Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll briefly provide some background to the committee and then leave the rest of the time for questions from members.
Since 1993 a series of statements was included in several House of Commons publications to indicate the manner of reproduction permitted for the particular record to which it was attached. It is sometimes referred to as the “Speaker's licence”. The licence in each case is specific to the kind of record to which it is attached.
There are currently three variations of the licence in use by the House. I have copies for members, if they would like to see them, of three generic licences...or not-so-generic licences currently used by the House.
On behalf of the Speaker, the Office of the Law Clerk deals with requests for permission to reproduce, for commercial or other purposes, recordings of House proceedings and other documents for which the House holds the copyright. These requests are made by private individuals and organizations. They are sent to us by the Crown Copyright and Licensing section, by the Library of Parliament, by committees and by other areas of House administration. Requests for use in documentaries, manuals and so on are usually granted.
Most requests are authorized without cost, but some examples of requests that may be denied are uses that would commercialize the proceedings, ridicule the proceedings, or enter the proceedings in evidence in court.
In considering such requests, reproductions of the records of the proceedings that are intended solely for dissemination on the Internet are also generally not authorized by my office, since, one, they may not facilitate the Speaker's control over the material, and two, they are not consistent with the limits to broadcast set out in the Speaker's licence, which limits broadcasting to CRTC-licensed broadcasters for news and current affairs programming.
Since the eventual encrypted webcasting by the House was anticipated and is now available, it was anticipated that this would ensure that the House maintained control over the integrity of the proceedings and would permit users to link to the official version of the proceedings available in both official languages.
The kinds of uses for which permission might be denied, such as for political or campaign purposes, for satire or ridicule, or for commercial purposes, follow the guidelines proposed to control broadcasting when the possibility of broadcasting proceedings was studied in 1972. These uses also match what is done in other legislative assemblies in the Commonwealth.
Beyond this, I am prepared to discuss what the options are to the House relative to going forward in respect to webcasting versus the rather antiquated technology of television. But I will stop here and respond to members' questions as they come forward.