[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Friday, June 2, 1995
.1218 
[Translation]
The Chair: Order, please. It's a pleasure for us to welcome today the representatives of the Canadian Press.
The committee's mandate is to examine how we could improve the communication network of the various parliamentary committees and how, in cooperation with the Canadian Press, we could both reach these objectives.
Some time ago, we requested the Canadian Press to prepare a submission. We're also aware of the election of a new executive, etc.
Today, we have with us Cristin Schmitz, Joël-Denis Bellavance, Gord McIntosh and Dave Mathews.
[English]
Cristin, the floor is yours.
Ms Cristin Schmitz (President, Parliamentary Press Gallery): Thank you very much. We've brought some other people with us as resource people. They are Terry Guillon, the chief of the press gallery, and Ken MacDonald, bureau chief of Global TV.
I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for hearing us today and for its patience while the press gallery drafted its submission on the subject of expanded TV coverage of House of Commons committees.
It is the gallery's understanding that as a result of a June 1994 meeting between this committee and members of last year's press gallery executive, there was a preliminary agreement in principle that television access to the coverage of House of Commons committees should be expanded.
.1220
I will now turn the floor over to Gord McIntosh, chair of our subcommittee on television coverage, to tell you of our specific proposals on how this can best be accomplished to meet the needs of both members of Parliament and gallery members.
Mr. McIntosh.
Mr. Gord McIntosh (Director, Parliamentary Press Gallery): Thank you, Cristin.
For more than 30 years, electronic members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery have requested equal and fair access to the committee proceedings of the House of Commons.
Two years ago, parliamentarians granted that access to radio reporters and it has proved to be a success. Recently that access has been expanded to television, but only at specific sites and only at times when members believed there was sufficient public interest.
The gallery believes this is an excellent time to extend television coverage to all committees. The gallery's position has been and continues to be that cameras and microphones are no less important to broadcast journalists than pen and paper are to a print journalist. Yet more than half of our members continue to be treated as second-class citizens with limitations on where and when they can use their tools of the trade.
Cameras are restricted to specific hallways and rooms of Parliament Hill. Furthermore, when access is granted, cameras are often limited to certain positions and their movements are restricted. We think these limitations fly in the face of Parliament's open access policy and commitment to improving public accountability.
Public opinion surveys have continually shown that more than 70% of Canadians currently depend on television as a primary source of daily news. We welcome this committee's open approach to covering committee proceedings for several reasons.
First, it offers more than 250 of our members greater access and more opportunity to cover what they decide to be news. Others simply want the right to telecast the proceedings of the day.
Second, it recognizes the importance of Canada's parliamentary committee process as an important but little known part of the legislative process. Opening the window on what happens in committees opens up the democratic process.
Third, it benefits all politicians. The hard work of politicians, both government back-benchers and opposition critics, is often overshadowed by the din of daily Question Period and the profile of leaders and cabinet ministers. Opening up the committees will increase coverage and ultimately allow parliamentarians more opportunity to show their constituents what they do in Ottawa.
Before getting into specifics, it may be helpful for committee members to know a little history. In 1959, House of Commons Speaker Roland Michener granted two electronic journalists, Tom Earle and Sam Ross, permission to sit in the House of Commons' diplomatic gallery and take notes of the proceedings. Nearly two years later, the Parliamentary Press Gallery formally changed its constitution to grant those two and others involved in television news full membership.
With the growth of television, new rules were adapted to allow electronic journalists the freedom to do their jobs while maintaining the decorum and privileges of members of Parliament. Today, more than three decades after Mr. Michener allowed broadcast reporters into the House of Commons, they are still limited in what they cover despite a 1989 parliamentary resolution authorizing broadcast of committee proceedings.
That resolution reads:
- That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the
proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the
publication of the printed official reports of debates.
First, there should be no discrimination between electronic and print members of the gallery in carrying out professional duties.
Second, the House should immediately permit all gallery members to cover the public business of Parliament in an orderly and equitable fashion.
Gallery members are prepared to cover committees in the following fashion. First of all, there would be fixed camera positions while committees are in session. Free roving cameras would continue for pre-gavel photo ops and cut-away shots only. Also, existing room light whenever applicable would be used, as would existing committee sound systems, with respect certainly for the spirit of electronic Hansard. There would be pooling when and where space limitations dictate.
These criteria will ensure unrestricted coverage for the media while respecting committee decorum and will open up the process without any additional costs to the House of Commons. Gallery members will be free to use the recorded material as they see fit, as part of a daily newscast or gavel to gavel.
.1225
It would be helpful for both the gallery and the House if one person or office were designated to facilitate committee coverage. The speaker's information office, in cooperation with gallery staff, might be best suited to coordinate the coverage of coming proceedings on a weekly basis.
The best way for this group to make informed decisions might be for the House to circulate to gallery members a preliminary schedule of committee sittings several days in advance. Interested electronic media organizations could then let gallery staff know if they intended coverage. This would give everyone a pretty good indication of interest in specific sittings.
Giving outlets advance notice allows them, and not politicians, to decide what is news and whether they want to cover it. Given that some sites are restricted for space, if several organizations express an interest in covering a specific committee, the organizational committee would have time to move the meeting to a larger venue or to coordinate a pool camera. If pool coverage is required, all outlets should have access to the live feed without additional cost. No preferential locations should be given to any one outlet.
However, this criterion should not be used to limit access to meetings by anyone. If a pool situation has not been arranged, any organization should be allowed into the meeting providing they operate within the guidelines as listed above.
It's worth noting that in the United States congressional committees have been open to radio and television for many years. All committees are open, with rare exception. The most common exception is when privileged or intelligence information is being discussed. Audio and video feeds of committee hearings are arranged by a radio-TV gallery. When mass coverage is predicted, the gallery's responsible for arranging pool coverage.
In summary, the inclusion of television in committee rooms is long overdue. The gallery welcomes this committee's preliminary indication that it was in favour of doing just that. Public interest in the parliamentary process has never been greater.
The Chair: I'm known to be a little camera shy. Could you explain to me what you mean in 2(a) about cut-away shots only? In practical terms, what is that?
Mr. Dave Mathews (Parliamentary Press Gallery): Usually what happens for committees is that before the committee starts, cameras come in and do shots of people sitting down, taking their coffee, etc. These are called cut-away shots. Usually we do that before the committee starts. We rarely have access when it rises.
It would be fixed cameras, which would not roam. Usually what we do in a room like this is have one in each corner to cover off the whole room, and they're fixed, they don't move. They get the whole committee.
The problem with putting in one camera is often you get the person asking the question...or the answer, but not both. There would be fixed positions. Usually there are four corners, and that is how many cameras you can get in the room.
It's a debate, back and forth. It could be people listening or jumping in. Cut-aways are also a wide shot of the room, etc.
The Chair: I know that press gallery members, in order for regional and local media to have access to Canadian Press publications, need to pay a certain membership fee. Would the same be applicable to the local and community-based TV station for your filming of the committee works? Would they have to pay a certain membership fee to Canadian Press to have access to it?
Ms Schmitz: No, no fees would be involved. Gallery members would cooperate on this. All they do is pay a fee to be a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, which is now $100 per year. This is not a profit-making enterprise for the press gallery.
The Chair: So the local and regional and community TV could have access by inquiring -
.1230
Mr. McIntosh: - through the gallery, yes.
Mr. Mathews: It's more of a technical thing. How we provide them technically with a feed of it is more the problem than anything else. The networks are wired between themselves and can exchange material very easily. But if, say, Rogers Cable called up and wanted it, or if the community network in Hull wanted it, how would they get it? That's the bigger problem there. It's not a question of not giving it out. It's just not easy technically.
Mr. Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): First of all, thank you for the presentation. I think it makes a lot of sense. I don't know why we're not doing it because I don't see any big problem here whatsoever.
By the way, Madam Chair, they've had cut-aways for a long time because they've had pre-gavel opportunities to take shots of committee getting ready for their sessions. They're used for voice-overs, of course. They have to have something on the screen when the announcer or reporter is speaking, so that's what the cut-aways are for.
Secondly, the only thing I would add to your presentation, Gord, would be one observation and perhaps one question.
As a committee chair, I would want to make sure that I had the final say if I were lucky enough or unlucky enough to have cameras come to my committee. If there was some kind of intrusion, I could at least throw out the offenders. I think that would happen maybe once every five years. The chairman should have the ultimate control, but I wouldn't foresee any problem.
The other thing is that I have a question. At the bottom of page 2, you're suggesting that there be some kind of coordination between the media, the press gallery, and the House of Commons in order to get a handle on when committees are going to be meeting and so on.
Why are you suggesting that in connection with this proposal? Do you not know when committees are meeting now? Surely you're in a position to decide, without your camera, whether you ought to come to a committee to cover it or whether you should just stay away. If we were to follow your proposal, which I support, why would you need any further coordination?
Mr. McIntosh: Well, let's say it was a question of a committee being in either this room or the Railway Committee Room. If a lot people wanted to cover the proceedings with a camera, I think it would be best for everybody that it be in the larger committee room if possible. In this room things might be a little cramped if you had fixed cameras. Some committee rooms lend themselves better to television coverage than others, but there are only so many of those to go around.
Mr. Harvard: How much demand would you have before a decision would be made to move, say, from this committee room over to the Railway Committee Room? Are we talking about a demand of two media outlets or ten? When do you think we should move the venue?
Mr. McIntosh: I guess it's a matter of judgment, depending upon what the options are. I would say that if this committee room was down for a particular meeting two - or even one - demands would warrant finding a larger room, perhaps swapping with another committee or something if necessary.
Mr. Mathews: I would just add that the idea of trying to have coordination is also to get it earlier. The earlier we know not only that the committee is sitting but who's appearing in front of the committee, the earlier the networks and the gallery can get together and ask whether we are interested. If all six or seven are interested, there would surely be some pressure. We'd be able to ask you if you could please move.
There is already one room that has cameras, but at this point we don't decide what's in there. It has been good so far because the gun control committee has been there and most people have been happy. But I guess we would just like to have a bit more say.
Mr. Harvard: Right. Would you agree that this is largely housekeeping? We could go ahead and try to work this out, and if there were some bugs I'm sure -
Mr. Mathews: Sure. If we go back in history a bit, we've done committees in other rooms. As you probably know, when Mr. Lewis appeared in front of the security committee they opened it to us and we did it, as we say, as a little pool situation. The networks got together and put in two cameras and we covered it all.
Mr. Harvard: Sure.
.1235
Mr. Mathews: We've done that already. It's just that each time we have to ask to see if it can get passed by the House.
Mr. Harvard: Well, Madam Chair, I don't see many problems. I really think we should move with all speed toward something like this.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso): I have a couple of questions.
First of all, would the fixed camera positions be such that you'd set your camera up here and there, or would they be fixed camera positions establishing where the camera would be located in the committee? How would that work technically?
Mr. Mathews: Usually, we stake out the room.
Mr. LeBlanc: Would you determine your fixed camera position?
Mr. Mathews: We usually do, but usually either the clerk or some people from the committee have been there when we've done this before. In this room, you don't have a choice. You could probably fit one there. That's very hard to fit. This is very hard. It's sort of a give and take, but if you are in a pool in a room then you need two positions.
Mr. LeBlanc: I just want to make sure you understand my question.
Mr. Mathews: Who decides?
Mr. LeBlanc: Well, are these camera positions going to be fixed camera positions? Are they going to be established, like the cameras in 253-D are established, or do you just walk in and say, we think this committee is one we're going to cover with cameras so we'll fix our camera position but won't move them during the committee? Will where they are depend on who's in the audience and what the best angles are?
Mr. Mathews: In 253-D, they're up on the....
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, I know. But we're not talking about a set position where the camera will always be, are we?
Mr. Mathews: No, I don't think so. Not for each room. It really depends on who's up. It's usually discussed with the people. It's also a question of how many cameras show up.
If it's very hot, the people in the gallery don't want to send six cameras. We'd prefer to send two, pool it, and have it all cut and fed back. Everybody's happy and gets it live or straight to their offices.
Mr. LeBlanc: That's my next question. Pooling would be something that you would decide to do according to what works best technically top broadcast.
Mr. Mathews: Yes. We're not interested in each having each network send a camera at one point. It's just useless. Six cameras in here wouldn't be worth anything.
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, of course.
Mr. Mathews: The best job is done with two cameras. If we get a little place where we can cut it - usually in the corridor - and we feed it back out, that's easiest for everybody. There's no tape to exchange. There's nothing. It just goes back and everybody gets it, and our job is over once the committee is over. But we ideally like to do two cameras and we try to pool between networks.
Mr. LeBlanc: Sure. That's not our decision or concern.
Mr. Mathews: No.
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm with John on this. Let's go ahead. We should allow electronic media in. However, I can see some possible concerns that might arise in situations in which certain members of the committee don't want a lot of coverage but the media want to cover it. So there would be a conflict between whether the committee.... In the extreme, we're talking about either public hearings or in-camera hearings, which are decided on by the chair or the by committee itself. But they could choose a room in order to deny a lot of media access to that room, which can be done now.
This gets to the issue of whether or not you can, for example, express your interest to the chair about whether or not we sit in 253-D, or a big committee room as opposed to a small committee room. For example, we may be studying what we think is a rather innocuous subject, but somebody who thinks it's pretty hot stuff may get wind of it. If we were meeting in 306, you could call the chair to ask whether we could move to 371. The chair will say, wait a minute, am I going to be the subject or is somebody else going to be the subject? Do we move to 371 or not?
I'm just describing some scenarios here.
Mr. Mathews: My point -
Mr. Harvard: Could I just jump in here for a moment? My understanding, Francis, is that if we were to go forward with something like this, it would be an agreement between the gallery and the House of Commons. A committee, or all the committees, would lose a lot of sovereignty on this particular issue. One or two members couldn't object and put a stop to it no more than... I haven't canvassed every MP in the House of Commons, but who knows? There may be a few dinosaur MPs out there who don't believe in having Question Period televised. There's not a damn thing they can do about it, and they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about this if we were to reach this agreement.
.1240
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm not disagreeing with that; I'm just exploring the issue of the different sizes of committee rooms and -
Mr. Mathews: To me it's not an issue. I think we're asking you to open up to committees; we're not saying move to a room so we can cover you. If it makes it easier for the committee to be in a bigger room, that's great, but if it doesn't, I think we can show up and do what we can. The point isn't that we won't cover it just because it's a tiny room. Wherever we happen to be you can arrange to cover if you choose you want to cover. Basically all we want to know is where we're going to be. If we can arrange a bigger room that's fantastic.
The idea here is that we're not allowed. Print is allowed, radio is allowed and it gets all the audio material it wants, but we have no access whatever happens, except for audiotape, which is useless for us in television. We are second-class citizens and have been for a long time.
Mr. LeBlanc: Agreed.
Ms Schmitz: We want access for television on the same basis as there is for print and radio. That's the bottom line.
Mr. Mathews: A member can't say ``I don't want radio here today'', so it's the same point.
The Chair: I think in every committee room however small - and I think this is one of the smallest - if we agree to a limit of two cameras within a committee room, this room would still -
Mr. Mathews: Sure. We use electronic ENG cameras. They are small cameras with little tripods. We can use the lighting that's in every room; we don't need to add lighting anywhere.
Mr. Harvard: We could facilitate. For example, this current configuration of the desk is sort of biased toward that end. If you wanted another three or four feet we could move the -
The Chair: I think you can get this started. We'll probably find some bugs along the way and be able to discuss and resolve those issues.
Mr. Harvard: Maybe the clerk can answer something.
What does it take to make this happen?
The Clerk of the Committee: It would require an amendment to the Standing Orders, and that would have to come from Procedure and House Affairs.
Mr. Harvard: Who is the chairman of that?
The Clerk: It's Mr. Milliken. It has a mandate in the Standing Orders with regard to amending the Standing Orders, as well as a specific mandate with regard to television coverage. It's written right into the Standing Orders.
Mr. Harvard: Those Standing Orders aren't debated in the House, are they? Does this come out of the Board of Internal Economy, or is it something between the leaders?
The Clerk: No, originally the Standing Orders as they're now written on television coverage were the product of a report on television access to committees that took place in the old House Management Committee in the previous Parliament. It was written into the Standing Orders as a mandate to that committee to write a set of rules that would indeed permit access into the gallery. The committee sat down to write this set of rules and instead decided it didn't think access was a good idea and left it at that.
Mr. Harvard: What does it take to authorize something going into the Standing Orders?
The Clerk: It would be a House leader's negotiations or a unanimous consent to a report from Procedure and House Affairs.
The Chair: Our mandate is to report to the Liaison Committee before the end of June. There's going to be Liaison Committee meeting and we will report to it on this issue and have a very strong recommendation. From what I gather there's unanimous consent around this table.
Ms Schmitz: To television coverage?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Schmitz: On the same basis as print and radio?
Mr. Harvard: I would say so.
The Chair: Could we have someone move the adoption and favourable recommendation to the Liaison Committee?
.1245
Mr. Harvard: We recommend very strongly to the full Liaison Committee that this report, in the main, anyway - there may be a couple of details that we can negotiate - be supported and approved by this subcommittee.
The Chair: Okay. So we have a full-fledged recommendation, and we'll be going to the Liaison Committee at their next meeting. Thank you very, very much.
Ms Schmitz: Thank you very, very much.
The Chair: The committee is adjourned.