Madam Jennings, I have to say that I realize there is a certain unease with the idea of sort of throwing open the doors in that way, but my own feeling is that I think the time has come. I think we are at a point now where the technology makes this possible and where, really, we have to remember that the basic objective of all of this broadcasting was the idea of making this work and the proceedings available.
I know that the Hansard, the gavel-to-gavel, is a concept that is very dear to members. At the same time, I think that now, given how technology has evolved, it's perfectly appropriate that the House provide the gavel-to-gavel coverage, but it is also, I think, quite sensible that people would say, for example, “Okay, we are appearing as an NGO before a committee and here is our testimony”. That's not gavel-to-gavel. It's much more restricted, perhaps, but it makes the point to their interested parties, their stakeholders.
So for the purposes of discussion, I think it's a good starting point. I would invite my colleague to comment on this, because again, looking at the notices that appear in other jurisdictions, he has prepared a draft of a notice--or we can make that available later, if you like--where such exceptions would be made, where you say, “This is available except for purposes of thus”. I think that is a protection that's quite reasonable. You keep the control in principle, but you don't put upon yourself, in a sense, the absurdity of trying to police the thing; I mean in a proactive kind of sense. Obviously, you have to be able to address specific issues if there is flagrant abuse of the thing, but otherwise I think it's one of the few occasions when I'm inclined to depend on the goodwill of the people involved.