to respond.
Not to make light of the comparison to artists, but there's a fundamental difference between artists and their artwork and what we're talking about here, in at least one respect. That is, art is property of another kind. It's property. The artist's interest in his or her art is as a matter of property; you can't distort it. But you can still say it's lousy art. You can still say unkind things about the artwork. You can't say defamatory things about the artist because it has nothing to do with his artwork, but you can say unkind things about the art, in terms of criticism. But you just can't change or distort it. That's a property interest.
In the same way, the House has a property interest in this debate, and you can't change or distort the recordings of the proceeding. But the other question, quite apart from that, is to what extent can that material be used for political debate, for showing the world how this speech was nonsense, or whatever the view is of the person who's choosing to show it out? That's a different issue.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
More to the point, here's the way in which I think it would be fully legitimate to use my words against me if the occasion arose.
I've run for election four times now, and, among other things, have promised to work on getting the gun registry abolished. If I were to sit up in the Commons and give a spirited defence of the firearms, the long gun registry—I don't know if our all-candidates debates have ever been televised in my riding, but probably not, being a rural area—here's Scott Reid saying that he will seek to end the long gun registry. Here's Scott Reid in the House of Commons saying that this is the best idea since sliced bread and that we've got to fight to preserve it.
Why not? It's perfectly legitimate. It's showing that I'm being a hypocrite on an issue. You could do the same thing in print form now anyway, but it's obviously a good deal more effective, and not illegitimately more effective, to juxtapose those two video clips.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Reid.
Mr. Guimond, would you have anything? No? You're okay?
Mr. Angus.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Just to clarify, the artist's right is a moral right. And I agree, we're big people, we stand up in the House and debate, and sometimes those debates are fractious. The public has a right to know. But the question I would have concerns the manipulation of our voice and our words and our work. It's an issue of parliamentary privilege, and I was using moral right in terms of the copyright of someone who can say “That isn't what I said.”
The House has to protect its members at that point from third parties or other parties cutting and splicing, because we're in a completely different realm, and seeing is believing. A video that is deliberately skewered a certain way can have 150,000 viewers in a week, and there's no putting the genie back into the bottle. So the House has an obligation. That, to me, is the issue of a moral right or a privilege.
On the other hand, obviously we are here to speak and to be heard. People watch us, and they keep a record of everything we say in the House. We know every time we stand up we are being recorded for posterity. We're all big people here, but there has to be, as with any copyright, a balancing act. So we certainly look forward to recommendations you would have on this.
12:05 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The words “reproduction is accurate” are in the general notice. That doesn't mean there is no misrepresentation. “Accurate” could mean you've left out a significant portion that would change the meaning of what you reproduce, or it could mean you've tampered with it.
My own thought is that saying the reproduction must be accurate is more than just saying you haven't actually tampered with it; you've not taken something out of the context. We would obviously make a judgment in each case, and if so instructed by the House, we would take action against persons who were reproducing the House proceedings in a manner that's not accurate.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Reid, I have you on the speakers list.
Is there anyone who has not yet had a chance who would like to ask a couple of questions? I have a couple of questions from the chair, if you wouldn't mind.
First off, Mr. Walsh, in your sample notice here—and I recognize that's what it is—you mention “standing committees” exclusively. I think we probably would need to say “committees”, as there are other committees besides standing committees. I'm just wordsmithing from that point of view.
You had mentioned something, and I had thought of it also: If this happens from a telecasting, or broadcasting, or webcasting of committees, or whatever we're going to call this, must we then be warning witnesses also that everything they say has the right to be rebroadcast?
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I wouldn't say “has the right to be rebroadcast”. What they're saying could end up being rebroadcast—
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
—perhaps without the right to do so.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Is that a pre-warning we would need to tell witnesses, and could someone refuse to be a witness because that was the case?
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
To use the analogy by Mr. Angus earlier, those in grade 4 probably will be already aware of that. But those of us who have long since passed grade 4 may need to be told that. Maybe there needs to be a caution to witnesses, but I doubt that. If we're all in the real world, we know—or most of us do—what can become of recordings of testimony.