Televising Parliament: What the Commons report left out

Beverley Robinson and the Conservative Blueprint for the Upper Canadian Community," Ontario History, LXIV, June 1972, 79-94. Throughout this paper, I am dealing with the historical conservative tradition, and thus am not considering some fine work on philosophical conservatism: W. L. Morton, "The Possibllity of a Philosophy of Conservatism ," Journal of Canadian Studies, V, February 1970, 3-14; J. W. Daly, "Towards a Philosophic Basis for CanaTelevising Parliament: what the Commons report left out* PETER W. JOHANSEN In its Speech from the Throne last January , the Trudeau government promised to introduce full broadcast coverage of Parliament during the current session. 1 The Liberals want all-party consent before proceeding, but such approval is likely. After all, just before the 1972 election was called, the Commons Procedure and Organization Committee made a similar recommendation, although it did settle for a preliminary closedcircuit experiment. The blue-ribbon committee - which included such parliamentary heavyweights as Stanley Knowles, the veteran NOP House Leader, and Marcel Lambert, a former Conservative Speaker - wrestled with the problem for more than two years before tabling its cautious recommendations in June, 1972.2 Following a 14,000-word account of the rationale, problems and experiences elsewhere of broadcasting and televising parliamentary debates, the committee concluded that: *For their helpful comments on a draft of this paper, thanks must be extended to Professors Donald F. Roberts, David L Grey and William L. Rivers, all of Stanford University, and to Donald G. McGllllvray, Editor of the Financial Times of Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies dlan Conservatism," Journal of Canadian Studies, V, November 1970, 50-8; and the many works by George P. Grant. 44. Cited In Roger Graham, Arthur Meighen: And Fortune Fled, (Toronto, 1963), 311. 45. Clinton Rossiter, Conservatism In America, (New York, 1962), 44. ...while agreeing in principle with the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of legislative assemblies and their committees, [it] believes that certain further steps should be taken before a final report is made and therefore recommends : (a) that a cost and technical study of building, equipment, personnel and other requirements consequent upon the introduction of radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons and its committees be undertaken in consultation with this Committee; (b) that closed-circuit experimental broadcasts by radio and television of the proceedings of the House and committees be undertaken in consultation with this Committee; and (c) that your Committee be authorized , in the light of the abovementioned studies and experiments , to make further recommendations to the House for ultimate decision. The Commons Procedure and Organization Committee summarized the arguments for and against televising debates of the Com39 mons and its committees, and detailed the various alternatives and inherent limitations of each. The report lists what supporters of TV in the House have suggested:3 (1) Parliament's business is the nation's business, so Canadians have a right to see it in action. TV, because it is now the most important news medium, can extend the public galleries to all who are politically interested . (2) As long as Parliament remains outside the ambit of electronic journalism, those who decry it as anachronistic will have a powerful argument in that very fact. (3) Politicians' statements before the cameras are often more important than their contributions to debate in the chamber; this erodes the place of Parliament in the political process. The entry of electronic journalism's tools may reverse the trend. (4) Television's current public affairs content is dominated by "interviewers, commentators , academics, and selected politicians whose opportunities depend upon the decision of program editors who are responsible to no electorate."4 This disproportionate power by broadcasters would be curbed if Parliament were more fully portrayed. (5) Parliament's communication with the public would be improved, fostering national identity. (6) An archive of tapes of debates would be a valuable historical tool. (7) Increased public exposure to Parliament should help to extend its influence, laying to rest the complaint that power is increasingly concentrated in the executive. On the other hand, the Procedure and Organization report recognizes these arguments against the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings: (1) There would not be enough interest in the daily proceedings of Parliament...