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.