Canadian Heritage Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

You mentioned you thought the United States had more rigorous regulations in this regard. Could you say a little bit more about that? Are there other countries that provide models for Canada in the area of regulating violence on television?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

There is of course the CRTC. In Quebec, the Régie du cinéma's panel classifies and assesses films that are released. In the United States, there is the Motion Picture Association of America, among others, that classifies movies. Currently, we have everything we need to set up a regulation system. We have classification systems in Quebec and in Canada. What remains to be done is to ensure that this classification system is reflected in regulations so that programs classified as “PG-13” are regulated and are not on the air before nine o'clock at night.

That does not prevent anyone from watching their program at 10, whether it is Rambo or something else. We are simply asking that violent movies not be shown before nine o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Bigras, welcome to our committee.

I am taking a look at a number of things you have said referring to the code currently in place as being voluntary, and yet every television broadcaster in Canada is subject to that code as a condition of their licence. Although it is called voluntary, and you keep referring to it as voluntary, would you agree with me that it's not really voluntary?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It is voluntary in the sense that the industry is self-regulating. It is a peer review process. The process put in place by the CRTC is a complaint system. If someone feels that a program has contravened the code that the broadcasters created for themselves, they may file a complaint. Peers assess whether or not the code was breached. It is therefore a voluntary system in the sense that the CRTC does not enforce the code. It is the peers themselves who decide if the code was breached. Very often, the code does not contain any definition of violence. It is up to the broadcasters. It is for that reason that I say we are talking about a voluntary code.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Wouldn't you agree that if we take a look back to 1995, there was a particularly offensive violent program called the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, which was a program of some contention. Under the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council that you are referring to, the program disappeared as a result of the direction. Since that time, by the way, there has never been the reappearance of any program like that, nor have there been any complaints of that type.

How do you see that your Bill C-327 would improve on that?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

We can indeed take the case of the Power Rangers, but we can also name other cartoons that have been broadcast which are just as violent. I must emphasize that there has been a progression and a gradual increase in the violence that is broadcast on the small screen.

I repeat: over the last few years, there has been an increase in physical violence. Now, violence is more and more psychological. We must tackle the new forms of violence that are completely different from the violence we saw a few years back.

What does Bill C-327 do? If the broadcasters' voluntary code allowed for the resolution of all of the difficulties, why would we not take that same code and use it to draft regulations? There is no impediment to doing that. If the code is legitimate within the framework of a voluntary approach, why would it not be so in the framework of a regulatory approach as is proposed in Bill C-327?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Primarily, I suppose, it is because it is a condition of licence that they comply with the code. They cannot have a licence. They cannot broadcast these things.

However, I'd like to ask you very quickly, with regard to the terrible example—and we never minimize the death of children, and I take it as seriously as you do—of The Patriot , which happened to be on television, could that not have been on the television through a rental? Isn't the issue that the parent was not accompanying the child? Isn't that the real issue? If that is the real issue, what difference would Bill C-327 make? The child was not accompanied. It could have appeared on DVD or VHS. As it happened, it appeared on television, and the parent's decision to walk away was obviously something of a contributor. How does Bill C-327 make any difference? I don't understand.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

First of all, I must remind you that even movies in video clubs are classified. There is a general classification, which is “PG”, and so on up until “18A”. If the regulations were really enforced, an 11-year-old going into a club to rent The Patriot, which is classified “PG-13”, would never have it handed to him across the counter. It is the same thing with videos. He cannot get the movie from a video club, because it is classified “PG-13 with violence”. That is the reality.

Furthermore, the same rules apply to the cinema. If an eight-year-old wants to go and see a movie that has been classified as “PG-13 with violence”, in theory, he should be stopped at the box office. However, it is not the same thing for television simply because the public airwaves are available to anyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. We've gone a little over time.

We'll go to Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Monsieur Bigras. You are obviously a champion of this issue.

It is safe to say that I doubt there is anyone sitting around the table who wouldn't support the objective of less violence, particularly as it affects children, on television. So the question is really one of efficacy rather than objectives.

You have given us some numbers that you maintain show that the current system is failing. Could you explain why you think that's the case?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Simply because a balance must be struck. Once we have a certain number of facts, we need to introduce legislation that is flexible and, at the same time, protects the greater interest of children. This is fundamental.

Frankly speaking, I have nothing against the fact that a citizen may want to see a violent movie. This citizen should be able to watch such a movie without any problem. He or she should be able to rent or even purchase it, but in the schedule, it must not be broadcast at peak viewing hours for children.

This is 2008, and parents are busier and busier and less and less at home. Children are increasingly being left to themselves. Therefore we have a duty. A public broadcasting system—I'm not referring to private broadcasting—has a public duty to guarantee that it produces quality television, in order to protect our children. That is why our television must be regulated.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I can't find disagreement; I just don't think there's been an answer as to why....

I know you believe the present system is failing, and you've said what you'd like to see happen, but I haven't understood your explanation as to why you think the system is failing. But I'll leave it at that.

It's a complaint-based system, as I understand it. What has happened in the incidence of complaints recently?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I believe that television broadcasters will be appearing in a few days and they will be able to explain the complaints-based system that is currently in force.

In many cases, when the code of ethics is violated, a public apology is made for the fact that the movie was shown at an unacceptable time. It is the complaints-based system that ensures that the broadcaster apologizes. Is this sufficient? I don't believe so. I think that an apology is fine the first time, but we have a system that makes it lucrative to broadcast a violent movie at 7:00 p.m. It's more lucrative to broadcast a violent movie than an educational show at 7:00 p.m. Therefore, Canadian broadcasters must certainly be interested in establishing their viewing schedule in light of economic interests.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'm still curious, though, about the incidence of complaints. What has happened in terms of the numbers of complaints in recent years?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I can't remember the figures exactly, but you will be able to put these questions to the representatives of the board. However, there are a certain number of complaints, and this number varies from year to year. Sometimes there are more protests and this leads to a greater number of complaints. I can't answer your question.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Would a decrease in complaints suggest to you that the system is improving?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That depends on the type of complaint. The number of complaints is not necessarily an indicator of whether the system is working well. That has to be done is to analyze the type of complaints made. It is not the number that counts, but rather the quality. In principle, this voluntary system should have led to an improvement in the quality of the shows broadcast. However, in reality, many violent movies have been broadcast at peak viewing hours. And this number is not declining, on the contrary. The studies done by Jacques de Guise and Guy Paquet show the contrary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Now we switch to Mr. Malo, please.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bigras, for having come here this afternoon to present Bill C-327, which was referred to us by the House of Commons further to its passing second reading.

Mr. Bigras, in your bill, are you attempting to define violence? Have you studied the definition of violence on television?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That is an excellent question. Indeed, there is a whole debate on the meaning of violence on television. it is difficult to reach a consensus. As I indicated, there are a number of definitions. One of them is from George Gerbner, a media specialist. Based on his research, he defines violence as “the act of injuring or killing someone or threat of injuring or killing someone.”

A study by the U.S. National Cable & Telecommunications Association considered violence to be: “Any overt depiction of the use of physical force—or the credible threat of such force—intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings.”

There are several definitions, but there is no consensus on what violence is. I would like to see this committee initiate a social debate prior to the drafting of the regulations, if Bill C-327 were to pass. No, there is no definition. More specifically, there is no definition of psychological violence, simply because there has yet to be a study on the issue. As I mentioned, this is a new phenomenon that has yet to be analyzed. Yes, there are several definitions. But there is no consensus on the definition of physical violence, and even less so on that of psychological violence.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Given that, how does one rate the programs aired on television if the concept of violence is rather vague?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

There are organizations responsible for issuing ratings. For instance, in Quebec there is the Régie du cinéma du Québec. It is comprised of various specialists who screen all films. It issues a classification based on its series of criteria. It is interesting to point out that what might be considered violent in the United States or cannot be viewed by people under the age of 17 can, in Canada, be seen by 13-year-olds. It really is open to interpretation. There is no definition. There are organizations that rate films, very well, but violence has yet to be defined. If Bill C-327 were to pass, that should be part of the debate. There has to be a debate on a regulatory framework. In my view, it would be a good idea to come up with a definition of violence.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

You said that broadcasters adopted a code. Is that what members use to determine whether they can or cannot air programs during peak viewing hours for children?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

No. Basically, broadcasters only have to inform television viewers about the content of a movie they are about to watch. As I indicated in my opening remarks, there is no obligation, but usually when you watch a movie, an icon showing that the movie was rated appears at the start of the film. Very often, that icon is shown several times throughout the broadcast. Nothing prevents a broadcaster from airing a film rated “13 years and over with violence.”