What restrictions you do or do not want to include, of course, is obviously a decision for the committee to make. It's not a choice that I should make. But there are issues that go with the choice you make. The general notice that has been handed out is my attempt to draft a notice applying to all of the reproductions that may go out. Right now we have three—which I think have also gone out to you. There's one that's used for broadcasting; there's one that's used for minutes and evidence of committees; and another for journals, which you get copies of.
Well, we're attempting to do something that would apply to all of them. And if I may say this, what is fundamental here is that you have to ask yourself where you want to be on the range. The Americans put it all out in the public domain, which means you can do anything you want with it. You can turn a member of Parliament into a talking kangaroo, whatever. You can do what you want with it.
The other extreme, of course, is to impose all kinds of limitations, preventing those sorts of absurdities, certainly, but also preventing other misuses, including commercial ones. Then the question becomes, how do you enforce that? Now, in this general notice I provided to you, you'll see in the second paragraph an italicized sentence. That's there simply to suggest a catalogue or listing of the various exclusions, some or all, or none, of which you might apply.
And I know, Ms. Jennings, you've pointed out that other jurisdictions include a restriction on the use of the material for political purposes. I just raise one question with you. It seems to me that this fundamental restriction that exists elsewhere ought to be thought about again, as if for the first time. In other words, in an institution like the House of Commons, where members are debating political issues, or debating them at committee, it would seem difficult to me to justify those debates not being used for political purposes. It's like taking an academic's lecture and saying you can record it, but you can't use it for educational purposes.
So that's a question that I think the committee ought to ask itself. Having said that, that's not necessarily to say it can be used for any political purposes. But in terms of electoral purposes, that's the issue for the committee. There was an incident—I can't remember in which election, but it might have been in 2006 or 2004—where there was a very short clip taken from a committee of a witness, a former minister, saying “I'm entitled to my entitlements”. You may recall that, and it was the gist of an ad. Clearly, there was a partisan purpose put to that, but you must ask if that was a misuse of what the witness said. The witness did say it.
These are the kinds of questions that the committee has to ask itself, because how do you control that happening? There wasn't anything that could be done about it. The electoral officer controls elections. Yes, the House of Commons could have launched into a series of processes leading to contempt, or whatever, but these are all very cumbersome, and even copyright action is cumbersome.
So I think at a practical level, you have to ask yourself to what extent you can insist that this material not be used for political purposes and still enforce it. Commercial gain and these other ones are the easier ones, if you want to include them. But that general notice is meant to indicate in the italicized portion that you could either take that sentence out altogether, or you could include it in some variation, selecting from those exclusions the ones you want to apply. But ask yourself the question of enforcement.