Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

L024 - Thu 17 Oct 1985 / Jeu 17 oct 1985

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions on the television coverage of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Breaugh: A number of us have actually had this debate many times on how we would go about providing television coverage of the proceedings here, whether we should have it and exactly how we would do it. It is an auspicious occasion, because we are now on the verge of doing that.

This House, during its summer session, did not really direct the procedural affairs committee to investigate whether we do or we do not, that question really having been resolved, so the question before the committee was exactly how we would go about televising the proceedings. We were happy to take on that task and we had a good deal of assistance on the way through from other jurisdictions that have already made this a reality in their chambers.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How do they do it in Stuttgart?

Mr. Breaugh: We have not had an opportunity to look offshore yet, but I expect we will be directed by the government House leader to do just that somewhat later on.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How would the member like to take a look at Wawa?

Mr. Breaugh: We have already been to Wawa.

It is an interesting exercise. One of the things we noticed as we had a chance to compare, for example, two systems in the Canadian experience that are really quite different -- one used at the federal House of Commons and the other used at the provincial Legislature in Saskatchewan -- is that the technology is changing pretty quickly.

Many of us were impressed with Saskatchewan, and let me start with that as an example. It is a place that has combined several things that we thought were worth considering and that we did consider very strongly in the report. First, they use the best available technology. That technology is changing rapidly and it solves some of the problems that members are very much aware of.

One of the things we decided initially is that this is really not meant to be entertainment; this is not television production. This is meant to provide a television record of the proceedings of this chamber, so we have a different purpose in mind than do, for example, the news crews who visit us in this chamber now.

It is our purpose to provide people in Thunder Bay, all through the north, in eastern Ontario and in southwestern Ontario with the exact same opportunity to follow the proceedings of the Legislature as someone who happens to live in Toronto, who can drop into the chamber, sit in the gallery on an evening like this and see what is happening to a certain bill, what is happening to a committee report or just what is going on in the Legislature of Ontario.

We recognize that this thought is different for this House, which has happened on a few occasions but not many, and that will change the nature of this parliament. This will be a chamber where people will have access to us. They may not be in the gallery physically, but they will be able to sit at home, tune in a local television station and see what is happening to something that is of interest to them.

It will point out to members that, like almost everybody's city council and like our federal Parliament in Ottawa, this access means that people know what we are doing a good deal more. That has good and bad about images, imagery and the effect of television generally, and it will change in some way the tenor of this Legislature. It will not be quite so relaxed, I am sure, on some evenings. We think it will be something to which everyone has access. We worked very hard throughout the report to see that, in as many ways as is physically possible, the theoretical access to the process is the same for everybody, no matter where they live.

If a change in the Professional Engineers Act is going through the Ontario Legislature, an engineer in Thunder Bay will be able to follow that just as easily as an engineer who lives in Toronto.

They will both see where it is in debate in the House and possibly have an opportunity to follow it through even clause-by-clause stage in committee.

Of course, in bits and pieces we have done all of this here. Over the summer, for example, the standing committee on social development has been televised and people have watched and reacted to that. There have been occasions when full debates of the Legislature, such as the one we had on the Constitution, were televised completely by TVOntario. We are all aware there was an impact. When we talk to people in other jurisdictions, they relay that message to us. They tell us people follow it. They do not watch it for entertainment purposes, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have an interest in what transpires here during the course of a legislative working day.

What we tried to do with the report was to say, "We really ought to blend the new technology of automated cameras and different kinds of lighting systems with the needs of the people of Ontario who want to see what the legislative process is all about."

It is a very simple fact that is also a little difficult, and I would predict we will have some of our more serious problems about it. This is also a place where 125 people work, so to speak. A work place cannot be a television production studio. No anchorman on national TV spends seven hours under glaring lights during his or her work. They spend much shorter periods. Frankly, we cannot live with a system that would put lights into this chamber which members could stand for only half an hour at a time. We could not continue to do our work as legislators.

Therefore, there is a blend of things all going together which have to be sorted out. We believe it can be done. In the federal House of Commons, we saw a process of televised procedures which has had a major impact on Canadian policy and people's awareness of their Parliament. We think that is great.

In Saskatchewan, we saw a technical system which provides lighting which is no more bothersome than the lights that are now on in this chamber, and the television lights are not on. It provides a system which is functional, which is what we are trying to get.

We are somewhat concerned that use of the television process must really make an end product which is accurate. One of the things of which we are aware, and the federal House of Commons is also, is that its initial guidelines on how the coverage would be transmitted do not always tell people watching at home exactly what is happening. It has a very restrictive system of providing the television coverage, particularly anything having to do with what type of shots are taken and who is recognized by the Speaker.

When we were there, we spent an interesting session with its production people. We saw what might be called outtakes in another circumstance -- that is, bits of film that had been taken by camera crews -- which pointed out some of the problems. There was one, which I will use as my only example, in which the Speaker was in the process of naming a member. Unless one happens to be a fan of parliaments, one may not even know what it means to have a member named. However, that is the picture that was used.

The picture that was on the screen all the time was that of the Speaker of our national Parliament calling for order. At no time, oddly enough, was the member who was named ever named. We never found out which member was being expelled. We never saw him being expelled from the chamber. We did not find out why he was being expelled by the Speaker. For a long time, we just had the chance of seeing a very distinguished gentleman in a black robe calling for order. The telecast did not really explain the circumstances around that.

8:10 p.m.

When we put together our guidelines, we were impressed with some of what we found in Saskatchewan. One of the things that Legislature did in its chamber was to say: "You need to have a set of rough guidelines put together by members of the chamber. You need to keep in contact with them and review those every once in a while to see that the television picture that is put into people's living rooms is one they can understand." They used visual aids a great deal to explain the process as to where it was, what this bill meant, and what stage it was at.

I dare say there are people who cover this Legislature every day in their working hours, working for television stations and newspapers, who cannot do that, who cannot tell what second reading of a bill means, who do not know what clause-by-clause debate is all about, who have never been to many of our committees and do not know what committees do, who have not seen the workings of the wonderful Board of Internal Economy and who do not follow the process in this chamber.

It is not their job to do that. Their job is to gather a news story for that day. That is why they are employed and why they are here. Once they have captured the main news story of the day, their work day is literally over. There are a lot of occasions when one can pick it out and say they were around for a budget speech or they came back when something happened late at night; that is true.

The purpose of the cameras in the gallery is not to record the proceedings of the chamber. They are here for news-gathering purposes. We want to make that distinction. For our purposes, in a nutshell we are trying to present to people equal access to accurate television proceedings of the Legislature.

We said that ought to be extended to our committees. That is not to say every committee ought to be on television all the time. We do not pretend that for a moment. However, we are aware that occasions arise, as we have seen over the summer, when the work of a committee is important enough to be televised. We said that when a system is set up it ought to have the capacity so that we can agree among ourselves that people should have access to certain hearings by providing one of our committee rooms with proper equipment so they can have that access.

Let me try to summarize some of the principles behind our deliberations. The principle of access is the most important. There is the principle of accuracy. The end product must be something people can readily understand. This is not a television production of the proceedings here. The first thing is to provide an accurate reflection of the business of the House by means of television.

A number of things we said are kind of ancillary. We admire the use of the capacity for televising the proceedings in the federal House of Commons to be integrated into other systems. We are aware that other systems are on the verge of being presented to members here, such as computerization. There should be some capacity to have them at least compatible so that can be exercised.

In the report, we tried to reflect that this is not Saskatchewan or the federal Parliament and that it is our task to try to put in front of the members tonight something that works for us, and I think we have done that. In the main, it is an automated system but none of the systems we saw was totally automated. All require some hands-on operation. We believe there is considerable strength in the automated system in cost savings, operational costs in particular, but there will always be a need for people to run the machinery.

If I could characterize the recommendations we made around equipment and the type of operation we would run, it ought to be lean and mean for starters. It is not a good idea to run out and hire a huge production capacity that is never used. We have seen that in other jurisdictions.

We should start with a basic state-of-the-art process that has the capacity to keep the records for posterity. We should give everybody equal access to the broadcast mechanism, such as providing some signing or closed-captioning for those who have a hearing impediment and by making sure that francophones can understand what is going on in the proceedings here; that should be recognized. All the basic principles around access are grouped in and out of this report.

We tried to present our best estimate of how we might go about this process. We want one that is fair and reasonable. That extends to some things which normally would not be the consideration of a parliamentary committee. We recognized that if the seating arrangements in the chamber provide that one of our members is stuck in a corner where no television camera yet designed can pick him up, and where no lighting system we can think of will provide him with the same fairness as someone in the front row in the middle of the chamber, that is unfair and should not exist.

Those kinds of things may not be high on our list, but we did try to recognize them. We recognized even simple things. The sound system in this chamber, which is not exactly the world's greatest, probably does have to be upgraded and integrated into the system. We recognized that members were adamant about the idea that this has to be a place where you can work for six or seven hours at a time, as many of our members do. That, in a nutshell, is what this committee recommended in its report.

Before I sit down this evening, I want to thank a lot of people who attempted to give us good information on short notice. They include people in the public sector, in the private sector, in the press gallery, at the House of Commons and in Saskatchewan, people who were very open about the problems they had encountered and the information they had, and we have provided some of it in here.

We cannot tell the House exactly what the cost will be, so we have provided in here the cost of the Saskatchewan experience, which is the most recent one and the one that is probably closest to what we are recommending.

Two staff people, Smirle Forsyth and John Eichmanis, worked very hard to put together a report for which, in other jurisdictions, people hired consultants at a couple of hundred thousand dollars to spend a couple of years putting a report together. These two people essentially sat with the committee of the Legislature during the summer and listened to what people on the committee had to say. They listened very accurately, I might say, and put the report together in a hurry in a format that I think is good and is very much like the kind of process we want.

I want to thank those people in other jurisdictions who were so happy to share their experiences and their information with us.

We think we have provided the members of this Legislature with a good report, one that is basic, common sense on how we would go about it. It has essential principles about access and fairness to the members and to the people back home, with a clear recognition that this is not meant to be an entertainment package, that it is meant to be an information service so that people who may not be able to subscribe to Hansard and may not want to read it all will at least have the same opportunity in their own homes to find out what is happening at the Ontario Legislature as they have with their city council or with the federal Parliament. That is at the heart of this report; that is essentially what we tried to do.

I welcome the occasion to have this debate tonight and I want to close with one final notation. We felt, and we made it one of our recommendations as we went through our deliberations, that this chamber belongs to these members. It belongs to the people of Ontario in a larger sense, but this is a decision that ought to be made by the members of the assembly. They ought to debate this report tonight, and I hope that at about 10:15 this evening we will have our chance to do that. This kind of fundamental decision, and it is fundamental, on the kind of information flow that goes from Queen's Park to the people of Ontario is one that should be made by all members.

In that regard I want to make sure that all members have a chance to speak to this report. It is obviously something I feel very strongly about and have felt strongly about for a long time. It is a concern that is shared by a number of members here and I want to make sure they have the opportunity to speak to that.

I welcomed the opportunity to do this work with this committee. I really want to thank the members of the committee, some of whom, quite frankly, are not all that enamoured of the idea of televising the proceedings. But the House having said it wants to do it, they then proceeded to do the work that was assigned to them by the assembly, which was to lay out in report form how we would go about this, what the principles would be and roughly what it would look like.

This job is not finished yet, not by a long shot. This is the beginning of the process. There are people like the Board of Internal Economy who will have a lot of work to do. There are people who will have to advise us on the specifics in the technology that ought to be used here. But I do feel confident that this will be a decision of this Legislature, as I have always felt it ought to be; that it will be done in a commonsense, straightforward way, as I have felt it always ought to be; and that it will be done, which is something I am immensely grateful for.

It now appears from the recommendation of the committee that we have a test period this fall, that we get a chance to see whether these guidelines work or do not work and whether members are happy or unhappy with them, and that it will be possible by the beginning of the spring session to provide the people of Ontario with complete access to their legislative program.

I believe it will be good for the members, although they might be a bit awkward with it initially. I believe it will be beneficial to the people of Ontario, and I believe quite frankly that it will help the democratic process in this province.

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in the debate on the report prepared by the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions. That committee was given the responsibility of preparing a report to table in the Legislature.

We have done it, I believe, with the utmost speed and with a good deal of skill, because we have relied upon the people in the Legislature and people in other legislatures who have helped us. As the chairman said during his speech, we have certainly appreciated the work that they have done on our behalf.

When we look back at the issue of TV Hansard in the House, we know, we see and we are aware that the government that held power until May 2 was firmly against establishing a TV Hansard. They were firmly against having any kind of TV coverage in the House unless it was for their own throne speeches and for their own budgets.

It bothered me a good deal when the government knew full well that the TV coverage in the House was not what it should be because of the placements of the private cameras in the Speaker's gallery. Because of the nature of politics and the nature of news, many of the reporters who work with the private sector had to leave on many occasions before the end of question period. They had to leave when they felt a major story was breaking.

Many of the things that were being done and said by other members were just not as newsworthy. This information, although very important to one's individual constituency or to a large segment of the people, never got on air or was never able to be seen by a member's constituents because of the nature of news and some of the other things I have described.

It bothered me a great deal that whenever the government had to announce a throne speech, it would bring in Rogers Cable TV, which would set up ugly apparatus that would be placed just behind where the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) sits and other ugly apparatus that would be placed on the opposite side of the chamber.

They would ensure that the throne speech, the government's statement to the people on what it believed in, would get wide coverage. When it was time for the Treasurer to introduce his budget, they would also ensure that these cameras would be brought in and that the budget would be covered from start to finish. The government used TV to further its own ends and for its own purposes.

I have always rejected that unfair way of sending information to the public. It was biased and unfair and did not give an opportunity to the leaders of the opposition parties to be shown in a similar fashion. As soon as the government speeches were done, they took down the towers and out went the cameras.

Things have changed. May 2 has changed a lot of things. We are going to keep our promises. One of the main promises made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was that we were going to open up this system of government and that the people of Ontario would have access to what we are doing here on a daily and regular basis, whether the Tories like it or not.

Mr. McLean: At what cost?

Mr. Mancini: Somebody asked, "At what cost?" Does the member who asked that know what it costs to print Hansard, something that we have done for the last half century? Would he be in favour of eliminating Hansard because of its cost? Yes or no? Speak up.

Was the member who asked, "At what cost?" opposed to the government's $80-million advertising program last year? When the Tories were promoting themselves, the cost did not mean anything, but now that we want to show the whole Legislature in action the member asks, "At what cost?" It will be far less than the $80 million those people spend on themselves, and everyone will be treated fairly, as stated in the guidelines adopted by the committee.

I want to congratulate my colleagues who served on the committee. For the most part, as is the custom on the procedural affairs committee, nonpartisanship held the day. That is one of the reasons we were able to get a report done in such a reasonable time and at almost no cost at all, as the chairman said earlier. We wanted to introduce a system in this province that would allow the majority of the people to witness what is happening here and to make up their own minds as to who and what issues are of most importance to them.

When we look at schedule A of the report done by the committee, we see this committee has tried to be fair to all members of the House. Many of the recommendations in the report stipulate over and over again that when TV Hansard finally comes to the Legislature, it has to be and must be fair to every single member of the House.

That leads me to one point I wanted to have inserted under the description of television guidelines which we discussed in the committee. I brought to the committee's attention that I would be opposed to split-screen shots, with the photo of one member on one half of the screen and the photo of another member on the other. I say that because of the unfairness it would bring to individual members.

It would also be unfair to the director of TV Hansard because he or she would have to decide at a moment's notice who should be on the split-screen shots. The director would have to decide what question from the opposition or what minister should be shown on split-screen shots. There may and there will be a lot of unfairness in that situation. How would the director of TV Hansard decide and who is the director of TV Hansard to decide who is to be on split-screen shots? We are asking for nothing but trouble unless we prohibit that type of activity.

Mr. McClellan: Let us try it and see.

Mr. Mancini: That is fine, but why should someone employed by the Legislature be put in that kind of position? The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) might rise and ask a question of vital importance to his constituency. Maybe he would want to be on a split-screen shot, but the director of TV Hansard might feel it was not an earth-shattering provincial problem and not show the member for Bellwoods, but someone else following the member for Bellwoods might be on that split-screen shot. That would be unfair to the majority of the members.

I am proud that in this report we stated over and over again that we wanted it to be fair for each and every member. That is why we do not think it is fair for the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) to be in the position he is in, stuck in the corner where, no matter what he does or says, the TV cameras from the Speaker's gallery will never be able to focus on him. We suggested we should possibly go to four rows of seats in the Legislature instead of three because we want to be as fair as we can to every particular member.

As we go along, I hope we will see the built-in unfairness of that situation. I can see right now what is going to happen. The leaders of the two opposition parties and maybe now and then a particular member would be on a split-screen shot, but I highly doubt the majority of the members of the Legislature would ever have that very dramatic opportunity. That particular proposal, which was not included in schedule A and which would prevent split-screen shots, is also in contravention of some of the other things the committee said it believed in.

The committee said over and over again, "We want to report what actually happens in the Legislature factually and without editorializing." As soon as we get into split-screen shots, we start to introduce all kinds of drama at the whim of the director, who is going to be under all kinds of pressure from members of the Legislature from all sides of the House. They are going to ask, "Why was I not on a split-screen shot?" I think every one of those cases will be legitimate.

I want to touch in more detail upon the cost of the electronic Hansard because I think it is important. I must apologize for not having been able to go with the committee when it went to Saskatchewan and Ottawa, but I had already seen the setup in Ottawa, in Quebec and in Alberta.

It has to be absolutely clear to all members of the House that the figures we used in our report for the Saskatchewan Legislature television broadcast system costs were 1982 figures. They are outdated. As a matter of fact, the $1.5 million figure we used for the cost of the purchase of that equipment may be only half of what we need. We have to be realistic and up front with ourselves. It is going to cost a lot of money -- not nearly as much money as it cost in Ottawa and in Quebec to set up similar systems, but certainly more than the Saskatchewan Legislature paid for setting up its own system.

If we truly believe the Legislature's business is the business of the public, then this is one of the genuine costs that has to be borne to ensure that our business is indeed public.

I will take only another five minutes. I want to comment on something that was touched on by the previous speaker, namely, the working conditions for members of the Legislature. All of us know just how terrible the lighting system is in here now. It is somewhat improved in comparison to what we had two or three years ago, which was a kind of three-eyed monster tied up against the middle posts of those beautiful arches with some chicken wire.

I find it really hard to believe we did that to the Legislature. In trying to improve the lighting situation, we bored four big holes into our historic building, so that instead of having three-eyed monsters looking at us, we now have two-eyed spotlights that look like the front of an old Ford. Since I drive an old Ford, I know.

That really brings us to a main point of contention. The lighting system has to be efficient. It has to be done in such a way that the members can work in here for several hours at a time. In contrast to the previous government, which after question period or in the evening rarely had more than two or three members sitting in their seats, with the new government we rarely have fewer than 15 or 20 members in their seats. They are here for three, four and five hours at a stretch, and it is difficult to work under these conditions.

I am very pleased that the committee stressed very strongly that it wanted a lighting system that provided not only adequate lighting for the cameras, but also decent working conditions for members. With the health and safety laws we have in this province, I am absolutely sure that if any member had put in a complaint to the health and safety division of the Ministry of Labour after those original three-eyed lights were put up, they certainly would have had to be taken down.

That leads me to the next point, the integrity of this chamber and of this building. It may be recalled that when the lights now in place were put in place some time ago, I rose on a point of privilege and objected because I felt the Speaker had not been consulted enough and we were not showing enough concern for the integrity of this chamber and this building.

This building is going to be here for a long time. It has already been here for a long time. It is going to serve many more generations. We want to preserve the historic nature of this building. That is why when we come forward with the final plan that says X number of cameras and a certain amount of lighting will be put in place, it should be done knowing full well that we must protect the integrity and the historical nature of this building. We owe that to the general public of Ontario.

In closing, I would like to say I have enjoyed my work with the members of the procedural affairs committee. They are a hard-working lot. As was said earlier, we have prepared a report in less than three months' time. I think the chairman was absolutely correct. We could not have hired a consultant to do it for less than $200,000. I know what it cost to hire a consultant to put those clocks on each side of this chamber. That is not the cost of the lights, just the cost of the consultant. It was absolutely horrendous. I was shocked when I found out the cost.

I believe we are moving into a new era of politics. I believe the people of Ontario, like the people in many other parts of Canada, are demanding to see their Legislature in action. We want to ensure that happens.

Mr. Gillies: They are battering down the doors.

Mr. Mancini: I want to say to the member for Brantford that there are more than 300,000 people in Windsor and Essex county. Very few of them will ever have the opportunity to visit this chamber or see the Legislature in action. I think we should give them that opportunity. I do not think we should in any way balk at giving them that opportunity.

I know that former bachelor, the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), agrees with me entirely. How could he do it? That is my only question. Anyway, I wish him all the very best.

I have enjoyed working with the committee. I think we have produced an excellent report. I believe we are finally going to have television Hansard. I want to stress again that the reason this has happened, the reason we have this report and the reason we will have TV Hansard in the House is entirely because of what happened on May 2.

8:40 p.m.

Mr. Sterling: I am very pleased to participate in this debate and to continue the nonpartisan remarks of the preceding speaker. In the light of the nonpartisan nature of the committee and the fact that we were all members of that committee, I appreciate we were all approaching this as a new parliament and we were looking at new ideas with the idea of looking ahead and not looking backwards to what we thought about old ideas and old things. This party is not looking back. This party is looking forward. This is the new Progressive Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: And the member is a new candidate for leadership.

Mr. Sterling: I enjoyed the part of the summer I spent with my colleagues dealing with this issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble with the hecklers in the front row.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is the new Conservative Party.

Mr. Sterling: Right. At any rate, I enjoyed very much the meetings we did have. We had some very fruitful meetings with a number of people from across the country. We also met on other issues, and I want to mention that the procedural affairs committee, when meeting on other issues, did have the opportunity to travel to two other state legislatures as well as one other provincial legislature. In doing that, as members of this Legislature, we have a very deep responsibility to see that something is done about this building.

Now that we are starting the renovations, if you want to call them that, by putting this facility into the Legislature, we should be very careful how we do it so, as the previous speaker mentioned, we not only retain the integrity of the building but also improve the building and when the people of Ontario come here, they will feel proud that this is their building.

There was a suggestion by one of the previous speakers that all members of the committee who were there did not agree that electronic Hansard was going to come about. As the Speaker well knows, since he was a member sitting on that committee, all the members of this party went into that debate knowing full well that electronic Hansard was going to come about. We fully supported it during the discussion. I do not believe we ever put up any kind of argument that it was not going to happen. We looked at it in a positive sense, looking towards the very noble goal, as explained in the report, of providing access to this place to as many people in Ontario as possible.

I want to deal with the report and the activities of the committee in three sections. First, I want to talk briefly about the mechanics of this installation. As we learned in Saskatchewan -- and I want to emphasize this, because it may be a temptation in terms of cutting the installation costs -- it is very important that the cameras, as recommended in the report, be recessed into the wall or into a particular area, so they will not be evident to the eye unless one is looking hard for them. They did a very good job of that in Saskatchewan.

Second, as mentioned before, our members -- I should not speak for all our members -- I felt, if I had the choice between having television and putting up with the glare of the lights that we now experience during question period, while I support very strongly the installation of TV , I am not willing to work under those conditions for long periods of time. It is very much a condition of my support tonight that the lighting be done correctly so the working conditions of each and every member here are such that we can stay in the Legislative Assembly for more than an hour without getting a headache.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is it what the member sees or what he hears that gives him a headache?

Mr. Sterling: I am always willing to listen to good ideas.

The cost estimate on this installation has been bandied about at $1.5 million, perhaps $2 million, or whatever. I think that cost estimate is probably quite low. If it is found that the installation of this electronic Hansard is 10 or 15 times that kind of a cost, then I might have some reservations about going ahead with it at this time. However, I am going on the basis that the cost is in the neighbourhood of $2 million.

There is one thing we did not consider in the report, and I was thinking about it today. I hope the people who install this system and set up the control room will have the public in mind when they do so. The control room in Ottawa is located above the House of Commons in a corner and is not very accessible by the public. I guess the original thought was that the people in the control room would have an opportunity to overlook the House of Commons in case there was something they wanted to see by their eye rather than by the television eye. In Saskatchewan, the control booth is in a very small room adjacent to the Legislature.

When people come to Queen's Park, they like to see this legislative chamber and some of the paintings around here, but there is not much else for some of the children and other people who come here to look at. A lot of them would be fascinated with seeing how the television coverage is being taken care of and would enjoy visiting the television control room. I hope the people who are involved in the implementation of this will take into account the location of the control room and will allow for the possibility of the public coming to see what is taking place in terms of the television coverage of our debates.

The second consideration, after dealing with the mechanical part of the setup, is the distribution of the electronic Hansard. The committee felt that all it could say was that we wanted it to get to as many people as possible, because it was not determined on our part whether the distribution was our responsibility or somebody else's.

Our first responsibility is to record electronically what goes on in here. As to whether it gets to a constituent in Prescott or wherever, I would like that to happen, but that may be a very costly thing to do. When we are breaking down the costs of this, we have the capital cost of setting it up, and then we have another, very large undetermined cost of distributing the product we are going to produce here. I believe it is correct and proper for the committee to have left its up to the Board of Internal Economy to decide how far it wants to go.

I might add that if the will of the Legislature is to see that every person in our province has an opportunity to view this, I will support that most wholeheartedly. As the Speaker knows, in many of our rural areas we do not have the luxury of cable television, and in some places, such as in eastern Ontario, we do not even have the luxury of educational television and that sort of thing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What do you do on a long winter evening?

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Sterling: We work awfully late in eastern Ontario to make up for the advantages the farmers have in western Ontario.

The last part I would like to speak about, and I spoke on it at some length in the committee, is the rules that are going to be put in place to control this coverage in the Legislature. During one committee hearing, I used the word "censorship." Immediately the press picked it up and said, "Sterling is in favour of censorship."

What we have to examine, and what was perhaps not debated and understood fully by the members, was: "Is this room in which we are now sitting a special place in Ontario, or is it like sitting outside of this room, being on the street, in an auditorium or wherever?" My argument was this: When we bring those TV cameras in here, the automatic TV cameras that are going to move, I suggested the TV cameras that traipse in and out of here every day might be removed because they would no longer be necessary; they would be redundant. We would have TV coverage, and the electronic media would have the opportunity to take up part of the electronic Hansard and use it on the TV news if they so desired.

Of course, the members of press were not impressed with my suggestion because they not only want the advantage of having access to the electronic Hansard but would like also to take their shots as they see fit from the gallery.

In addition to its being a nuisance to each and every one of us, at the end of question period in particular, it also presents a problem when there are demonstrations in the public galleries. The rules of this House, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, are that there is to be no participation on the part of people sitting in the public gallery. They are not supposed to applaud, make speeches, chain themselves to a railing or do a number of things which we have had exhibited to us in the past.

The whole idea of a public demonstration in the gallery is to attract media attention. It is nothing more, nothing less. That particular forum is strictly forbidden by the rules of the House. Therefore, I argued in committee that, with the control of the cameras by rules we might set down as in schedule A of the report, such a public demonstration would not be recorded and consequently there would be no sense in having public demonstrations any more. Therefore, it would be a matter of enforcing the rules in standing orders.

People convinced me during the hearings that there had not been much of a problem.

Mr. Barlow: They bought you out.

Mr. Sterling: No. They convinced me there had not been much of a problem in the past with the TV cameras up here, but I think it is a very important concept to get straight in our minds.

Perhaps the best parallel to the legislative chamber would be a courtroom. You have a judge who is in control of the proceedings and makes certain the various members get an equal break in what happens. That is why we have standing orders: so one member of the Legislature will not have an advantage over another.

Once the judge loses control over his courtroom, then some damage can be done to an accused, particularly in a criminal case, which might affect the outcome of that trial. In this case, with the cameras located where they are at present, they can misrepresent. I do not expect that would happen very often, but if they so choose they can misrepresent exactly what took place here because, as one of my colleagues indicated, it can be used.

At any rate, I yielded to the wishes of the majority of the committee. However, it is a matter we may have to deal with in the future if the cameras are not being fair to the Legislative Assembly. We should never forget that the control of the Speaker is more important than anything else in how this House is run, so as to give the guy over there the same advantage in speaking that I am given. We all have to agree to these rules, and it is important that the public have the perception that we are all treated equally.

I look forward to the installation of television in the Legislative Assembly. I have enjoyed working on the procedural affairs committee and will continue to do so. I would like to add my thanks to Smirle Forsyth and John Eichmanis for their work on this project. It is going to be difficult for all of us to become accustomed to this, as my friend the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), who has had some experience in the federal House, has warned us.

We are going to have a test period. We are going to see our mugs on TV for a month. Maybe we should have the vote on the report after that takes place rather than before we have the opportunity to see ourselves. I am sure we will encourage much more interest in the debates and many people will attend more often. I hope it will lift the level of the debate as well.

Mr. Newman: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate on the establishment of an electronic Hansard in this Legislature. My first words should be of commendation for the manner in which our chairman, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), conducted himself. He was a real sparkplug. He knew how to get the attention of the various members when they thought of better places to be at certain given times. He did his work in a very impartial manner that was nice to see and nice to experience, because generally in this House we are of three different thoughts and we do not hesitate to express those thoughts.

As a result of the manner in which he conducted himself and the assistance from Smirle Forsyth and John Eichmanis, the report was completed in a short time. I had anticipated we would spend a substantially longer period of time delving into such a complicated problem. When we first decided to look into the issue, we thought we could go to one spot, and then a second and a third, and make up our minds. It was not that easy. This is an extremely complicated endeavour. In addition to its being complicated, we were dealing with three different political philosophies.

9 p.m.

One could speak ad nauseam on the topic of the development of an electronic Hansard. I have always wondered why it took so long for this august chamber to decide it should step into the 20th century and be right along with other jurisdictions that have had such a Hansard for a substantial period of time. I thought the province would have been leading, whereas instead we followed the government of Canada as well as that of Saskatchewan.

We did not go to any great extent into the United States, but we did see some of this in Albany, New York. As a result, the combination of the various visits we made assisted us in arriving at a conclusion about what we thought would be in the best interests not of ourselves but of the many people who do not have the opportunity to come into this chamber and see exactly how we behave and/or, at times, misbehave.

The idea of having an electronic Hansard is only one step. I think we have to go into electronic voting, as they do in other places, so that rather than stand up, bow to the Speaker and go through all those formalities, we will simply push buttons. Our names will be on the walls and one can go along and see whether the individual voted for or against or abstained.

We see that in the Michigan state Legislature and in other legislatures, and it is a real time saver. It gives us an opportunity to get into more pertinent matters than simply standing up, bowing to an individual, sitting down and going through the names of 125 individuals who have the right to register their positions on given discussions in the Legislature.

I do not intend to make any more comments. I am very pleased. Now that we have started this, I hope we will not stop but will carry it to fruition. We hope our whole purpose in this is the best interests of those who do not have the opportunity to come into this House to see exactly what takes place.

It is a pleasure for me to have had the opportunity to say these few words. Once again I commend those, including all members, who worked in unison in developing this report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Oxford.

You did not hear me?

Mr. Treleaven: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you. It is Oxford, the place with the statue of the cow.

Mr. Andrewes: What kind of cow?

Mr. Treleaven: A Holstein cow, a Holstein Friesian, the world champion butterfat producer, owned by Tom Dent.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Springbank Snow Countess?

Mr. Treleaven: That is right; owned by Tom Dent, a member of this House from 1943 to 1955.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He won every other election.

Mr. Treleaven: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was his neighbour at one point and would remember -- at least, his father was.

The standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions is a consensus committee, and when we get in here, the same members are not all of one mind. So I have a suggestion. Perhaps if the House would like to refer Bill 30, the matter of beer and wine in the corner stores, and even the matter of question period to the procedural affairs committee, I am sure we would solve it in short order, bring back a report to be debated and save everyone a lot of time.

Mr. McClellan: We will have to visit a few places, too.

Mr. Treleaven: Perhaps it would be necessary to go to the European Community to see what they do in such circumstances.

As my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) also said, as this committee started the project, electronic Hansard, it was not an option whether or not we would have electronic Hansard, or television in the House; it was only what and when, not if.

As we vary a certain amount, let me say first that I am quite in favour of having an electronic Hansard in the House

Mr. Haggerty: But no television.

Mr. Treleaven: No, television; electronic Hansard. That is fine as an extension of the microphones into which we speak and of the Hansard that is taken down and put in books. Looking at our report and our recommendations, I am certainly in favour of that. I was most impressed with the Saskatchewan example, as were the other members of the committee.

The guidelines set out in schedule A are fine. I disagree with my friend the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) when he refers to split-screening. It states in the guidelines that the people operating the television cameras have to do that with decorum in mind and they should use taste when split-screening. What is contemplated is, if a question is asked of a minister, then the minister is on television and the only split-screening aspect would be where the questioner was shown at the same time, to get some relevance between question and answer. I see nothing wrong with that.

I will go as far as saying I would like to see television in the House. I would like to see a central feed, so the TV stations and networks can take it off in a high-quality transmission. I would like to see cassettes made, so individual members can take these cassettes back to their cable TV stations and the proceedings here can be disseminated as much as the members or their local cable TV stations wish.

When we get to the end of that, we get into the distribution question, which is a little stickier. As my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville mentioned, we have costs to think about. In referring in the report to distribution, we received a confusing amount of information as to what it was going to cost. Members should keep in mind that back in the late 1970s, Saskatchewan had in mind putting television in its House and distributing it. They found they did not have a distribution system, so they postponed it for three or four years until there was an in-province distribution system. Then they brought television into their House in 1982-83.

In Ontario, we received all kinds of figures. On page 27 of the report, the cost was estimated as high as $255,000 a year to link up the satellite rental, or it could be bought for $500,000. To rent a transponder for the satellite would amount to approximately $1 million a year. When we get into these figures, the distribution costs get a little bit scary.

I refer to a letter that came from the Ontario Cable Telecommunications Association, which appeared in front of us. This letter, dated August 26, is to the clerk of the committee. They were very good. I was very impressed with their knowledge and their at-hand statistics. They told us there are approximately 3.5 million homes in Ontario and approximately 2.2 million, or 62 per cent of them, have cable television. So you get down to 2.2 million. They said 65 per cent of those have converter facilities. Now you are down to 1.4 million households.

Then they said one half of those are serviced by cable systems that are capable of getting in that signal or that have capacity in their station. I did not understand it, but apparently some cable stations have as few as 12 stations, others have 20, some have in the high 30s and some have no capacity. When we take the 700,000 capacity in Ontario with converters that can bring in the signal, we are down to 20 per cent of the households in the province that, right now, can take it off television by way of converter.

9:10 p.m.

The association also stated that in the larger urban centres this converter usage is about 80 per cent, not 62 per cent. Therefore, in Oxford and all the other constituencies like it in the province, approximately 15 per cent of the households have the capacity to get this televised into their homes.

The Ontario Cable Telecommunications Association stated: "We know that a number of smaller systems have little current channel availability. Many are not carrying the federal House proceedings because of that situation." It states there are problems getting these stations to (a) carry it, (b) carry it live, (c) carry it at any time in the normal viewing hours, short of midnight and after.

Mr. Haggerty: So you are saying it is only for Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Treleaven: I am not saying that. The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) said that, not me. The people in Metropolitan Toronto would have a much greater capacity. Perhaps 80 or 75 per cent of the homes would be able to take this in. Maybe it would be closer to 100; whereas in certain places such as Erie and Oxford, it might be 15 per cent.

If we are talking these large amounts of dollars I was throwing around, $255,000 and $1 million a year rental to get this signal out, and it can get into only 15 per cent of certain homes in some ridings, I question if the distribution system is far enough along to consider it as this point.

In summary, yes, televise it in the House, make cassettes, give a central feed for the networks that wish to take it; but perhaps the Board of Internal Economy or whoever is going to deal with this should go back to the drawing board on the distribution to see if we cannot find a better system at smaller figures than we have had presented to us so far.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I well recall the occasions in the past when we have had special television facilities introduced into this chamber for occasions of note, such as the reading of the budget and the responses by the opposition critics. This goes back to before 1975, even before it was permitted under our rules for the television cameras from the ordinary news media to come to the Speaker's gallery, under the clock.

The occasion of which I am thinking would be about that time, and an agreement was worked out by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., although it might have been CITY-TV, that it would bring in equipment and put it on the special bridges normally installed behind the seats for opening day and other occasions. The Treasurer's budget speech was televised in its entirety. It may have been Darcy McKeough on that occasion, I cannot recall exactly. The agreement was that the opposition critics would have an hour of live time. I believe it was CBC, now that I think of it.

I happened to be the opposition critic and, of course, prepared myself carefully and had my usual stylish haircut in the basement of this building. I had special advice from my wife as to sartorial splendour. I prepared the speech with inordinate care. Special lighting was installed, of the chicken-wire type to which the member for Essex South was referring, with the lights hanging on wires and sparks jumping from one light to another. I delivered a marvellous speech; everybody said so in St. George, Ontario. I waited for the flood of mail. I got three letters damning me 10 ways because the hour had pre-empted The Edge of Night.

The lesson I got at that time was that this is not the greatest theatre that ever was. It is true there are political groupies, people who watch anything on television, who will tune in to debates such as this and be transfixed by them.

It is hard to understand and hard to believe, but on the basis of disseminating knowledge and selling democracy in a modern forum, it seems to be generally accepted on all sides that this is exactly the thing we should do. Of course, I agree.

Mr. Gillies: I want to suggest to my friend opposite that perhaps the answer is a split screen with him on one side and The Edge of Night on the other.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Somebody in one corner of the House said a split screen could be used to show a Tory talking out of both sides of his mouth; not the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).

As Treasurer and Minister of Revenue, I have been listening to the projections of costs. We are thinking in terms of $4 million to set it up. The chairman of the committee is shaking his head. He is a well-known conserver of public dollars. There are the year-by-year costs. It is so easy for us to say, "It really does not make that much difference." Then one thinks of what we are starting up with all those cassettes, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being carefully preserved like cuneiform nuggets in the bottom of some pyramid. One thousand years from now, somebody will come on this as a great treasure trove of culture from the 1980s. They will start running those things and will say: "Is that all it was? Is that all they had to pass on?" Of course, I am in favour of it.

The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) or perhaps the previous speaker was worrying about the bright lights. Some members may have noticed that I worry about the bright lights too. There is a simple solution and I have shown the way. If we tear off the bottom of the Orders and Notices each day as we come in, something about an inch wide and about four inches long, and fold it in the middle to form a nice little U-shaped trough, it fits on the top of our eyeglasses and actually cuts out the lights perfectly.

As to the fact that everybody thinks one is crazy, probably we can get used to that because it is perfectly comfortable and we do not have to sit in the House watching the other side with a hand shading our eyes as if we are looking into the western sky at five o'clock on a summer evening, watching the wheat waving in the breeze.

It is a real problem and it is going to add for all time to our discomfort here, even though the chairman of the committee has looked into this carefully -- I do not mean the bright lights but the alternatives -- and he tells me that the kind of cameras he is used to can take pictures in total darkness. That may be appropriate for this chamber.

9:20 p.m.

Even with that terrible difficulty, I heartily support it. These matters have been discussed in this House for a long time. There would be those who would be unkind enough to say that some honourable members -- none here now; probably those who were elected previously -- had a sort of fixation of some special importance, not of themselves, but of the chamber. I believe it is important, but I am not sure that being able to follow it minute by minute, day by day, and to have a permanent electronic record of every sigh and scowl, every clever interjection, every ministerial statement, is worth the dough. I have had to balance this carefully and I have come to the conclusion that I support it.

I have been House leader of our party for quite a period of time and have been subjected to the arguments of my esteemed colleagues for a long time. They have had the feeling that when I went to the Board of Internal Economy to discuss this, I did not convey their views with sufficient enthusiasm. I am here to tell them that I conveyed their views with sufficient enthusiasm, but now my gambit is running out.

We have a piece of paper with signatures affixed which indicates that we are going to have an electronic Hansard. I think it is very appropriate that members of all parties have taken part in what I must admit is a careful review of the alternatives and have made a recommendation to the House. I do not think the recommendation could be better. I will leave it at that and say I support it.

Mrs. Marland: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak very briefly, and it should certainly give the House a great deal of pleasure if I do speak briefly. I would like to echo the comments of one or two previous speakers in their commendation of our chairman. It was my first experience with a standing committee, and this was the first area the standing committee worked on this summer. I must say I was very impressed with the member for Oshawa. I was also very impressed with the two members of the staff who have been referred to, Smirle Forsyth and John Eichmanis.

I am very proud to have been part of the committee that brought this report forward, but my pride is really in the people I have mentioned, because their part in this report was far greater than my own. I think it is a commendable report. I believe there are no areas that were not covered and not investigated. The excellence of the report will probably stand as a good example of what our committee is going to be coming forward with on a few other subjects in the near future, all of which will prove very interesting to the House.

I would like to thank the members of that committee for the experience of working on this particular report this summer. As another speaker tonight also mentioned, the committee really went about doing its job. As a new member in the House, I expected to experience a standing committee as being partisan. I was more than delighted to find that that aspect never interfered with the mandate, which was to get on with the job and come up with a report. The partisan aspect did not put us into any illogical situations or debates; it was a very productive exercise.

In my own opinion, to have television in the House is very progressive. In this 20th century it only makes common sense for us to benefit from the 20th century technology that is available to us. Through this medium, we will make available to a large number of people at least the choice of finding out what their elected representatives do and, furthermore, perhaps through the convenience of the visual transmission, to understand better what at times is discussed in the House but is difficult for them to understand from the print media reports.

I certainly can speak very strongly from experience in Mississauga, where we have televised the council meetings for seven years. I am constantly amazed by the ever-increasing numbers of people who are watching them on a local cable network. One may think, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said, that it can be pretty boring stuff. In fact, there are sections of all meetings that are boring, but there are other sections that are very interesting. I think we underestimate the public by suggesting it would not be interested in the proceedings of this House.

People are interested and they become more interested as they become more familiar with the kinds of debates and processes we go through. How much more rewarding it is for us as elected members of this Legislature to represent a public which is not apathetic, because it has had the advantage and, consequently, the benefit of being able to see what we do, what we are talking about and what these human issues are on a day-to-day basis that affect people directly in their daily lives. I am very excited about the possibility that we are going to have this system in place as soon as possible.

There are some fringe benefits, too, to having the House televised, in my opinion. I have a lot of difficulty with desk thumping. I do not know whether other people share that or not, but I personally have a lot of difficulty with it. I know it is traditional at both levels of government, here and in the federal House, but I do not think it adds anything to the conduct of the House.

I am very pleased about one of the factors in televising the House. We were told, particularly in Regina, that desk thumping should stop because of the vibration on the microphones. The desk thumping can be replaced by applause. I personally think this would be an improvement in the decorum of the House.

[Applause]

Mrs. Marland: I thank those members who applauded. Of course, it will certainly add to the discipline of members of the House.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: To whom is the member referring?

Mrs. Marland: I have been told that some members are prone to drink their dinner rather than to eat it and then come into the evening session. Sometimes that can be difficult. if that should happen and if, unfortunately, that person is on camera --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Not since 1978.

Mrs. Marland: We have seen it happen in the federal House; maybe I am considering the wrong House.

In any case, for those who choose to do things in the House that are unbecoming, such as manicuring their nails behind the latest copy of the National Enquirer or something similar, all those kinds of things are going to go. As a result, the level of performance, in my opinion, will be increased.

I think split screens are good. I personally do not have any difficulty with split screens, and I would like that to go on the record. I think our chairman is sitting on the opposite side of the House at this moment, but our understanding of the system is that the cameras would be activated by the microphones, so the split screen would be between the two people who had the floor. I do not see any difficulty with that. If you have the split screen and show the reaction of someone who has asked a question or is in part of the immediate debate, it makes sense for the viewers to be able to see both people who perhaps are speaking alternately.

9:30 p.m.

The two previous speakers mentioned this point, and I am just giving my opinion to endorse their position. I feel very strongly that there must be a prohibition on these cameras filming public demonstrations in the galleries; otherwise, we are just going to encourage demonstrations. It is not the purpose of this House to have the public demonstrate in it. The purpose of the House is to conduct the business it is responsible for.

There are other places outside this chamber where public demonstrations can be held. To televise anything that goes on in the public galleries would only encourage it. Every day we would have somebody taking off his T-shirt or jacket, hanging out signs or making whatever demonstration he could possibly come up with because he would know that the cameras would focus on him right away. One very strict area we must enforce is that the cameras are on the business on the floor of the House at all times.

I do not agree with the comment that the independent stations should have to take out their cameras. We discussed that, and I feel it is just the same to have those live cameras at this end of the House as it is to have someone in the press gallery with a still camera photographing the same scene or the same reaction at the same time.

It is a pleasure to have been part of this committee and I look forward with eager anticipation to the public of Ontario having the choice of accessing the conduct of the affairs of this province in this Legislature.

Mr. Henderson: I rise to comment on our proposal to televise the proceedings of the Legislature. Many of us feel such a step is well overdue. Any of us who as private citizens have had dealings with government can speak of the frustration a citizen often experiences in attempting to get sound information or sensible decisions from an organization such as a government that has far-ranging and often diffuse accountability.

I am not speaking here of the elected members, to be sure -- they have a clearly delineated accountability to their constituents -- but rather of the larger institution of government whose branches have accountability to appointed ministers, elected members, branch directors, private appointees and consultants, professional lobby groups, activist citizens' groups, etc.

When there is no one individual or board to which a particular decision-making group reports, decisions often follow the whim of some individual bureaucrat, or follow the fad of some current societal fashion, or blindly adhere to some established policy or precedent of doubtful relevance to the real issue at hand.

It will be immediately apparent that I am not speaking now of Liberal governments, which rarely display those kinds of anomalies, but of governments led by other parties whose institutions we inherit when the electorate sees fit, as it did on May 2, to bestow on us that honour.

I did not expect to get away with that, but nobody seems to want to dispute the matter. These difficulties are inherent in the nature of western democratic governments and, if I can bear to contradict myself very slightly, may even have occurred under rare and unusual circumstances in Liberal governments in this country. Accordingly, I believe the concept of openness in government becomes especially relevant in contemporary times. Government is diffuse and wide-ranging in its accountability. I believe openness in government and openness of government proceedings, as exemplified in the proposal to televise the deliberations of this House, will add a useful and very much overdue dimension of collective accountability.

Our aim is to ensure that the decisions and choices of government remain relevant, sensible, flexible and responsive to the needs of people, not of institutions and bureaucrats.

For example, it would be reassuringly much more difficult, if the Ontario health insurance plan refused coverage to a single mother of a handicapped child whose OHIP coverage lapsed because of a careless error in some employer's personnel department, for the minister responsible to be embarrassed on public television by such an act of insensitivity, however justified it might be in terms of the policies and procedures manual of the ministry.

Similarly, it would be reassuringly difficult for the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, for example, to sanction a decision to terminate benefits for a partially disabled 63-year-old ethnic Canadian, who has little hope of securing employment, if the modus operandi of WCB comes under periodic scrutiny and debate in televised proceedings at Queen's Park.

To put it more baldly, when you make decisions about people and when the people are watching the decisions you make, your decisions are very likely to meet the test of people responsiveness. It is hard for a government to stray very far from flexibility and compassion when the people of the state are watching.

There is, of course, a downside to this consideration. An argument can be made, I suppose, that for governments to be too responsive, too sensitive to the wishes of the people will promote governments by fashion and fad, government by poll, as it were. Government, so this argument goes, needs the protection of some measure of distance from the fickle wishes of the electorate in order to be able to have the appropriate measure of administrative distance from those most directly affected by government's decisions.

Governments need to be able to seek and heed the advice of seasoned experts in particular fields and need to be secure enough to implement the views of sources of expertise not necessarily embraced by the electorate at large.

I reject that point of view. Although sometimes tempting, such arguments do not reflect the philosophy of government we embrace in a liberal democracy; rather, democratic government responds to the views and wishes of the people. There are, implicit in that, reciprocity and a mutuality between the people and their elected representatives.

There is, furthermore, a direct participation through elected members by the people in the affairs of state. That direct and mutual involvement of the people is an important, dynamic and growing force which those of us who believe in the democratic system consider to be important in promoting growth and maturity in the evolving psychology of the nation or state.

I realize that in this remark I am invoking concepts comparable to Carl Jung's notion of the collective unconscious. I believe in such a notion. I believe by virtue of the kind of government we have chosen in the western democracies that we have been able to develop a mental vigour and a healthy sense of challenge and question amongst our people, which may be lacking in states where public participation in the affairs of government is less certain.

I am advancing the thesis that democracy succeeds when governments are responsive to the wishes and choices of a sufficient proportion of mature individuals within a state. Conversely, I believe there is some truth as well to the adage that people get the kind of government they deserve, and that the best defender of flexible and responsive government is the critical, challenging and questioning attitude of our citizenry. All this, I believe, is promoted by our proposal to televise the proceedings of this Legislature.

I want to say just a few short words about the subject of human narcissism, because I believe it is a further dimension that is very relative in this discussion. I refer, by this, to the narcissism of the legislator. By the word "narcissism," I mean that very ubiquitous human need for input, approval and even, on occasion, criticism from one's fellow man. I am speaking of the human need, if you will, to be responded to, occasionally applauded and occasionally criticized, or even dumped on. Not everyone sanctions or condones that need. Traditionally, it has been viewed by many as selfish, perhaps arrogant and certainly not a legitimate need to be considered or facilitated in any systematic way.

9:40 p.m.

It might interest members to know there is a very vigorous debate in the professional literature of medical psychology about the nature and origin of human narcissism. One view holds it to be a consequence of insufficient nurturance and responsiveness in the early childhood environment. The theory goes that persons who are too little loved develop an inordinate need for public approval and affirmation, as though they hunger greatly for what was missing from their early experience and can gain at least a little substitute satisfaction from public acclaim and applause.

Perhaps something like that occasionally occurs, and I am sure many of us can think of people in public life who sometimes seem to be locked into a quest for public popularity and applause -- not Liberals, to be sure.

The view of narcissism I have put forward is one polarity of the current professional debate and is not the one I favour. Rather, I embrace the view that narcissism, like hunger and thirst, are normal and innate human longings. I believe a reasonable gratification of narcissistic need is a crucial ingredient of the mental life of infants, children, adults and certainly legislators. I believe the nature of each person's narcissistic need evolves according to some axis of narcissistic development, just as intellect and emotional maturity are apt to evolve along a certain axis of development when emotional development is proceeding well.

Perhaps if we are going to facilitate narcissism we should facilitate a little of the other two qualities too, but I will leave that for others.

We politicians are very human creatures. Our profession offers us many rewards and satisfactions, and many stresses, challenges and insecurities. My thesis, simply stated, is that legislators are apt to be more productive, creative, responsive and even happier if they have a reasonable opportunity for narcissistic satisfaction in their work.

I hope I have spoken strongly in favour of televising our proceedings in the Ontario Legislature. I believe such a step is in line with our philosophy of democratic government and will strengthen and promote a sense of participation by the people in the affairs of the state. I believe it is desirable for the health and responsiveness of good government and is a state of affairs that will also promote the maturity and critical faculties of people in the constituencies we represent and govern.

I also believe it is a very useful contribution to the needs of our legislators, who have a very legitimate need -- incidentally, on some sides of the House more than others -- for the direct narcissistic satisfaction of being watched, criticized, evaluated and, they hope, approved in the course of their work.

To televise the proceedings of the Legislature will be good for government, for the people and for us. I therefore heartily support this step.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to express a few concerns I have with the project we have in mind for this Legislature. While I have not had an opportunity in the past few months to sit on the committee dealing with the subject under consideration tonight, I have over the past several years had an opportunity to review the program in Ottawa and some of the other jurisdictions in this country.

I wish to express some concern over the cost that will be involved to bring television into this Legislature, although I credit it with the benefits it will produce. My concern is whether we as members are simply bringing in something that will enhance the reputation of the incumbents in the next election. If that is the case, then I have a great deal of reservation about supporting such legislation.

If it is going to be beneficial to the public, it is a different matter, but I am not sure I can accept the fact that it is. Naturally, there are pros and cons about any such program. It is claimed the benefit is that the public has the right to see what is going on in the Legislature. But, after question period, what goes on in the Legislature that the average citizen of this province will watch? Quite frankly, I have a feeling we would actually have to pay them to watch the performance of this House in action after question period. That may be a little naive, but I think very little goes on that the average member of the public can understand.

The proceedings of the House are complicated. They are even complicated for members. The Speaker leaves and we have a chairman when we go into committee of the whole House. We deal with subject matters that are very confusing for some members and certainly for the public. I am not sure it would be an advantage to show some of the proceedings we have without an explanation to the public of an understanding by the public of what is going on. Apparently they have it in Ottawa, although I am not sure it works. Saskatchewan is the example we are using and we should follow it.

There are certain proceedings that are well worth following. If there is something special, by all means it should be covered by television or some method of communication to the public. If we were to decide on coverage from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and then from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. -- that is, total coverage of this Legislature -- and maybe even of committees, I question whether we can substantiate the fact that we should be paying that kind of money at this time to bring about this type of introduction to the public of what Queen's Park is all about.

I represent the riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, which has a lot of farmers who have an extremely difficult time making a living today. We have a lot of small businesses that can hardly make ends meet. I have a great deal of difficulty in going home and telling them we are going to spend many millions of dollars to advertise the benefits of the members of this Legislature in serving the province in whatever manner they feel they are serving it.

Mr. Sargent: The member watches the Gong Show, does he not?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The member for Grey-Bruce is the last one in this House I would criticize, because he is a very knowledgeable person. He always speaks his mind, and I give him full credit for that, but he does not need television coverage. He gets enough as it is.

I am not totally opposed to TV coverage, but I am opposed to total coverage. If there is some way we can cover the main events in this Legislature, I can certainly support that. I do not think there is any way we should cover the proceedings from start to finish, because sometimes there are more important events happening in committees than in the House. Many members, let alone the public, are not aware of what is going on. I truly do not think the public will be able to comprehend what is happening. There could be as many negative aspects to it as positive.

9:50 p.m.

I am concerned about the costs we are putting into projects such as this and whether the costs that will be incurred are warranted. Furthermore, as I mentioned, when so many of my people and people in the rest of the province are suffering financial difficulties, I am not sure it is a time when we should be spending millions of dollars to do something that could be perceived by the public as nothing more than enhancing the reputations of the members of this Legislature.

There has to be a mechanism to sort it out so we do not become involved in such a situation that we 125 members perpetuate our own stay in this House by taking advantage of the taxpayers' dollars. That is one concern I would like to emphasize with our Treasurer, who I am sure will agree.

Mr. Warner: It is good to contribute twice in this debate. I had not thought my contribution would be essential until I heard the support from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). His support for this project sounded a little bit like trying to bail out a boat by poking holes in the bottom of it; so I thought a few salient remarks might be in order.

Before I start into the substance of the report, having been a member of the committee who participated in this exercise, I wish to pay particular tribute to the staff: Mr. Forsyth, the clerk; Mr. Decker, the assistant clerk, and Mr. Eichmanis, the researcher, who ably assisted us and without whose help we could not have put together such an excellent report.

I pay tribute, of course, to the chairman, the member for Oshawa, who devoted a great deal of time and energy and gave some very good direction to the committee, and to my colleagues from all three parties, who worked extremely well together. It was a very co-operative effort, with a very open discussion and a very nice exchange of views and ideas on how to bring television into the chamber.

There are several extremely important reasons for us wanting television in here. Number one is a greater emphasis on opening up our system to provide a real opportunity for everyone across this province to be able to see exactly what happens here, to be able to view the events as they unfold and to be able to watch not only question period but also the various committees, the deliberations on legislation -- absolutely everything that goes on here.

I have no doubt that, especially through the facilities of TVOntario, which boasts that it will able to cover approximately 96 per cent of the population of Ontario, the people in far-flung parts of our province will be able for the first time to see not just their own representative in action but all the members of the House. That is important; it is a good step forward.

There is more to it than that; it goes beyond that. One of the hopes I have, which is built into the report, is that TVOntario, which is our province's educational network, will seize this opportunity and develop some educational programs around the actual televising of the Legislature, its committee work and the debates on the legislation.

TVOntario will be able to package for use in our school systems the ways legislation is passed through the House, the ways debates take place, question period itself, all the proceedings, the routines, the pomp and ceremony -- every aspect of the operation of the Legislature -- so that school children throughout this province will have a better understanding of our system. That is extremely important, and perhaps it has been overlooked.

Another aspect we have built into the report that should not be overlooked by members is that, for example, there are a lot of people in our province who are hearing-impaired. We want them to be given the opportunity for closed-captioning so they can follow the proceedings at home and have a better opportunity to see and understand what happens here.

We want there to be some printed explanation on the screen so that, in addition to watching and listening to the members, people can have a better understanding of the proceedings they are watching. We also want to have simultaneous translation in both of our official languages so our francophone population will feel a little closer to what we are trying to do and to the process at Queen's Park.

Ultimately, what we are doing is opening the doors and windows of this place and allowing the people of the province to see precisely what occurs here. Some of it will be theatre, and no doubt some of it will be poor theatre. If we concentrate on that, we miss the essence. The essence is that this is a democratic system. If we truly believe in having a democratic system, we should not be afraid to let the people watch it. They will judge. If members make fools of themselves, the people will judge that. If the members cannot conduct an orderly and sensible debate on an issue, the public will judge that.

It may not draw a great audience. The Treasurer may be right that programs such as The Edge of Night will win out, but I believe that in the long run it will attract a pretty steady audience; it will become a more knowledgeable audience. Over time, we will be doing a great service to the people of Ontario.

I am very proud to have participated in the committee and its deliberations. If the kind of effort that was put in collectively by members of all three parties were directed more often at other issues, we could solve other issues a lot more quickly than in the past. I was pleasantly surprised, to be very candid, by the contributions of the members from the Conservative Party. It is no secret that prior to the change in government, the Conservative government wanted no part of television in the House and resisted it strenuously. However, the members who served on the committee contributed tremendously with bright and enthusiastic ideas. The result is a report of which every member of this House can be very proud.

I look forward to the trial period, which I gather will start in November, next month. We are recommending that members have an opportunity to see themselves. Each of the caucuses will take those tapes and review them so members can brush up on their television skills, their coiffeurs or their sartorial splendour, whatever their particular interests are. Having done that and when the proper lighting and equipment are installed and the rewiring is done and so on, we expect to go ahead at full tilt for the spring session in March. At least we will have a little go at it in November and December. Maybe the members will be pleasantly surprised by what they see.

I appreciate the opportunity to have participated. I am deeply grateful for the enthusiastic support lent to this project by the Treasurer.

10 p.m.

Mr. Callahan: I take great pleasure in being allowed to participate in this debate for the basic reason that it is a historic event. There have been a lot of historic events in this House since I came here as a new member of this Legislature, but this event is introducing us into the 21st century.

It is interesting, with television having been around as long as it has been and the degree to which the technology has advanced, that the former government -- I am not going to get quite as partisan as one of my colleagues, but I think it does take a little history to get my point across -- did not make this decision a long time ago.

In the new era that has been introduced by this government, we are no longer going to govern by polls. Perhaps it was the question of polls that were taken in the past that prevented or saved the former government from having to allow television into the House. They had the ability of being able to read the minds of the public through the polling techniques as opposed to demonstrating to the public and convincing the public what steps should be taken in terms of legislation.

I would also like to commend and share in praising the committee, its chairman and staff for preparing this report. I had an opportunity to look through it. I borrowed a copy from the member for Grey-Bruce. It is a report that is well put together and well thought out.

In the event that there is a concern about people grandstanding with television being introduced into the House, I suppose in all fields of human endeavour there is a bit of ham in all of us, so I suppose for a little while that will take place. There will probably be people moving around to hide the empty seats, somewhat similar to a badly attended baseball game, but I would suggest to members that that will cease.

I can give an example. In my local council in Brampton we introduced television into the council chamber in 1974. At that time it was in black and white and nobody watched us. However, the minute colour was introduced, they got hung up on us and they switched from soap opera to us.

It is amazing the statements that were made by people on the street. They would stop one and say, "You were very good last night," "You were very funny," or, "You were very foolish." I relate back to one of my colleague's comments that if people stand up in this House and attempt to use it in a fashion that is not totally democratic or attempt to put forward points that make no sense, the people are like a very intelligent jury.

They usually make their own decisions, perhaps often based on logic that none of us will ever comprehend, but they are usually very wise decisions, and I would suggest that the electorate is just as astute.

Comments that it will be too complicated for the public are really an affront to the public in so far as we do not give them the benefit of the collective wisdom that they have. If one wants to look back at the history of their collective wisdom, on May 2, they were absolutely dead on. I am sure four years down the line they will be dead on again, and I suggest the public can make its own decisions as to how we represent ourselves.

It is going to take a bit of maturity. I would suggest that the House of Commons to this day is interesting and sometimes very amusing television to watch. However, I am sure the voters out there at times wonder just what is going on, wondering whether or not these people are always acting in a mature fashion, are always debating the issues and earning the money they make and the confidence of the people that was invested in them.

I would submit to members that the question of television is an absolute necessity to a democracy. Without television, this House acts in a vacuum. We have a few visitors here, there and everywhere, but people really do not know what is happening apart from what is reported in the press.

The press, with all due respect to its members, normally reports the issues as it sees them. They try to tell their story, and I suppose they try to do it legitimately. However, very often the old adage applies; the headline "Dog Bites Man" does not get as much attention as "Man Bites Dog." So we have to recognize that with television coverage we will see the actual events and the actual facial expressions. We will be able to read, as a jury would read, the credibility of the witnesses, and in that respect, the people will be well served.

I submit that the cost involved is minimal. It is an amount that I am sure any of my taxpayers in the city of Brampton would be happy to bear to have a more legitimate picture of what goes on in the Legislature.

I have to tell the members a funny story, if any are still awake. I had a relative from the United States who came to look after our children. She was watching the parliamentary question period from Ottawa. She had been here for three or four days and when we came home she said to me, "You certainly have a marvellous leader in Mr. Trudeau." I said, "Why do you say that?" She said, "Every time he stood up to speak, the people behind him clapped outrageously." I said: "You have to understand that in our system, you have to look across the hall or across the benches. What were they doing?" She said, "Now that you mention it, they were hooting and hollering."

It does take a certain amount of preliminary explanation to bring people to an understanding of what goes on here. However, I think if a simple person like myself feels he at least has a handle on what is going on in this House after a brief period here, the more astute electorate will probably pick it up in the first two episodes.

The question of the TV lights is very significant. I do not know about the other members, but having come back here after the summer and not having been exposed to the ones that are currently used during question period, I found they were very difficult to deal with. Unless we are all going to sit here with shades on or do as the Treasurer suggested, we are going to have some difficulty. With the technology of today, I am sure they can accommodate us in terms of lighting without ruining the very delightful, historic trappings of this chamber.

I have one further comment. My colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) suggested we use electronic voting machines. I have seen them in the United States and I share his view in that respect. I must say, however, that any move towards that would be resisted by the rather traditionalist side of my character. I believe it is important to retain traditions. Too often, many of the traditions we had in the past are being eroded by our so-called modern society. It is important that something be left for our children to be proud of. That is a very exciting and very regal part of it, as is the opening of the Legislature and all the trappings entailed in that.

I will close by saying that each and every one of the members' respective spouses, girlfriends or boyfriends will also be very happy to see television introduced into this legislative chamber. At least they will know where the members are and will know they were telling the truth when they said they were here.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Pierce: It gives me great pleasure to address the issue before us, television in the House. I listened with great admiration to the members who spoke who have access to television in their homes on many channels and in many forms through satellites, cable companies and any other form of reception. In my riding, I have constituents who do not have access to hydro power, never mind cable television. Based on the economy today and the unemployment I know I have in my riding, I question whether we are looking at reality when we talk about spending $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, $6 million, maybe $8 million so that people can see what goes on in this House. That is not to say I am opposed to television coverage of the proceedings, but to say that I am very concerned about the allocation of funds at this time to televise the proceedings of the House.

I would much prefer to see a better study done on the actual cost of converting our proceedings. I have reservations about the costs which have been put before us today, about what it would cost our taxpayers to supply coverage to possibly 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the people in Ontario. We are advancing into the 21st century and we should advance with it, but I caution the members to pay particular attention to the cost of getting this service to the people.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other honourable members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Gillies: I was not particularly intending to join it, but I sensed the House was in danger of adjourning early. I knew no honourable member would want that.

Interjections.

Mr. Gillies: Overtime is another debate.

I would like to join the debate because I have long felt the presence of television coverage, an electronic Hansard of some kind, would add to the proceedings in this chamber.

Prior to the introduction of television into the House of Commons, I recall many arguments were made that it would not be interesting to the average voter, the average viewer, that people would not watch it, and they questioned the relevance of it to people in their own homes. I do not know what many members might think about it, but I actually think the coverage of the House of Commons has been rather well received. I find many of my constituents watch it -- I almost hesitate to say it -- religiously, and they comment on it.

I think coverage of the Legislature would draw an audience of its own. I agree with comments which were made earlier that the provision of an electronic Hansard, a video Hansard, does not fulfil the same role as the presence of the TV news cameras in the House, and it would compliment what we are doing here. I completely agree with the comments about possible improvements of decorum in the House, something I would enthusiastically support, and I am sure my friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and others would agree that people such as we, who are the very model of members in every respect, would be pleased to see this.

Therefore, I want to say, as one individual member, I support this. The committee has done excellent work and I am very glad we are coming to the day when our constituents will be able to watch what we are doing on a regular basis.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other honourable members who wish to participate in the debate? There being none, we have in front of us a motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions on the television coverage of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:15 p.m.