Evidence of meeting #50 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programming.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
In the area of sexual content, adult content that is probably not suitable for children, do you find the same kind of reduction in complaints, or is that area still a bit of a struggle for your members?
9:45 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
I don't have a comparable statistic with me, but I just checked with our director of policy, and I expect that area is probably, generally speaking, on an increase--has been, over a period of time--with more adult sexual content raising concerns for some Canadians than has previously been the case.
Our executive director is making a very important point: that is probably only true in the post-watershed hour. You have to appreciate the kind of balance that exists. When you look at what's happening in the United States, in a sense almost anything goes, with the exception of coarse language and a Janet Jackson type of circumstance. Otherwise violence and almost anything goes. In Canada, we don't have much of a problem, if any, with adult sexual content being on the air before nine o'clock. That's one very important issue.
The other thing is that in Canada we balance broadcasters' freedom of expression, on the one hand, with the information they're prepared to provide and must provide to members of the public in order for members of the public to make informed choices about what they see--so there is no adult content before 9 p.m., and when there is adult content, even after 9 p.m. the broadcaster has the obligation to provide ratings icons, detailed viewer advisories in words at the beginning of the show and coming out of every single commercial break, and coding of the program so that the V-chip and other such devices can pick up and eliminate adult programming. All these tools are provided so that we can balance freedom of expression, on the one hand, with the right of audiences to avoid programming that they don't want to see on the other.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I am having a bit of a difficult time understanding some of your responses to the questions Mr. Fast asked. You are only acting in a reactive manner—is that it? You're just reacting to complaints. You don't take any kind of proactive stance or position on the violent content--and it's only violence you're obviously dealing with—or actually have people who watch programs to ensure that the broadcast code isn't being violated; before you go to the CRTC, you are not able to be your own watchdog.
You're just being reactive. Is that my understanding?
9:50 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
Well, not only is it a correct understanding, but I also think it's very important that it be emphasized. We don't have censorship in Canada. The CRTC reacts to complaints and the CBSC reacts to complaints. It is absolutely the case that we do not take the initiative to, as it were, vet programming before it's on the airwaves. We are absolutely reactive. We are proud of the fact that we are reactive, because we don't assume Canadians have a problem if not a single Canadian has a complaint to raise about a program. I think it's very important that the process work on that basis.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I understand that.
Do you think there is a place for some sort of media watchdog in this country to look at whether there is the kind of programming that we want to be on the air? Whether we wait only for people to complain or not, there needs to be some form of standard, some sort of ability for people to suggest that this is the kind of programming we would like to see, especially when children are watching television.
I know there's a V-chip and I know there are all of those things by which parents can act as watchdogs. The reality is that there's a great deal of violence on television, a great deal of violence against women. There's a great deal of stereotyping on television, and this is not just aimed at small children; young people tend to watch that violence, and it does tend to reflect in the way they behave.
I'm asking if you think there is a role here for some sort of media watchdog. I know there are many of them that are purely NGOs acting on a voluntary basis. I just have a little bit of a problem with thinking that unless we get people complaining, everything is fine.
Do you see a role for a watchdog body in Canada for the media?
9:50 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
Do you mean a watchdog body that is not an NGO? Is that what you're saying?
9:50 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
No, not necessarily. I think there is ample opportunity and freedom in this country to create bodies that deal with concerns of this nature. Media Watch was one such body for a good period of time, run for quite some time by Shari Graydon, who was originally from your area of the country—
9:50 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
—and, as you know, is now in Ottawa. My point is that Media Watch was such a body.
Is there a place for bodies of that kind? There is, absolutely. I think it's a great free society in which opportunities like that exist when there are problems. I don't begin with the assumption, as you appear to, that there is a problem with quantities of violence on television. I don't begin with that assumption, and I don't know that there is any hard evidence of it whatsoever.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I disagree with you. There is hard evidence of it, but that's fine. Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cohen, in the panoply of tools you are saying are available to you to deal with the issue of violence on television, is there a law?
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Please answer me with a yes or a no. I would like to know if, in this panoply of tools, there is a piece of legislation people could resort to.
9:55 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
Are you talking about legislation that deals with violence per se?
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
You said that you have available to you a panoply of tools to crack down on violence on television. Among those tools, is there a law?
9:55 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
No, our tools do not include legislation. We have codes, remedies, but no legislation.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Are some people worried over the restrictive nature of the potential legislation?
9:55 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
Legislation is not created for theoretical reasons but to deal with a problem.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
As to determining whether or not violence on television is a theoretical issue, is something we are not quite in agreement. I agree with Ms. Fry on that point. We receive a good number of complaints in our riding offices. These complaints are forwarded to us, combined with insults sometimes. If we were to introduce legislation, we would be protecting ourselves somewhat from these insults. People would therefore be able to act on their own and refer matters to the courts, or some other authority to speak against what they consider as an infringement on these young people's integrity.
You talked about multiculturalism.
9:55 a.m.
National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
Before you continue, Mr. Koto, I would like to qualify something: the Code concerning violence on television is a condition of the granting of a licence—
