Canadian Heritage Committee on April 19th, 2007

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

The parents are not always there.

[Ronald Cohen]

The problem is that television no longer broadcasts that level of violence. If anyone wants to do so, they do it through the means of violent games like those.

You say that there is a difference between the complaints and the content. The complaints represent a sort of poll.

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

At some point, people throw in the towel; you are well aware of that.

[Ronald Cohen]

A survey like this is not official because anyone is free to lodge a complaint.

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

Because they are not being heard, that is why sometimes people throw in the towel; you know this.

[Ronald Cohen]

That shows that we are mitigating the problem in this area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you for your presentation this morning. It was very interesting.

The other day at the hearings I said that I find news reporting in all private broadcasting to be at a very high standard. When I watch, I see a level of journalistic independence and impartiality.

I am interested in this discussion of violence. You referred to Bill C-327, and I had spoken to it. The example you gave was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I have to confess that all my daughters went to see the movie the other night. They're big fans of the ninja turtles. Growing up, they watched the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles all the time. I never thought that watching it would turn them into gangbangers.

So when we talk about what kind of violence there is on television, there are issues of degree. So we take a stand on ninja turtles, and yet to use the example in Bill C-327, Fear Factor, I was watching it with my daughter. The scenario was that a little girl was chained up and covered in Moroccan hissing cockroaches. The mother had to bite off the cockroaches with her mouth while the kid screamed.

That was in prime time, but it's A-okay, because at the end of the show, if the mother gets enough cockroaches off in time, she wins—I don't know—a Mazda, a ten-speed bike, a plasma television, or something. So child abuse for entertainment in prime time is okay, as long as the mother wins a prize at the end.

Fear Factor shows on Global, which is a Canadian network. What standards do you have for dealing with shows like that?

[Ronald Cohen]

First—and believe me, no pun is intended, Mr. Angus—that may be a question of taste, to a considerable extent. I couldn't imagine watching the circumstances that you just described.

We have provision in our Broadcasting Act and regulations that deal with simultaneous substitution. It may be that Fear Factor comes in on a simultaneously substituted basis. I don't know the answer to that, but it may be that it does. If so, it may come in at an earlier hour than if it were not benefiting, as it were, from simultaneous substitution.

This is a very important consideration, and the issue is bigger than all of us, in a way, at this point: to know whether it arrives on that basis. Otherwise, it would probably be post-nine-o'clock, with content that's inappropriate for pre-nine-o'clock.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a concern about simultaneous substitution, if it's bigger than all of us. Is it a factor that as long as Canadian broadcasters are getting U.S. programming—which seems to be increasingly predatory and degrading—on simultaneous substitution and putting our advertising on, there's very little we can do in order to say wait a minute, this is not in our Canadian interest? That leaves you to relegating the one or two Canadian shows, such as Ben Mulroney's eTalk. I don't think there's too much violence on that.

What role do you have in a world where shows come in through simultaneous substitution?

[Ronald Cohen]

Basically there is a role that we have: we can indicate that something is problematic and draw conclusions, and we have done that on numerous occasions. There is a protection in terms of content that might be described as violent content intended for adult audiences. There would be a permission, as it were, for a program to be broadcast prior to nine o'clock; otherwise, if it's broadcast by a Canadian private broadcaster, it is subject to all our rules.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay. I don't want to put you on the spot by giving you examples, but I'm trying to find my way through how we would regulate this. I think it is very good to have your system in place, and I support that.

I'm thinking of the example of Kit Kat Blizzard ice cream from Dairy Queen. There's an advertisement out—I don't know if you're aware of it—in which a boy is hanging on a hook while his brother taunts him and eats ice cream. Then a man comes into the room, and in the next scene we have the two boys hanging on hooks while the man taunts them and eats ice cream. Now that particular ad has very much upset the family of Myles Neuts, who was hung on a hook and taunted to death in the Windsor area just a few years ago. The families tried to have that ad pulled. Apparently Dairy Queen said they wouldn't run it in Windsor, but of course in an age of cable and satellite that's not doing much.

First of all, do you deal with advertising? Second, how does a family take a complaint like that so they can actually get a very questionable ad like that off the air?

[Ronald Cohen]

Advertising is dealt with by Advertising Standards Canada, and it can easily be found either through our website, where it is linked, or directly, of course, quite easily. Advertising Standards Canada is very good and very experienced and deals with most advertising issues in broadcast as well as print.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast is next.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for attending here, all four of you.

I'd like to take off on what Mr. Angus touched on a few minutes earlier. He referred to simultaneous substitution, an arrangement whereby our Canadian broadcasters are essentially compelled, contractually or otherwise, to broadcast American programming in a time slot they normally wouldn't broadcast in.

Are you saying that effectively American programming can pre-empt our Canadian broadcast standards, and does the Broadcasting Act actually allow that to happen?

[Ronald Cohen]

No. What I'm saying is that there is, as it were, a bye, in the best competitive sports sense, for programming that may contain violence intended for adults that comes in prior to the watershed hour of nine o'clock, so that programming has a benefit from the point of view of the violence-intended-for-adults issue only. It's subject to all other provisions in the violence code and in all the other codes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Are you telling me the broadcasters actually make a contractual choice to allow American programming to pre-empt some of our standards in Canada?

[Ronald Cohen]

No. I'm saying that only in the violence area can they benefit from any advantage, if you wish to call it that, with respect to the adult nature of the violence. It is only that issue; something may come in, let's say, an hour earlier because it comes in that way from the States.

They are subject to all other provisions of all our codes. The problem is—and I think this was anticipated in the first place, when those rules were created—that if programming is going to come in on the American channel an hour or two earlier, people will watch that anyway. There are no controls in place for programming that comes in on American channels, and the Canadian channel would, in a sense, lose whatever commercial benefits it might have coming in later in that evening.

It's only that issue. It's only the issue of being earlier—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I understand that, but making it earlier exposes a greater number of Canadians to violence, while from a Canadian broadcaster, they typically wouldn't be.

[Ronald Cohen]

Yes, that might be the case. The question is how much of that even occurs.

Mr. Angus has raised an issue. I haven't seen that program. It's a general principle at the Broadcast Standards Council that we don't make judgments about a particular issue when an issue has not been weighed by all the members of a panel sitting on it, so I'm giving Mr. Angus the benefit of the doubt. He's raised one example. I don't know if it would be found to be problematic in that regard.

Can it occur? In theory, it can occur. Does it occur? Does it occur with any frequency? I would suggest to you that having a program coming in earlier likely doesn't occur with great frequency at all. Theoretically, it is undeniable that something could, but I suggest to you that the problem is not as great as a single example may suggest.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If this became a problem, would your organization consider reviewing it?

[Ronald Cohen]

We can't. Simultaneous substitution does not fall within our jurisdiction. It falls within the jurisdiction of the CRTC.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. Thank you.

I have a follow-up question.

You also referred to viewer advisories as providing some level of protection so that parents can exercise some control over what their children watch. However, many families are under a lot of stress. We have working hours that are not as traditional as they used to be. We have families that are often under siege, and children who are often left unsupervised.

We find that on the Internet. I brought forward a bill that is hoping to toughen up sentences on those who use the Internet to lure children, and often that happens in a context of a lack of supervision. The same would be true for television.

You've mentioned that the incidence of complaints regarding violence on television has gone down. Is that right?

[Ronald Cohen]

That's right.