Mr. Robert McCleave, a member of the Committee, also made a report to the Committee about the use of television in the Legislature of Nova Scotia. The following made written submissions: Canadian Contemporary News System: Mr. Paul D. Akehurst, General Manager. Filmakers Canada: Mr. David Battle, D.G.C., Production Director. THE DECISION IN PRINCIPLE 4. The decision to be taken in principle is straightforward enough: should parliamentary proceedings be broadcast or not? 5. To arrive at the decision in principle the following questions must be decided: (a) Should the proceedings of the House be broadcast (i) by radio, (ii) by television, (iii) by both radio and television? (b) Should the proceedings of the committees of the House be broadcast (i) by radio, (ii) by television, (iii) by both radio and television? (It is necessary to pose separate questions regarding the proceedings of the House and the proceedings of committees because it may well be decided to broadcast the one and not the other). 6. If the answers to the above two questions are in the affirmative the following subordinate questions then arise: (a) Should the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, whether by radio or television, be partial or total? (b) Should the broadcasting of the proceedings of the committees of the House, whether by radio or television, be partial or total? (c) Assuming that the full-time coverage of all committees of the House would be neither feasible nor desirable, what machinery should be established for deciding which particular committees or meetings of committees should be broadcast? 7. If the answers to the questions posed in paragraph 5 are all in the negative, the House might wish to consider whether its proceedings and those of its committees might be broadcast on ceremonial and formal occasions. 8. More detailed questions which would arise from an affirmative decision in principle, such as the type of cameras and equipment to be used, control of the broadcasts, and the need for special legislation are dealt with in later sections of this report. THE PROS AND CONS 9. In the view of your Committee the arguments in favour of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings are strong. Radio and television, and particularly the latter, have become the most important media of mass communication and can exert a powerful influence on public opinion. If Parliament excludes itself from access to the broadcasting media it may well deny itself the opportunity of making its most effective public impact. 10. Parliament represents the people: its business is the nation's business; and one of its prime responsibilities is to inform the people. The people therefore have a right to see their Parliament in action and through television coverage this right could become a reality for all the people from coast to coast. Through television the public gallery of the House of Commons could be extended to the farthest limits of the nation. The bond between Parliament and the electorate would be strengthened because the House of Commons would be brought into the homes of all who wished to tune in to its proceedings. We are sometimes warned that we are living at a time when all the apparatus of mass suggestion works against democratic education and the unencumbered operation of the democratic process. The televising of Parliament would establish a counterweight and, in the words of the late Aneurin Bevan, encourage "intelligent communication between the House of Commons and the electorate as a whole." 11. At a time when many critics assert that Parliament is archaic, anachronistic, remote from the people or out or touch with reality, an affirmative decision in principle with regard to broadcasting might constitute a very effective rebuttal of such suggestions. While Parliament fails to keep pace with the natural evolutionary processes of mass communication, the critics will always be able to employ a powerful argument to bolster their allegations. At the present time a great deal of important political dialogue takes place before the television cameras which tends to overshadow the debates in Parliament itself. If the public could see Parliament on television greater attention might be paid to what is said in Parliament rather than outside it. A more balanced and representative presentation of public affairs would be able to viewers. To paraphrase the words of one commentator on this aspect of the matter, the entry of television into Parliament would ensure that this potent magnifier of reputations is not monopolized by inter viewers, commentators, academics, and selected politicians whose opportunities depend upon the decision of program editors who are responsible to no electorate. Thus it can be contended that parliamentary democracy would be better served through the curbing of the disproportionate power of those who control board casting and that Parliament would be more accurately and more objectively portrayed. 12. Your Committee is also impressed with the argument that the televising of the proceedings of the House would improve Parliament's communication with the people and would thus assist in promoting Canada's sense of national identity. A televised parliamentary record could give an exciting vitality to the history and national heritage of the country. An audio-visual record of the proceedings of the House would be a permanent and authentic record of Parliament. Great parliamentary occasions would be recorded for posterity, and it would be an historical treasure of incalculable value. If the memorable debates of the past were available today in audio-visual form, if the great parliamentarians of former days could actually be seen and heard in action, the enthralling possibilities which would be opened up for research scholars, teachers, students and the public as a whole can easily be imagined. 13. It is also to be hoped that increased public exposure would enable Parliament to extend its influence and prestige. This would be particularly salutary at a time when the complaint is so frequently heard that the powers of government are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of the executive. Given the opportunity of seeing Parliament in action the viewing public would more readily be able to appreciate the nature of Parliamentary authority and the fact that the executive governs with the consent of Parliament. If it is accepted that Parliament's most crucial functions in this modern age are to inform, to criticize and to draw public attention to important national issues, then exposure on television should greatly assist Parliament in fulfilling these duties. 14. The arguments which are heard against the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings largely relate to such questions as expense, technical difficulties, the working conditions of Members and the problems of editing. 15. Cost is a major factor only in relation to the televising of Parliament since sound broadcasting would not appear to involve a great deal of expense. It is true that the cost of a permanent installation is to some extent an unknown factor, particularly since it is not known what structural alterations would be required to the existing Parliament buildings. Some critics suggest that there would not be enough interest in the daily proceedings of Parliament to justify the costs which would be involved in televising them. It is doubtful, however, that these costs would be prohibitive in relation to public expenditure in general. 16. The cost to the public purse would be minimal if the House were to admit the broadcasters on condition that they finance the operation themselves. From the evidence received it would appear that some broadcasters would be prepared to finance the operation provided they were permitted to recover their costs through charges to other users of the material. If such a solution were adopted the House would presumably be required to pay only for the tapes which it decided to purchase for record purposes. 17. Because of the nature of the Parliament buildings it would be wise to anticipate technical problems if a decision were taken to proceed with a permanent television installation. However, whatever form these problems might take your Committee has heard no evidence to suggest that they are likely to be insurmountable. The principal technical difficulty might well prove to be the effect which television would have upon the working conditions of Members. 18. Some critics insist that the disruption which would be caused by a permanent invasion of broadcasters and their equipment into the Chamber would be intolerable. They fear that the working conditions of Members would be seriously impaired; that the intensity of the lighting required would produce dazzling and overheated conditions; that the comings and goings of technical personnel would be distracting; that there would be cables to trip over, equipment to bump into, noise to contend with. 19. Your Committee accepts the validity of these anxieties but believes that the problems can be overcome. There is evidence to indicate that it is possible to operate the apparatus which would be required without any exaggerated disruption of the proceedings. Minature remote-controlled cameras are available; controllers, operators and commentators can work in concealed conditions, and although bright lighting would be required, techniques exist which can limit the discomfort caused by heat intensity. 20. Some critics express reservations with regard to how broadcasting would affect Parliament's image and how objective and unbiased editing by the broad casters could be guaranteed. It is contended that the nature of parliamentary debate would be radically changed by television; that Members would jockey for position in prime viewing time; that they would play to the gallery and adopt a more flamboyant style of debate. Parliament would become more of a theatre and less of a workshop as Members would be mainly concerned with making a good visual impression. Members might be encouraged to make interventions merely to "get on camera" or to spoil the effect of a good speech by an opponent. An increased tendency to deliver set speeches and employ headline-winning catchphrases would develop. 21. These anxieties seem to ignore the fact that a television audience is not concentrated in a public place. The medium is more likely to encourage rather than discourage the intimate informal style which is the essence of parliamentary debate. It is probable too that television would encourage higher rather than lower standards of behavior and debate since Members would wish to make a good impression on screen. A Member adopting exhibitionist or ungentlemanly tactics would soon fall into disfavour. The fact of being televised might discourage the raising of spurious points of order and privilege since these would frequently not be understood by the viewing public who would probably find them boring and futile. 22. Some of the arguments used against television are reminiscent of those employed two centuries ago when Members of the British House of Commons objected to the admission of the press to their debates. There is, therefore, good reason to believe that many of the fears expressed are exaggerated. Your Committee feels nevertheless that the importance of ensuring fair editing practices should not be underestimated. 23. The surest guarantee against bias in selection and editing would be to provide continuous live transmission, but this would presumably require a special channel. Furthermore, it is probably that there would not be widespread public interest in much of the proceedings of the House and the highlights of parliamentary business if broadcast live would not necessarily occur during prime viewing hours. While your Committee sees great value in the maintenance of a complete audio-visual record, the transmissions themselves would attract a greater viewing public if they were edited and broadcast by the broadcasting agencies during prime viewing hours. 24. The four major advantages of edited reports rather than continuous live transmissions have been summed up as follows: (a) they would not require a special channel; (b) question time and important debates and speeches taking place during the day could be seen in the evening by a large audience; (c) there would be no jockeying for position at peak viewing hours since an edited report could provide more even coverage; (d) the tedium of debate could be eliminated and points of order and privilege could be edited out unless they were likely to attract public interest. 25. It would be essential in the view of your Committee that the House keep overall surveillance and control of the broadcasts in its own hands. However, whatever system of control were adopted, the House, if it accepted the principle of edited transmissions, would be obliged to place great reliance on the integrity and fair-mindedness of the broadcasters. Your Committee has every confidence that the broadcasters would discharge their responsibility with propriety and that the question of editing would prove to be much less of a problem then some critics anticipate. THE BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 26. A symposium organized by the Interparliamentary Union in Geneva in December 1968 revealed that of 50 national Parliaments surveyed 29 transmit live or recorded broadcasts of actual debates by radio and 21 transmit such broadcasts by television. Complete coverage is however, rare. In the Commonwealth the broadcasting of Parliament by radio was pioneered in New Zealand where the proceedings of the House of Representatives have been broadcast by continuous live radio transmissions since 1936. Australia followed suit in 1946. The Parliaments of Austria, West Germany, Denmark and Norway appear to be in the vanguard among Western countries as far as television broadcasting is concerned. 27. In the United Kingdom the question has been under study for some years. On June 15, 1966, the House of Lords approved by a vote of 56 to 31 a resolution 1 See Wilson (Charles), Parliament, peoples and mass media, Cassell Ltd., 1970, p. 119. calling for the televising of its proceedings on an experimental basis and in February, 1968, a closed circuit experiment took place. By curious contrast the House of Commons declined to follow the example of the Lords, when on November 24, 1966, it rejected a proposal that its proceedings be televised for an experimental period by 131 votes to 130. Your Committee understands, however, that the matter is again under active study in the British Parliament. 28. Here in Canada the Legislature of Saskatchewan has been broadcasting certain of its proceedings by radio since 1964. The Nova Scotia House of Assembly instituted a three-week television experiment in March-April 1971. The Legislative Assembly of Alberta admitted the television cameras in 1972 for the first time. In 1970 the C.B.C. conducted an experiment in the Legislature of Manitoba during which the question period was covered. Elsewhere in Canada the televising of the opening ceremonies of the Legislature has taken place on various occasions, and some jurisdictions, notably Ontario and British Columbia, have permitted the broadcasting of the budget statement. 29. The following details of the broadcasting operation in certain jurisdictions may be of interest to the House. It should be noted that the only operations of which your Committee has had direct experience are those of the United Nations, United States Congress and, through Mr. Robert McCleave, the Nova Scotia House of Assembly. The information relating to other jurisdictions is drawn from studies and inquiries undertaken on the instructions of the Committee. It is noteworthy that, while television is widely regarded as a North American phenomenon, most of the Parliaments with practical experience of legislative broadcasting are to be found on the Continent of Europe. The United Nations 30. The United Nations, it can be said, grew up with television. When the United Nations Building in New York was being designed, television was in its infancy and architectural changes were made to permit the installation of special lighting and hidden camera positions in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. Broadcasting is a large operation at the United Nations, and it is now the policy to televise all open meetings. To do this, a table of priorities has been established for broadcasting by television, as follows: (a) the Security Council, (b) the General Assembly, and (c) the committees in order of their importance. The United Nations broadcasting staff and the networks consult in advance to determine the order of priority of televising committees. The General Assembly, the Security Council and the senior committee rooms are equipped with lighting for colour television and storage space in the building has been converted into a control centre. There is also space for film editing and a film library. Floors are channelled to accommodate cables and outlets for the cables are installed in the committee rooms. There is also a closed-circuit system within the building so that the proceedings of meetings can be observed at several points. 31. A member of your Committee, Mr. Grant Deachman, who visited the United Nations headquarters with your Committee, prepared notes of the visit and he listed his impressions in part as follows: At periods of highest public interest the UN boasts that its proceedings have been carried on the three US networks and radio as well as to 23 countries by satellite at a single time. The relationship between the networks and the UN appears to be very good. The management of the UN TV facility is conscious to the need to provide interesting TV to the networks if it is to be accepted. At the same time they are equally aware of their duty to preserve the dignity and integrity of the institution in the eyes of the world. The maintaining of this balance is not an easy task and it is obvious that the senior staff members responsible for TV are not just technicians or broadcasters, but are able servants of the UN working in an area of great international sensitivity. The UN at first invited the major networks to televise its proceedings. They soon found that the journalistic policies of the networks were not acceptable to delegates. For instance, if a delegate just arrived from a long overseas flight fell asleep on the floor of the Assembly during a debate which concerned his nation, the networks considered him fair game for their cameras. They would also give too much emphasis in the opinion of the UN, to gallery disturbances and sensational incidents. To preserve the dignity of the institution and to protect delegates from embarrassment, the UN took over the televising of meetings. It now operates the cameras in the General Assembly, the Security Council and the committees. It provides a live feed to subscribing networks while the Assembly and Council are in session as well as video tapes. The networks are supplied with booths which oversee the General Assembly and which are used largely for televising interviews with delegates cr for supplementing the UN feed. In addition the networks have the freedom of the building for corridor interviews. The UN is very strict about the use of cameras on the floor of the Assembly. It is never permitted, even for the visits of impressive heads of state. However, cameras are allowed on the floor 20 minutes before the session is to commence, at which time they can pick up colourful impressions from the delegates as they enter to take their places. At the first stroke of the gavel the floor is cleared of journalists and cameramen. At the second stroke the meeting is called to order. The operating of TV has strained the UN budget. To defray costs the UN charges the networks for some services. Each of the three major US networks pays a connecting charge of $800 a month for the UN feed. For video tapes they each pay a basic weekly charge of $1200 and a $600 surcharge for colour. They pay time-and-a-half on Sunday and after 7:00 o'clock. The UN supplies radio live and recorded. Some radio stations carry the UN live all day. Recordings are exported to member countries around the world. 32. The United Nations broadcasting staff also prepares programs on requests for television and radio stations all over the world. Such work is undertaken because, apart from the real need for such a service, the United Nations feels it has an obligation to see that its proceedings are widely publicized. Such programs include special reports on the speeches and activities of particular state delegates for broadcasting over national networks. United States Congress 33. The proceedings of public meetings of United States Congressional committees can be broadcast by radio or television, and can be filmed or photographed; however, no cameras or any recording equipment are allowed in the United States Senate or House of Representatives except when they sit jointly on ceremonial occasions. Broadcasting of all Congressional committees takes place on a demand basis usually through a request to the Committee Chairman and the broadcasters must supply their own equipment and personnel. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 19702 provides in Section 116 that when any hearing of a Senate committee is open to the public, that hearing may be broadcast under such rules as the committee may adopt. Thus, each Senate committee has the authority to lay down the rules by which it can be broadcast. In the House of Representatives, Rule XI is quite explicit that such coverage is a privilege and will only be permitted and allowed in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the rule. Rule XI lays down specific guidelines as to how personnel providing coverage by radio and television and by still photography shall conduct themselves. The number of cameras, the number of still photographers, and the lighting are also provided for and where necessary it requires broadcasters to form a pool operation. 34. While in Washington, your Committee was able to attend a sitting of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee at which the Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, was a witness. We could not help noting that the large number of television cameramen, radio broadcasters, news reporters and still photographers was very distracting and that it required a large amount of concentration by the members of the Committee in order to follow the proceedings. New Zealand 35. The General Assembly of New Zealand was the first Parliament in the Commonwealth to broadcast its proceedings. Sound broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Representatives was commenced on March 24, 1936. The proceedings of the Upper Chamber, the Legislative Council, were never broadcast, and since this Chamber was abolished in 1950 this aspect of the matter is of no concern to a consideration of the current situation. 36. The decision to broadcast the proceedings of the House of Representatives was a purely administrative one. It was not taken by the House itself but by the Cabinet of the day, and arose from an election promise which had been made during an election campaign of the previous year. Giving evidence before a British Select Committee on June 17, 1965, the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives said: "It was done as an executive act rather than a parliamentary act and I would have some difficulty in finding any specific authority for it." 3 2 U.S.A. Public Law 91-510, 1970. 3 First report from the Select Committee on Broadcasting, etc., of Proceedings in the House of Commons, HC 146, 8 August, 1966 Minutes of Evidence. |