Thank you, Monsieur Guimond.
Are there any other comments, guidance, or questions?
Seeing none, I would suggest what Monsieur Guimond has mentioned and Mr. Lukiwski had started off with. We have a road before us where I think perhaps Mr. Walsh should be called, since he really would be part of making this more legal.
Regarding the Standing Orders piece, we already have the Standing Orders against radio and television broadcasting. I think, Monsieur Guimond, you mentioned that if we simply bring in webcasting or any other electronic medium with it, we would probably cover ourselves if that were the case. But let's get that advice from Mr. Walsh also. If you see the letter, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting simply thumbed their nose at us and said, show us your rules that say we can't do this. Well, we can't show them the rules, because it doesn't cover webcasting. So I think you've said that right.
I believe the clerk should probably also attend with Mr. Walsh from a procedural point of view as to how the House works on that point of view. It's up to the committee to decide whether that would be the case.
There is the one sentence at the bottom there. Where does this fall? Does it fall under the Board of Internal Economy or under Procedure and House Affairs? I think we'll proceed as if it falls under us, unless Mr. Walsh or the Speaker says it doesn't. But I think in this case we're talking more about perhaps the copyright piece falling under the Board of Internal Economy, but the rules of broadcasting in the House, we know, do fall under this committee.
So I've suggested Mr. Walsh and the clerk. Does anyone have any other proposed witnesses, or would you like some time with which to get those back to us? It looks as though this meeting wouldn't take place until February 26.
Monsieur Godin.