Statement made on 26 February 2009 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Hon. Grant Mitchell:
Honourable senators, this motion is enlightened and inspired. It was presented by Senator Segal. Its basic premise is to bring the Senate more into the 21st century. I know that there are tremendous traditions here and, to some extent, a concern among some of us with the impact of television audio-visual feeds. I would argue a podcast might be a place to start. That would mean the audio-visual would go straight to a person's computer.
All of those options are possible. I believe there are strong reasons why we need to do this. I would also like to spend a couple moments dealing with some of the objections that have been raised in this debate.
The most often-quoted objection, at least in my opinion, is that the behaviour in this chamber will change and change for the worst because senators will be playing to the cameras. I think we have some precedent in televising committees. I would argue that that has not changed senators' behaviour for the worst at all. In fact, we have all spoken to witnesses who have presented before the House of Commons and Senate committees, and they tell us that their experience before Senate committees is much more substantive and professional. It is a tribute to the Senate when these kinds of things are said; it is a tribute to the Senate that these committee proceedings have not been thwarted or inhibited because they have been televised.
People will also say that televising the committees is good enough because everyone can see the great work we are doing. However, the difficulty with that is that in committee we only allowed, more or less, to ask questions. We will have a short preamble. Each committee chair that I have ever seen wants to keep those preambles short. In the Senate chamber, senators make some world class speeches and make arguments about issues often not discussed in the House of Commons. Their political framework often drives them in such a focused way to issues that have much more electoral advantage. Senators deal with issues that would not necessarily appeal to politicians worried about an election every two months these days or every year or two.
I am reminded of Senator Fairbairn's tremendous work over the years on literacy; Senator Carstairs' work on palliative care; former Senator Kirby's work on mental health; and Senator Pépin's work to establish family support centres on army bases to aid families of soldiers deployed around the world who simply do not have the money to afford computers to communicate with their family member stationed away. These issues, among others, are ones for which Canadians do not have the benefit of debate in this remarkable place.
Some of the senators who stand up in this house have given world class speeches. If Canadians were to see these speeches being delivered, they could no longer accept the conventional wisdom outside these doors, perpetrated by certain people and members of the press, that this place is not worthy of respect and that the Senate and the people in it do not contribute to public policy debate and to making this country better. If we could televise such speeches and debate, we would absolutely communicate those messages.
To those who believe that it would make our behaviour worse, I say if we are worried about our behaviour being bad, then we had better fix it because no one is making us misbehave except ourselves. If for one moment we thought we would misbehave, maybe we would look up to the cameras and think there are impressionable people watching.
Senator Mercer: I have not misbehaved.
Senator Mitchell: Senator Mercer has not misbehaved, absolutely not. He has simply spoken from his heart, every time. People should see that kind of intensity and they would understand.
It reminds me of a statement someone made the other day. He said, ''People will not care about you until they know what you care about.'' They do not know what we care about because no one gets to see us. Some senators give speeches and some speak to schools. I am sure many give more speeches than others. However, if one were to add up the number of people who hear a senator speak to an issue or who see the work senators do, that number would be minimal.
Someone also said to me recently that televising Senate sittings would ruin this place. I say, ''What is the point of being perfect if nobody sees it? Yes, we can be perfect, but we are perfect in isolation. If we get a little less perfect — I do not think we would — it would be worth the risk.
The idea of empty seats is also raised. We have a far better attendance in our house than the House of Commons. I have watched the House of Commons sometimes when there has been as few — I swear — as two MPs. What do they do generally? They allow MPs to sit behind or around the person who is speaking. If we are concerned about that, we simply get the camera to come in close, which would solve the problem.
Senator Munson: Bring it on.
Senator Mitchell: There is not a senator in this house who does not believe in open and transparent government. How many times have we heard that ''our party will provide more open government, our party will provide more accountable government and we will be transparent''?
This is the 21st century, honourable senators. How could one possibly argue that we are being transparent — that we have put our money where our mouths are — if people cannot use this digital world to see us?
Moreover, if I live in Ottawa, I have a special privilege because I could, if I wanted, come here every day and see these proceedings. If I live in Edmonton, what am I to do? Am I to spend $3,000 to come here and watch the Senate once a year?
No, it is not fair. Everyone in this country, in this day and age of electronic access and technology, has a right to equal access to the proceedings of this Senate. They pay for it and depend upon it, and we can fashion the future in many respects of their lives.
Honourable senator, I want to emphasize the point that we receive a bad rap. We are criticized unduly, and there is almost no way we can fight back and demonstrate how that criticism is fundamentally wrong.
The people in this Senate are outstanding, by and large. In the history of this Senate, there have been leaders who are above and beyond what people would expect of their political leaders.
The proceedings in this house is elevated above and beyond what people believe and understand of their politics and their political process. If Canadians could see it, not only would they feel better about the Senate, but I believe they would feel better about the political process, better about their democracy and better about these wonderful, remarkable, beautiful institutions.
Honourable senators, this is the 21st century. Each one of us accepts that Hansard should be printed and put in libraries where people can access it. However, do you know that one cannot even search the paper Hansard on our website? That is 1978 technology, and we have not even gotten around to a search. However, we should take it much further. Think of this not as something new but as an evolution to the 21st century of an electronic — a digital — Hansard. We could search it and people could take their clips out of it and send it across the country. People would begin to understand that this is literally one of the best institutions and forms of government on the face of the earth.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Mitchell: It should have been on television.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will Senator Mitchell entertain a question?
Senator Mitchell: Yes.
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Senator Mitchell, about seven months ago, I was invited to present a brief to the foreign affairs and external affairs committees of South Africa, after which I met with the minister and the president.
When I visited their institutions, what struck me was that all the debates were available electronically. Each senator and member had a screen on his or her desk. The whole procedure was incredibly transparent and easy to follow. Their democratic institutions are being revolutionized. It has been scarcely 15 years since they took this new direction, and they believe that this technology is a good thing for the country.
In the event this motion should be adopted and we can have the necessary equipment to broadcast the debates in this chamber, instead of giving the responsibility to an archaic institution like CPAC, the Senate could go its own way, and we could view the debates in real time.
Senator Mitchell: Honourable senators, I thank Senator Dallaire. I agree with his comment. It is true that many countries have recognized the importance of using electronic equipment in the conduct of their parliamentary affairs.
I wish to respond to several points the honourable senator made. First, he did not actually say this, but I was reminded that we all worry about youth involvement in politics. How many times have we said that we must get youth out to vote and that they have not participated or engaged? Youth are the future; they have a huge stake in the future.
I have sons who are under 25. They do not have televisions. They can hardly imagine reading a book in print. They do not research in libraries using paper. They communicate through the Internet.
This brings me to the honourable senator's point. Yes, we could have a continual stream. Our proceedings do not have to be on CPAC because that has its limitations. We might not even be able to get a channel.
In fact, as an initial step, and probably an adequate step, our proceedings could be streamed to people's computers and they would be more than happy to be able to watch that. I would bet that 100 per cent of the young people in this country who are not in poverty would be drawn to that because of the power of what goes on in this chamber.
There is much evidence in the world illustrating where people are ahead of us and where we need to catch up. We are a modern society. I congratulate whoever made the decision that we are now allowed to bring our laptops into the chamber. This is the first faltering step into the 21st century. This is evidence of across-the-aisle, as it were, non-partisan cooperation. There is a Conservative and a Liberal who have a laptop.
Please click here to read the full text of the Senator's speech