grown up with television and take it for granted, an almost built-in inevitability of the coming of televised proceedings exists.

Members of Parliament are now quite at home with television and no longer view it as a fearful foe demanding special stilted behaviour. During the 1950s if a government leader were to participate in a television programme, he would come early and stay late with much red-carpet treatment; now this social fuss and tension is virtually non-existent. Public opinion has been slow to register on the issue. The Select Committee of the Commons in its 1966 report was moderately impressed with the evidence to that time, and felt that televised proceedings would eventually meet with favourable response. Advocates feel that a latent favourable public opinion does exist, but that the public has had little reason to give much thought to, and little opportunity to express itself explicitly on, the issue. Advocates point to the huge estimated viewing audiences of the televised State Openings of Parliament, and claim that, while a far smaller audience naturally would be interested in ordinary parliamentary proceedings, nevertheless the number would still exceed 500,000, which would still be a sizeable audience. But right up to the present writing of this article, opponents rely heavily on the argument that televising is unwise in the absence of any widespread public favour.

The feasibility of televising proceedings is enhanced, so its advocates assert, by the very fact that the electronic media are inevitably entering into more and more areas of life, and man is coming to rely more and more on them. Television and radio are increasingly the media through which people are informed of political, sporting, and cultural events. People consider what they see on television to be more authentic and more interesting than what they see in print. They have quickly budgeted their time to include many hours for the electronic media. It is asserted that a society can gain nothing by ignoring the natural evolutionary advances of processes of communication. Thus, it will be only a matter of time, advocates contend, before the electronic media will be permitted to report parliamentary debates. Opponents quickly respond that, even if it is inveitable that the electronic media do have an increasing role in society, that still does not argue for admitting them into every area of life, and is no argument for admitting them into the nation's political workshop, the debating Chambers of Parliament.

Will broadcasting parliamentary debates run into legal obstables which will affect its feasibility? The Select Committee of the Commons ir its report of 1966 concluded:

"There seems to be no doubt that the privileges inherent in the House would be adequate to control whatever agencies were permitted to broadcast its proceedings. The House could in virtue of its privileges treat as contempt reflections on the House or other indignities offered during a broadcast commentary. The AttorneyGeneral expressed the view that Members who made defamatory statements in the House would probably be protected by absolute privilege, if such statements were included in broadcasts of the proceedings." 3

A joint Committee of both Houses recommended in 1969 that the broadcasting organization should also be given absolute protection, thus going beyond the qualified protection granted to mass media in general by the Defamation Act of 1932. These legal aspects would have to be definitely clarified and finalized before televising of proceedings could be permanently engaged in.

A final issue relevant to feasibility, and a dominant one on which opponents rely heavily, is the factor of cost. To broadcast daily proceedings will be enormously expensive. The Select Committee of the Commons reported in 1966 that the capital cost of providing and installing equipment for continuous sound coverage would be £30,000, for television £100,000, for editing a programme £380,000, plus an additional £642,000 to cover Standing Committee meetings in like fashion. To this total capital cost of £1,152,000 would be added a total annual running cost for radio and television of £265,000. The House of Lords experiment also emphasized the extremely high cost of televising proceedings, and it was estimated, for instance, that to install remote-control miniaturized plumbicon cameras in the panelling (the ideal thing to do) would cost £360,000.3 Opponents further assert that even if costs could be met, the money could be better spent elsewhere and that other more urgent priorities have a far greater claim on whatever revenue is available. Some peers and Members of Parliament are even saying that no more should be spent on experimentation. Advocates can only assert that the benefits to be derived from electronic reporting are worth the cost.

3 Op. cit., pp. xvii-xviii.

4 Ibid., pp. xv-xvii.

5 Parliamentary Debates (House of Lords), Vol. 300, col. 1081.

(II) DESIRABILITY

Predicting is always hazardous. But not predicting can be even more dangerous. As many observers have pointed out, once the cameras are in, it is very unlikely that they will ever leave, just as it would be unthinkable to remove the reporters from their galleries. So if an abundance of serious ill effects are likely to occur, they ought to be fully analysed before the cameras get in. On the other hand, if a large number of favourable effects seem to be in the offing, then presumably cameras should be let in without further delay. Either way, focusing on the probable effects becomes a crucial operation. The experiments which have been held and the testimony gathered have resulted in the identification of a number of issues.

First, advocates contend that democracy will be strengthened, for the general electorate will become better informed about, and will be brought closer to, their representatives and the machinery of government. Televising proceedings will enable many more citizens to see what now only a handful can see, and then only after the nuisance of queueing for a long time or getting tickets from an MP.

The bond between the electorate and the elected will be strengthened, interest in Parliament stimulated, and commitment to democracy deepened. People have a right to see their Government in action, so the argument goes, and television permits that right to be realized more fully than would any other form of reporting. Now that the public has seen on television the ceremonial pomp of the Opening of Parliament, it is in danger of being misled, unless also shown the less glamorous but more relevant and realistic day-to-day proceedings. Critics point out that familiarity via television may well breed contempt for, or at least boredom and disillusionment with, the slow, uninteresting complicated workings of government. Thus, less rather than more devotion to democratic processes may result. Just how, critics ask, is democracy furthered by seeing elected officials "at work" in the debating Chamber? Should they also be seen "at work" in their office, in the library, in the bar, etc., wherever they are "working"? Since most of those who have spoken and written on the issue, both pro and con, have contended that the prime consideration should be whether or not parliamentary democracy will be advanced by televising proceedings, it becomes highly important how a person predicts on this point.

Second, advocates also emphasize that televising proceedings will bring a more healthy balance of power within the governmental structure, thus strengthening parliamentary democracy. It is contended that Parliament, by more public exposure, will win back some of the power now increasingly concentrated in the hands of the executive. (In the United States the increased use of television by President Nixon's Administration has prompted an increase in suggestions for Congress to be televised in order to redress the legislative-executive balance of power.) Many observers contend that too much power has gravitated to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to the civil service, and to the party. This trend could be reversed or slowed, and more power and authority and prestige could be restored to Parliament, where it belongs. Thus, so the argument goes, it is in Parliament's own interests to allow its proceedings to be televised.

Third, it is contended that parliamentary democracy will be better served in that the growing disproportionate power of the television industry will be curbed, and Parliament will be more accurately, completely, and fairly portrayed. While it is admitted that most existing political television programmes on BBC and ITV are very good, they do leave something to be desired. Only a few Members of Parliament, usually frontbenchers, are interviewed, which means that backbenchers and minority views are seldom publicized. Ministers have to spend too much time at the television studios, and frequently are merely repeating what they have already said in the House. Occasionally a frontbencher scheduled to appear has to cancel at the last minute, and his replacement is ill-prepared and unauthoritative. The format of television "programmes" means that Members of Parliament are quizzed by television journalists rather than by Members of the opposing political party, who are the individuals constitutionally responsible for questioning. Even television journalists urge that the democratic process will be better served if their power to select and quiz participants is supplemented by direct televising of the give-and-take of parliamentary debates. It obviously does not mean that existing politicial programmes need to be abolished. In fact, their appeal and usefulness may increase, for they can do important supplementary things, such as bring in scenes, locations, buildings, people not in Parliament, and can give background to issues, thus contributing a broader and clearer perspective. Those in favour of televising proceedings contend that both Government and Opposition would be able to have their views expressed more coherently and

accurately in the regular parliamentary setting rather than on a studio quiz programme. Opponents simply assert that all this is an exaggeration of the power of the television industry, and that bringing cameras into the parliamentary Chambers will not be the ideal antidote its supporters claim.

Fourth, what will be the effect on the mass media industry? Advocates contend that currently Fleet Street, by having access to the debating Chambers which is denied to the electronic media, has an unfair advantage, and that televising proceedings would more fairly equalize access to the news among the mass media. Furthermore, a constant refrain in parliamentary debates, especially in the House of Lords, is that the newspapers are giving insufficient and inaccurate coverage of debates; thus, bringing cameras in will stimulate Fleet Street to give more space to parliamentary proceedings and will challenge the reporters to work for the highest

accuracy.

The newspaper industry, of course, defends its coverage of parliamentary proceedings, and goes on to insist that, if television cameras are permitted in the Chambers then press photographers should also be permitted, otherwise newspaper will have unequal access to visual news. This gives the opponents of television of debates an extra argument, for permitting the flash bulbs of the press photographers into the debating Chambers will meet with very little support from Parliamentarians.

Fifth, would televising proceedings make photogenic qualities far more important than they ought to be? Opponents stress that this will be so, indicating that a handsome extrovert will have an unfair advantage in being elected, in being chosen a front bencher, and in being selected by the cameraman and editor. A less attractive person, though far superior in other more important virtues will be unfairly discriminated against, to the peril of democracy. Furthermore, the camera angle and closeups could do injustice even to the most photogenic individual. But advocates counter by asserting that the experiment in the House of Lords did not result in any serious unfairness, and furthermore, the camera can reveal intellectual, moral, and rhetorical qualities, and can unmask incompetence, arrogance, and insincerity. The "real" person becomes known. Advocates also contend that a party is not likely to replace a brilliant, physically unattractive spokesman with a handsome nonentity. It is, of course, admitted that all other factors being equal, photogenic qualities would be a criterion to consider just as it already is considered in this photographic age. By way of postscript on this issue, it is interesting to note that, while many advocates are those who would likely photograph well, there are also many who oppose it, even though they themselves would go over extremely well on television.

Sixth, what will happen to the atmosphere and function of the debating Chambers? An important, persistent claim of opponents is that the intimate, humane dignified atmosphere so fundamental to parliamentary debating will be swept away. Members will leave unsaid things which need to be said. They will play to the gallery, making Parliament more a theatre than a workshop. The debating will become a mere irrelevant ritual, as real persuasion and decisionmaking will take place in Committees (although some Committees may well be televised also), Subcommittees, party caucuses, or informal gatherings in various locationswherever the camera will not be lurking. The physical atmosphere may even be altered (for example, the location of the Speaker's chair) in order to "get a better picture", to satisfy the familiar dictatorial demands of the camera. Advocates say these fears are exaggerated, and that the presence of cameras will help to keep decision-making prominent in the Chambers. In addition, television may well lead to many long-overdue reforms in modernizing parliamentary procedures deemed to be harmfully anachronistic, which slow down the functioning of Parliament and take away valuable time from the discussion of substantive issues.

Specifically, most observers comment on how the speaking and general behavior will be significantly altered, for better or worse. Critics contend that Members will virtually ignore their colleagues and speak to the television audience in a more flamboyant, exhibitionist fashion, with more emotionalism and less logic. Realizing that people watch, rather than listen to, television, Members will be more concerned about making a good visual impression. Members may engage in all kinds of theatrical acts to keep in the limelight when not speaking. They may interrupt a speaker merely to get on camera and to spoil the effect of a speech which is gathering momemtum. They may attend debates in the Chamber merely to be seen on the screen and will thus be shirking other tasks, such as Committee assignments, seeing people in the lobby, or answering mail. Members may be tempted to give two speeches in one, that is, a brief capsule précis for the television editor to seize for his programme, and then go into a longer "second" speech for the immediate

audience. Headline phraseology, cuteness in alliteration, and cheap_sloganizing rather than solidity of thought and fullness of phrasing will be likely to occur. Television does not like slow, hesitant speakers, so the thoughtful, deliberate person will nor be selected or he may be tempted to speed up unnaturally, making for awkward phrasing and stumbling. Perhaps more set speeches and more speaking from manuscript will result, which will hinder the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate.

The advocates of televising proceedings counter each of these contentions. They assert that Members will not dare to ignore their colleagues and play to the galleries, for they will soon be in serious disfavor.

Furthermore, the medium of television demands an intimate, conversational, informal style; an oratorical, theatrical, emotional flamboyance will be laughed at and will be likely to decrease, not increase. A television audience, after all, is scattered in thousands of isolated rooms, and the speaker must converse with, not orate at them if he is to appeal to them.

The Members will be less, not more likely to engage in ungentlemanly behavior, such as boisterous reactions, inappropriate interruption of speaker, or other camera-catching exhibitionism. The presence of television in other public gatherings has demonstrated that the camera makes people behave more humanely and argue more reasonably. The more frequent attendance in the Chamber will be a plus factor, and also Members may listen more attentively which will raise the level of debate. The giving of "two" speeches will not be all bad; in fact, it may be good, for it will encourage a succinct preview or summary. At any rate, the speaker is certainly likely to prepare his speech more carefully, and be even more concerned about having a logical case well supported with highly credible evidence. He will be encouraged to speak more succinctly, rapidly, and briefly, thus giving more colleagues a chance to speak and reducing the number of frustrated Members in the House of Commons, who now never succeed in catching the Speaker's eye. More points of view and more information will thus be able to be expressed, and more work will be accomplished.

An additional benefit which advocates point out is that televising proceedings will provide a valuable, authentic version of parliamentary debates to supplement the written Hansard. Such an historical document will indeed be invaluable. What would scholars today not give to be able to see and hear the parliamentary clashes between Pitt and Fox or between Gladstone and Disraeli! What a rich opportunity it would be to see and hear the parliamentary contributions of Chatham, Mansfield, Burke, Erskine, Canning, Macaulay, Brougham, Bright, Lloyd George, Churchill, Bevan, and many others! These records could be valuable resources for centuries for scholars around the world, and for television and radio programmes in the distant future.

If so desired, a time period of a few years could be insisted upon before scholars and others would be permitted to use the audio-visual archives. Opponents, however, question the importance of supplementing Hansard in this manner, particularly because of the astronomical cost involved. The Select Committee of the House of Commons concluded in 1966 that money would be a serious limiting factor in building up visual, but not sudio, archives:

"ok, it would be necessary to transfer the record from videotape to 35 mm film, which would cost about £200 per hour. In an average parliamentary year this would mean an annual cost of £250,000. Your Committee consider that this cost is unacceptably high, and ・・・ (thus only) portions of the visual record should be kept permanently. To keep a full sound record permanently would be reistively inexpensive."

These many issues swirling around the questions of feasibility and desirability will have to be probed even more fully before the final answer can be given to the question of "Should Barish parliamentary debates be televised?" But no doubt significant decisions all be made early in this decade.

House of Commons. Iste No. 4. Thursday, May 25, 1972: Tuesday, May 30, 1972 Dorsday, June 27, 1972 Chairman: Mr. D. Gordon Bisir. M.P.

Moses ge Preus the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organi

Respecting Radio and television broadrasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees

Including:

Witnes
Agurth

to the House.

Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. Chairman: Mr. D. Gordon Blair. Vice-Chairman: Mr. Marcel Lambert. Messrs. Deachman, Forest, Fortin, Jerome, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), McCleave, McCutcheon, Penner, Reid, St. Pierre (12).

(Quorum 7) Michael B. Kirby, Clerk of the Committee.

Thursday, May 18, 1972.

REPORT TO THE HOUSE

The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has the honour to present its

FIRST REPORT

Pursuant to its Order of Reference of Monday, February 28, 1972, your Committee has considered the following Votes listed in the Estimates for the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1973:

Vote 1 relating to the Senate;

Vote 5 relating to the House of Commons; and
Vote 10 relating to the Library of Parliament.

Your Committee commends them to the House.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3) is tabled.

Respectfully submitted,

Friday, June 30, 1972.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has the honour to present its

SECOND REPORT

INTRODUCTION

1. Since March 27, 1972, your Committee has been seized of the following order of reference: That the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees, including the legal, procedural and technical aspects thereof, and the evidence collected by the committee during the past session in relation to these matters, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.

2. The question of broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees was referred to the Committee on March 23, 1970 in the Second Session and on October 28, 1970 in the Third Session of the 28th Parliament. Since receiving the original order of reference, the Committee has heard a number of witnesses and made two visits to the United States. From December 13 to 15, 1970 the Committee was in New York to study the broadcasting operations at the United Nations headquarters and on May 13, 1971 the Committee travelled to Washington to witness a televised sitting of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A tour which was to have taken place in February 1972 and which would have given the Committee the opportunity to study the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings in a number of European Capitals was unavoidably cancelled.

3. Your Committee heard the following witnesses:

From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Mr. George Davidson, President; Mr. J. P. Gilmore, Vice-President, Planning; Mr. Marcel Ouimet, Vice-President, Programming; Mr. Jacques Alleyn, General Counsel.

From Bushnell Communications Limited: Mr. E. Bushnell, Chairman of the Board; Mr. S. W. Griffiths, President and Managing Director; Mr. Roy Faibish, Executive Vice-President; Mr. A. G. Day, Vice-President, Engineering.

From CTV Television Network Ltd.: Mr. J. M. Packham, Vice-President, Finance; Mr. Don MacPherson, Director of News, Features and Information Programming; Mr. Bruce Phillips, Bureau Chief, CTV News, Ottawa.

From the House of Commons at Westminister: Sir Barnett Cocks, K. C.B., O.B.E., Clerk of the House of Commons.

From the Parliamentary Press Gallery: Mr. Pierre O'Neill, President; Mr. Fraser MacDougall, Past President; Mr. Dave Davidson, Secretary and Mr. Paul D. Akehurst.

From the United Nations Secretariat: Mr. Josef C. Nichols, Chief, International and Satellite Communications Unit, Radio and Visual Services Division and Mr. Ray Jask, Supervisor, United Nations Television Contractual Staff.

Mr. J. P. J. Maingot, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel submitted a legal opinion and also made several appearances before your Committee.