Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 50th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in this 39th Parliament.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

For our first set of witnesses this morning, we have the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. We welcome you here this morning.

Mr. Ronald Cohen, the national chair, would you please make your presentation and introduce the rest of your entourage?

[Ronald Cohen, National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

As the chair said, my name is Ronald Cohen, and I'm the national chair. With me are John MacNab, CBSC's executive director; Teisha Gaylard, our director of policy; and Burhaan Warsame, the manager of the CBSC's ethnocultural outreach project.

While we appreciate the invitation to appear before you, we are acutely aware of the fact that the CBSC's role is in the area of private broadcasting, and of course your investigation focuses on the role of the public broadcaster. Our members are Canada's 609 private broadcasters, covering conventional television, specialty services, AM and FM radio, and satellite radio—effectively about 95% of the commercial private broadcasters who are eligible to join the council.

Although it does not fall within our mandate to comment directly on issues involving public broadcasters, what the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council does is so unique and central to the Canadian broadcasting system that you may find elements of what we accomplish at least indirectly worthy of consideration in your deliberations.

There are two major aspects of our work that are unique—and, you may conclude, worthy of replication in the public broadcasting area. The first is the breadth of public concerns to which we are responsive, and the second is the extent of our outreach into all Canadian communities.

The council's mandate is to oversee the administration of the Canadian private broadcaster codes. These currently include the CAB Sex Role Portrayal Code and the CAB Violence Code (both of which are imposed by the CRTC as conditions of licence for Canadian broadcasters), the CAB Code of Ethics and the Radio and Television News Directors Association of Canada (RTNDA) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics.

I should add that last week the CRTC issued a public notice calling for comment on a new CBSC code, the journalistic independence code. It will also be administered by the CBSC and be a CRTC condition of licence on Canadian broadcasters with ownership interests in both print and broadcast areas.

There is also another code, the equitable portrayal code, in the offing. In due course, it will extend to all communities the benefits hitherto available on the basis of gender alone, under the terms of the sex role portrayal code for television and radio programming. It should be the subject of another CRTC public notice this year.

It is essential to note that the codified standards reflect Canadian values. The enforcement tools are also Canadian—that is to say, effective without being heavy-handed, and industry-driven rather than government-driven.

This is particularly pertinent as we have watched the unravelling of the Don Imus debacle in the United States in the past couple of weeks. The concerns of the American regulatory system are limited to nudity and coarse language—not violence on television, human rights, portrayal issues, nor respect for the dignity of individuals on the basis of their race, ethnic origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, and so on. Those are Canadian values and central to our standards and enforcement system. Canada does not depend on advertisers to force program change on an ad hoc basis as in the United States. We have rules that broadcasters willingly accept.

In the exercise of our mandate the CBSC has since 1991 received complaints from tens of thousands of Canadians about all forms of programming, whether in the news and public affairs area, drama, comedy, talk radio or television, reality programming, entertainment, news magazine shows, feature films, children's programming, and so on.

The CBSC has quite a comprehensive knowledge about the subjects of complaint. Moreover, it receives the expression of those concerns directly and indirectly. Even those which are initially sent to the CRTC are, with rare exception, forwarded to the CBSC for resolution. We deal with approximately 2,000 complaints every year from Canadians who are unhappy about something they have seen or heard on the airwaves.

I should add parenthetically that a number of these complaints concern the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Ironically, since the CBC does not have an equivalent system of our own, we forward these to the CRTC to deal with.

In fact, having just mentioned the subject of children's programming on the one hand and audience complaints about many subjects on the other, I note that tomorrow you will be debating a private member's bill on the subject of violence in the media, Bill C-327, proposed by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

You should be aware, first of all, that as a percentage of complaints, those relating to violence on television have been steadily declining, by a huge margin, namely, 37%, between 2001 and 2006. Moreover, the Bigras bill's proposals would add nothing to the panoply of tools we have to deal with the subject, since issues relating to violence on television are already thoroughly covered by the combination of the CAB Violence Code and the CAB Code of Ethics, and rigorously enforced by the self-regulatory system solidly entrenched in the Canadian broadcasting system.

We already have a watershed hour that is not limited to violence intended for adults. It restricts violence, to be sure, and all forms of adult content to the post-9 p.m. period. We already have provisions for ratings and viewer advisories that apply well beyond the violence-on-television area.

Also, we already have the most detailed provisions to protect children from inappropriate television programming that you can find anywhere in the world. If passed, Bill C-327 would deliver less to the Canadian public than we already have.

Our process encourages the resolution of complaints by meaningful broadcaster dialogue with the complainants. When this does not lead to complainant satisfaction, the CBSC rules on those complaints via adjudicating panels made up of equal numbers of public and industry adjudicators. There are five regional panels, dealing with the Atlantic region, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, and British Columbia. There are also two national panels, one of which deals with conventional television and the other with speciality services.

Biographies of every public and industry adjudicator are available on the CBSC website. They include former members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, a lieutenant governor, a provincial premier, CRTC commissioners, and Canadians of many walks of life who have manifested their concern about the public good.

The private broadcasters' self-regulatory process is predicated on full disclosure and the publicity of all formal CBSC decisions, whether rendered for or against broadcasters. Consequently, the press release announcing every decision is forwarded to the print media, broadcasters, and any person in Canada or elsewhere in the world wishing to be on the recipient list. The nearly 400 decisions rendered since 1991 are posted on our website with their full written reasons. They form an extensive and thorough body of jurisprudence, dealing with and defining for the future the widest possible range of content issues.

We deal with all forms of content in all kinds of radio and television programming, period. We also do this in an independent, arm's-length fashion, with considerable public involvement in our deliberations and decisions.

With the exception of the CBC's ombudsmen, who work in the narrower area of news and public affairs, Canada's public broadcasters have no equivalent process.

The council is also proud that it reaches out into all corners of Canada's great multicultural environment, by informing citizens of Canada's broadcast standards and the self-regulatory system in English, French, and forty other languages, both in print and on this CBSC website.

Two sets of all of these foreign language versions of the brochure have been deposited with the clerk. We would certainly be delighted to provide any of you with a set, and/or any individual language of interest to you or indeed to your constituents.

I should have added earlier that our adjudicating panels reflect that diversity as well. It is also worth noting that 13.9 million Canadians—not out of the last census, the result of which are just available, but from a couple of years ago—speak one or more of the forty languages. There are programs broadcast in all of these languages in Canada.

May I clarify that the forty languages of comfort reflect Canada's Latin American hemispheric communities; Canada's indigenous communities, in Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, Cree, Ojibwa and Mohawk; Canada's eastern and western European communities; Canada's African communities; Canada's Near and Far Eastern communities; and Canada's South Asian communities, in Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati, Bengali, Tamil, and Sinhala.

The CBSC works very hard to ensure that the results of its decisions are known to all who are affected by them. Its volunteer adjudicators, on both the public and industry side, are dedicated to the emergence of a set of principles that will fairly circumscribe public expectations. It is a mark of the thoughtfulness and impartiality of the adjudicators, both public and industry, that all but five of 398 decisions have been rendered unanimously, whether for or against broadcasters.

It is a mark of the success of the Canadian private broadcasters' self-regulatory system that it does not require the huge financial penalties of the American regulatory process in order to work.

The system works because the private broadcasters have committed themselves to the process. They created it; they support it financially. More importantly, they support it morally. After all, they live in the communities in which they broadcast. They want us to deal with all substantive public concerns about content, not just some of them. They also want us to tell all Canadians, in their languages of comfort, how to assess the self-regulatory process. It makes good sense, good Canadian sense. It's good for every corner of the Canadian broadcasting system.

Thank you for your attention. We are now available to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll turn to questions.

Ms. Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Part of our work is to assess how we're serving Canadians, and certainly within the Broadcasting Act we see that over and over again, as you mentioned in your presentation. We're talking about Canadian values, and I think that's what's at the core here. When you talk about codified standards that reflect Canadian values, I think that's critical, because one of the things we've heard over and over again throughout our series of hearings is that we're up against big American television programming. How can we continue to move forward to ensure that we keep the integrity of our Canadian television programming?

So I'd like to ask you about your role. Within your presentation, you mentioned that you receive complaints regarding the CBC and forward them to the CRTC. Could I ask you to clarify that a bit more? How is it that you might see the organization serving the CBC and its mandate in a stronger role?

[Ronald Cohen]

That's an excellent question, Ms. Keeper, and a difficult one to respond to in some respects.

Basically, we began as a creature of the private broadcasters in 1986, with the idea that we might go forward in 1988. This began to take some form, and by 1990 we had the shape that was created and proposed by the private broadcasters. So at that time, and ever since, the private broadcasters have put a lot of resources, support, and effort into ensuring that the system would be as effective as they could possibly make it.

The CBC had no involvement with it, even from the earliest days. I think it's fair to say that they have their own system, which to some extent must be confusing to the public. After all, if we at the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council are receiving complaints about the CBC, we don't expect that the public knows to make a distinction: if it's this station, send a complaint there; or if it's that station, send the complaint here. We don't expect them to know what to do. Nonetheless, the system we have at the moment reflects the distinction between the two.

So we really don't have much choice. When we receive those complaints, we send them along to the CRTC, which has the responsibility of dealing with any complaints relating to the CBC.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

You talked about the 1990 time period, and part of the history of the creation of the organization was to deal with issues around violence, sex, and their portrayal on television. In terms of the complaints, have you seen a change in the types? What are Canadians concerned about, in terms of what's on television from the early 1990s to now?

[Ronald Cohen]

At least one aspect is quite telling. From the time Virginie Larivière presented her petition to Prime Minister Mulroney, when violence on television was a fairly significant concern—and when there were a lot of children's programs containing violent elements, including Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, G.I. Joe, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and programs of that genre—violence was a concern.

After the petition was presented, broadcasters took an active position in revising the violence code of 1987, frankly in order to make it more effective and focus more on children.

I find it interesting that one of the things noted in Bill C-327 has been in existence since January 1, 1994. This is very specific, and the most advanced provisions anywhere in the world, I suggest, for dealing with children's programming.

This is only a partial answer to your question, but the point is that since that code has come into effect, the number of complaints relating to violence on television has actually decreased significantly.

We noted that in going back to 2001, there was a diminution of about 37% in the number of complaints relating to violence on television.

I suggest that it's a diminishing problem in the television area, which is a very specific answer to what you're asking. It has become a less important issue, because honestly it's so well dealt with by the system that we now have in place.

To complete the answer, I should say that other issues are rising a bit more. I think that the presence of sexual content on television and coarse language on television and radio are issues on the increase.

Teisha, I don't know if you have any disagreement.

Those tend to be on the increase a bit, but again one of the important protections we have is the watershed hour. It was originally created in the violence code to deal with violence intended exclusively for adults. We have expanded this, so that all forms of programming, including sexual content, coarse language, and adult themes, are relegated to the post-watershed hour and must be accompanied by viewer advisories, and so on. But there are increases in that.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I have one quick question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You'll have an opportunity in the next round.

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Good morning and welcome.

I'd like to go back to the issue of violence on television. You say that we have a panoply of tools to deal with issues relating to violence on television and you point out that complaints on this issue have declined by 37% between 2001 and 2006. Furthermore, you have just reminded us that the strategy to reduce violence on television was adopted on January 1^st, 1994.

Complaints have decreased by 37%, but has the violence itself decreased? Have you measured that?

[Ronald Cohen]

No, we have not measured the violence nor any other kind of content on television. We do not have the means to do so. I have not seen any study or survey that clearly indicates what is happening on television. It must also be said that violent content is not necessarily problematic. For example, the kind of violence that would be in some cartoons can be completely unrealistic, but it is violence nevertheless. Is it a problem? Not necessarily. It is very important to carry out studies similar to those done by UCLA, in California, for the United States Congress. These studies analyzed the type of violence in order to determine whether or not it was of a nature to cause a problem. There is not necessarily an increase of problematic violence on Canadian television.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Others hold a contrary opinion, but I respect your point of view. Bill C-327 is intended to counter the presence of violence on television, and not to diminish the number of complaints on the subject. I want to be fair and balanced. Do you understand? The intent of the bill is not to decrease the number of complaints concerning violence on television, but to decrease the violence in televised newscasts, particularly those showing events in Afghanistan or in Irak, at times when children would still be watching television.

You spoke of cartoons that have violent components. We could potentially discuss classification in order to assess the scope or the significance of the violence. And yet, current studies show that as far as video games are concerned, whether it be Nintendo, Xbox or others, children who are naturally non-violent develop an aggressive behaviour after having been exposed to these games. This violence may not go so far as to result in criminal behaviour as we have just seen in Virginia, in the United States, but it does exist. It is the parents who are complaining and who have always complained about this violence. That is in fact what inspired the bill. In any case, that is not the issue.

Returning to the CBC: are you aware of the substance of the Convention on Cultural Diversity passed by UNESCO and which Canada was the first to ratify?

[Ronald Cohen]

I do not know it in detail, but diversity is very important to us.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

In a word, it addresses the need for countries to promote diversity both domestically as well as abroad. What does that say to you, for example, about the representativeness of television hosts, of commentators or of any model of representation on public television?

[Ronald Cohen]

Our problem, of course, is first and foremost the issue of public television versus private television. I understand you completely. You are here to study public television. Unfortunately, we only represent private radio and television. Furthermore, our mandate does not include diversity on television. Positive presentation, diversity on the airwaves, the number of coloured people on the airwaves or who sit on boards of directors are not issues that concern us. We deal mainly with more negative issues, with problems regarding the ways in which people are represented. That is the most important thing for us.

Mr. Chair, perhaps I will respond to Monsieur Kotto's earlier comments.

Mr. Kotto, a few minutes ago, you mentioned violent games. That does not come under our jurisdiction, nor under the CBC's or the CRTC's.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

No, I will stop you there—

[Ronald Cohen]

But you mentioned—

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

That was not the objective.

[Ronald Cohen]

It perhaps was not the objective, but—

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Comparative studies have been carried out on the kind of violence that children are exposed to. We also see that kind of violence on television.

[Ronald Cohen]

Yes.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

It is only to make you temper your comments—

[Ronald Cohen]

I understand you, but the nature of—

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

—which were quite radical concerning Bill C-327.

[Ronald Cohen]

The nature of the violence in some video games gives an indication of what needs to be done whenever children are exposed to children. That of course is under the control of the parents.