Prior to the introduction of television in
the House of Commons in 1977, only special parliamentary events, such as
openings of Parliament and addresses by distinguished visitors,[95] were broadcast. The
question of radio and television broadcasting was debated in the House in 1967
and 1969 and referred to a procedure committee in 1970.[96] The committee’s
report, presented in 1972, discussed the concept of an “electronic Hansard”
whereby radio and television coverage would be a faithful record of proceedings
and debates in the House, in the same sense as the written Debates.[97]
This approach was to become a guiding principle in the broadcasting of House
proceedings. However, Parliament was dissolved before the committee’s
recommendations could be considered. A feasibility study was undertaken in 1974[98]
and on January 25, 1977, the House adopted the following motion:
That this House approves the radio and
television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its
committees on the basis of the principles similar to those that govern the
publication of the printed official reports of debates; and that a special
committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a
later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.[99]
The special committee chaired by Speaker
James Jerome made the necessary decisions as to lighting, camera placement and
other matters. During the summer recess, the Chamber was extensively refitted
and on October 17, 1977, gavel‑to‑gavel coverage of the
proceedings of the House of Commons began.[100]
In 1989, a consortium of cable television companies and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation jointly proposed a new
specialty cable channel, to be called the Canadian Parliamentary Channel (CPaC),
which would broadcast the House of Commons proceedings as well as other public
affairs programming. A committee undertook a study of this proposal within a
wide‑ranging review of broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of
Commons and its committees.[101]
In its final report,[102]
the committee endorsed the CPaC proposal. The committee also found existing
camera guidelines unnecessarily strict.[103]
Although the report itself was not concurred in, a motion endorsing the CPaC
proposal in principle was agreed to by the House.[104] Further enhancements
proposed by the committee were taken up by the House and implemented.[105]
In 1992, the House authorized the use of a greater variety of camera angles
during the coverage of Question Period and of recorded divisions.[106]
In 2003, the Special Committee on the
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons
approved the launch of the ParlVU service to the public. ParlVU is a service on
theParliament of Canada Web site that carries live and on-demand televised
parliamentary proceedings from the Commons chamber and two committee rooms, and
the live and on-demand audio from all non-televised public committee meetings.
The listener may choose the English, French or floor audio, and high- or
low-resolution video.[107]
At an early stage, well before the House
agreed to the broadcasting of its proceedings, it was clear that control of any
such broadcasting system, including the safeguarding of the electronic Hansard
concept, was to remain with the House and under the supervision of the Speaker
acting on behalf of all Members.[108]
In support of this principle, the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has, as part of its permanent mandate,
the duty to review and report on the radio and television broadcasting of
proceedings of the House and its committees, and to deal with any complaints
from Members in connection with such broadcasting.[109]
The broadcasting service provided by the
House ensures that the daily proceedings of the House are captured, archived
and distributed live to the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. In
addition, the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC)[110] broadcasts House
and committee proceedings via cable and satellite services located across the
country. Viewers have access to live, gavel‑to‑gavel proceedings of
the House, the daily replay of Question Period, and televised committees.
The broadcast system is integrated into the
architecture of the Chamber so as not to offend existing decor. Committee and
House proceedings are broadcast and recorded from the opening of business until
adjournment and distributed to outside users without revision or editing.[111]
The Chamber is equipped with cameras
mounted beneath the galleries and operated from a control room constructed over
the south gallery, invisible from the floor of the House.[112] The recording of
the proceedings is governed by guidelines, intended to preserve the concept of
the electronic Hansard, as adopted by the House.[113] The camera focuses
on the Speaker, or on the Member who has been recognized by the Speaker. During
debate, camera shots are restricted to the head and torso of the Member speaking,
and the microphone picks up only his or her voice. Reaction shots, split
screens and cutaway shots are not permitted. In order to give viewers a better
appreciation of “the context and dynamic of the House”, wider camera angles,
showing more of the House and its Members, may be used during Question Period
and the taking of recorded divisions.[114]
The resolution adopted by the House in 1977
also applied to the broadcasting of committee proceedings; however, the special
committee implementing radio and television broadcasting determined that
further study was necessary before committee proceedings could be broadcast.[115]
In the next Parliament, the Speaker was asked to rule on the question of
whether a committee had the power to televise and decided that since no
guidelines had been established, the broadcasting of committee proceedings
could only be authorized by the House itself.[116]
Beginning in 1980, a number of committees received permission from the House to broadcast their proceedings on a
single‑issue basis—that is, to broadcast a single meeting, or all the
meetings held with respect to a particular order of reference.[117] In 1991, the House
adopted a rule codifying the requirement for committees to seek the consent of
the House to use House facilities for broadcasting. This new rule also required
the then Standing Committee on House Management to establish experimental
guidelines which, when concurred in by the House, would govern the broadcasting
of committee meetings.[118]
In 1992, the House concurred in the Committee’s report recommending the audio
broadcast of all public committee meetings and the equipping of one committee
room for television broadcasting, with an evaluation to be made by the
Committee after six months.[119]
In April 1993, the House agreed to continue these broadcasting
arrangements on a permanent basis, subject to ongoing review by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.[120]
In 2001, the House granted access by the electronic media to any public
committee meeting held within the parliamentary precinct in Ottawa, subject to certain guidelines.[121]
Later that same year, the House concurred in the report of the Special
Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House
of Commons, which recommended that a second committee room be equipped for
televising by the House of Commons on a gavel-to-gavel basis.[122]
Members may listen to selected committee
meetings on an in‑house radio network; they may also view the live
broadcast of House or committee proceedings in French, English or the floor
language (i.e., the actual language of debate, without interpretation) on an in‑house,
closed-circuit television network. In addition, the ParlVU service, available through the Parliament of Canada Web site, carries
live and on-demand televised parliamentary proceedings from the Commons chamber
and two committee rooms, and the live and on-demand audio from all
non-televised public committee meetings. The broadcasters that carry the CPAC
channel provide service in French, English or floor sound.[123] In addition to
providing a live feed which is accessible by other media apart from the
parliamentary television channel, the Broadcasting Service of the House
maintains a complete video archive dating back to October 1977, when the
broadcasting of House of Commons proceedings began. In June 2003, the
Board of Internal Economy approved the Memorandum of Understanding between the
then National Archives of Canada and the House of Commons, whereby the Archives
would assume the long-term responsibility for the care and preservation of the
moving image archives, as part of Canada’s records heritage. The House of Commons
maintains access to the current and previous Parliaments in order to continue
providing Members with on-demand services. Members may request retrieval and
replay of any part of the televised proceedings of the House and may also
obtain video and/or audio copies of House and committee proceedings.
[95] For example, the address to both Houses of Parliament in the
Commons chamber by Richard Nixon, President of the United States, on April 14, 1972, was televised.
[96] See Debates, June 5, 1967, pp. 1157‑66;
March 26, 1969, pp. 7158‑79; Journals, March 23, 1970,
p. 633.
[98] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Television Broadcasting of
Parliament: A Feasibility Study, Ottawa, May 1976. The study was
done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the President of the Privy
Council. An earlier version, dated April 12, 1976, was tabled in the House
(Journals, June 8, 1976, p. 1337). See Fraser, A., “Televising
the Canadian House of Commons”, The Table, Vol. XLVII, 1979,
pp. 66‑71.
[100]Debates, October 17, 1977, pp. 8201‑2. See
also Speaker Jerome’s memoir, Mr. Speaker, Toronto: McClelland and
Stewart Limited, 1985, pp. 113‑22.
[101] The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Elections,
Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business on June 8, 1989 (Journals,
p. 340).
[102] The Committee’s Ninth Report, entitled “Watching the House at
Work”, was deemed presented to the House on December 29, 1989 (Journals,
January 22, 1990, p. 1078).
[103] In one of its recommendations, the Committee suggested that the
production and direction of House of Commons broadcasting should be delegated,
under the supervision of a House committee, to the programming director who
would exercise professional judgment in the choice of camera angles or shots,
so as to “convey the full flavour of the House of Commons, and to ensure that
the parliamentary broadcasts provide a dignified and accurate reflection of the
House”. See the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Elections,
Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business, pp. 3‑6, 8‑10,
deemed presented to the House on December 29, 1989 (Journals,
January 22, 1990, p. 1078).
[104]Journals, February 23, 1990, p. 1277. Later in the
session, on June 19, 1990 (Debates, pp. 12930‑48), a
motion to concur in the committee report was debated but not disposed of.
[105] An example would be the production of informational videos. See the
Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections,
presented to the House on November 23, 1990 (Journals,
p. 2289), and concurred in on December 19, 1990 (Journals,
p. 2510).
[106] See the Twenty‑Second, Forty‑Third and Fifty‑Seventh
Reports of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House on
February 12, 1992 (Journals, p. 1009), June 5, 1992
(Journals, p. 1632), and December 4, 1992 (Journals,
p. 2285), respectively, and concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals,
p. 1337), June 8, 1992 (Journals, p. 1638), and
December 11, 1992 (Journals, p. 2399), respectively.
[107] ParlVU was launched initially in April 2003 on the
parliamentary Intranet site for Members and their staff. The Canadian public
has been able to view ParlVU through the parliamentary Web site since
February 2, 2004. See the Fourth Report of the Special
Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House
of Commons, par. 23 to 30, presented to the House
on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on
September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).
[108] See the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
Organization, par. 74, presented to the House on June 30, 1972 (Journals,
pp. 471‑86). In 1979, for example, a Member crossed the floor of the
House to sit with another party, but the cameras did not capture the event
because to have done so would have contravened the House’s established
television broadcasting guidelines (Debates, March 8, 1979,
pp. 3943‑4). In another instance, when a point of order was raised
as to the style of coverage of a budget presentation, the Speaker ruled that
the coverage had not been consistent with previous budget presentations and
suggested that the guidelines then in effect be observed until such time as the
House decided otherwise (Debates, May 28, 1985, pp. 5146‑7).
In 1995, the House agreed to the temporary installation of stationary
television cameras on the floor of the House for the address of the President
of the United States (Journals, February 20, 1995,
p. 1151). Two cameras were placed next to the Bar of the House, one
operated by Canadian television networks and one operated by the American
networks.
In a 1993 case before the Supreme Court of
Canada, a broadcaster had applied to film the proceedings of a provincial
legislature from the public galleries, using its own cameras(New Brunswick
Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly),
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 319). The Speaker of the Assembly contended that
to do so would interfere with the decorum and orderly proceedings of the
Assembly, and moreover that the Assembly would have no control over the
production or use of the film. The Court ruled in a majority opinion that in
excluding the cameras from the gallery, the House of Assembly was exercising
its right to control its internal proceedings and its right to exclude
strangers from the House and its precincts. Five separate opinions were
delivered in the Court’s 7‑1 decision. They are discussed at length in Maingot,
2nd ed., in particular pp. 306‑18.
[110] In 1991, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation announced that it
would no longer fund the Canadian Parliamentary Channel (CPaC) and the
following year, a new cable consortium formed, called the Cable Parliamentary
Channel (CPaC). In 1996, it was renamed the Cable Public Affairs Channel
(CPAC).
[111] However, the House of Commons broadcast staff “enhance” the
unedited images. An example is the insertion of information at the bottom of
the screen, such as the name of the Member or committee witness speaking, or
the subject of debate. In addition, since 1991, the daily live broadcast of
Question Period across the country on the Cable Public Affairs Channel has been
provided with English closed-captioning and French sign language (Langue des
signes québécoise—LSQ). Since October 22, 2007, the House of Commons,
in partnership with the Translation Bureau, Public Works and Government
Services Canada, has provided French closed‑captioning for Question
Period. The House of Commons is one of the world’s first legislatures to use
state‑of‑the‑art voice recognition technology for remote live
closed‑captioning of its proceedings.
[112] As part of the Chamber Technology Infrastructure Project, new
camera and control systems were installed in the summer of 2003. These new
systems deliver better views of Members and better coverage of the galleries. Two
new cameras were positioned on top of each entrance adjacent to the Speaker’s
chair. In the summer of 2004, a new sound system was installed to
accommodate the unique acoustical properties of the Chamber, as well as a sound
reinforcement system, new consolettes, an updated simultaneous interpretation
system for the galleries and an infrastructure to meet possible future needs, such
as electronic voting. See the Fourth Report of the Special
Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House
of Commons, par. 16 to 22, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals,
p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals,
p. 995).
[114] See the Fifty‑Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on
House Management (Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue
No. 42, pp. 3‑4), presented to the House on December 4, 1992
(Journals, p. 2285), and concurred in on December 11, 1992 (Journals,
p. 2399). The adoption of these new guidelines on wider angles was
preceded by a trial period. See the Committee’s Twenty‑Second and Forty‑Third
Reports, concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals, p. 1337),
and June 8, 1992 (Journals, p. 1638), respectively.
[115] In what turned out to be its last report, the special committee
raised a concern about the applicability of the “electronic Hansard” concept to
broadcasting of committee proceedings and alluded to the need to consider
procedures for the introduction of radio and television coverage in committees
(Journals, November 23, 1977, p. 130).
[117] A number of these were committees studying constitutional or
financial matters. For further information, see the section on broadcasting in
Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[118] Standing Order 119.1, adopted on April 11, 1991 (Journals,
pp. 2904‑5, 2929).
[119] See the Twenty‑Third Report of the Standing Committee on
House Management, presented to the House on February 14, 1992 (Journals,
pp. 1024‑5), and concurred in on March 27, 1992 (Journals,
p. 1230).
[120] The Eighty‑Third Report of the Standing Committee on House
Management, presented to the House on April 2, 1993 (Journals,
p. 2784), was concurred in on April 28, 1993 (Journals,
p. 2873). See the Forty‑Eighth Report of the
First Session of the Thirty‑Sixth Parliament, the Nineteenth, Forty‑First
and Fifty‑Eighth Reports of the First Session of the Thirty‑Seventh
Parliament, the Third and Forty‑Fourth Reports of the Second Session of
the Thirty‑Seventh Parliament, the Second Report of the Third Session of
the Thirty‑Seventh Parliament, the Fifth Report of the First Session of
the Thirty‑Eighth Parliament and the Second Report of the First Session
of the Thirty‑Ninth Parliament of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented to the House on December 8, 1998 (Journals,
p. 1424), May 16, 2001 (Journals, p. 419), December 3, 2001
(Journals, p. 893), May 24, 2002 (Journals, pp. 1425‑6),
October 30, 2002 (Journals, p. 138), September 19,
2003 (Journals, p. 998), February 13, 2004 (Journals,
p. 77), October 20, 2004 (Journals, p. 121), and
April 27, 2006 (Journals, p. 99), respectively, and concurred
in on May 16, 2001 (Journals, p. 421), December 5,
2001 (Journals, p. 921), May 24, 2002 (Journals,
p. 1426), October 30, 2002 (Journals, p. 140), September 19, 2003
(Journals, p. 998), February 16, 2004 (Journals,
p. 81), October 20, 2004 (Journals, p. 124), and
April 27, 2006 (Journals, p. 99), respectively. It is
interesting to note that the Committee’s Forty‑Eighth Report, presented to
the House on December 8, 1998, was not concurred in by the House. On December 2, 1999, the report was deemed laid upon the
Table in the Second Session of the Thirty‑Sixth Parliament and concurred
in, for a trial period ending on June 30, 2000 (Journals, p. 268). See also Chapter 20,
“Committees”.
[121] See the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on May 16, 2001
(Journals, pp. 419, 421).
[122] See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization
and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 51 to 53, presented
to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred
in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691‑3), in
accordance with an Order made October 3, 2001 (Journals,
p. 685).
[123] The House of Commons, in partnership with CPAC, makes its
proceedings available to the Canadian public in both official languages through
cable and satellite broadcasts. However, before the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) strengthened the regulations on the
distribution of the House of Commons debates in both official languages, cable
companies could decide to broadcast just one of the audio signals. This meant
that, in a number of regions, Canadians only had access to the House of Commons
debates in one language or, if the cable company had decided to broadcast just
the audio signal from the floor of the House, only in the language the Member
was speaking at the time.
Further to complaints filed with the
Commissioner of Official Languages, the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages observed that the main issue was the manner in which CPAC was made
available by cable companies. The Committee recommended to the CRTC that it
require cable companies to broadcast the debates and proceedings of Parliament
in both official languages. It also recommended that CPAC’s commitment to
install the infrastructure enabling cable companies to adopt SAP (secondary
audio program) technology be made an integral part of the agreement between the
House of Commons and CPAC.
Subsequently, the CRTC amended the
regulatory framework for broadcasting parliamentary debates, ensuring that they
could be watched by a majority of Canadians in both official languages, by requiring
cable companies to use SAP technology in distributing CPAC as part of their
basic service. There are only a very few Canadian cable companies that are
exempted, for purely technical reasons, from making the debates available in
both official languages. To remedy the situation, CPAC and the House of Commons
have signed an agreement aimed at helping these companies develop the technical
capacities they need to offer parliamentary proceedings in both official
languages.
Since September 1, 2003, the CPAC
signal has been available in the minority official language on a separate
channel in some regions, while in others television viewers with SAP technology
have had access to the signal in both languages. See the Second Report of the
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages entitled “Broadcasting and
availability of the debates and proceedings of Parliament in both official
languages”, presented to the House on May 2, 2001 (Journals,
pp. 353‑4). See also the government response to the report, tabled
on September 26, 2001 (Journals, p. 637).
Furthermore, on March 22, 2005,
the government directed the CRTC, by Order (SOR/2005‑60), to amend its
regulatory framework to require cable companies with 2,000 or more subscribers
to reserve two video channels for CPAC, one in English and one in French. The
new requirement to distribute CPAC on a second channel was in addition to the
existing requirement on the use of SAP technology. It is not necessary for both
channels to be carried in the basic service package. However, a cable company
that provides a second channel as part of its basic service in no longer
required to use SAP technology.