Canadian Heritage Committee on March 4th, 2008

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

So there are no regulations.

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

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Now we'll switch to Mr. Fast, please.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Bigras, I refer you to clause 3 of the bill. It's my understanding that's really the operative section, because it gives the commission the power to make regulations respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes. I'm trying to understand exactly what that means and what you see those regulations addressing.

You've stated a concern that certain violent programs should not be broadcast before 9 p.m. Is that correct?

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

Yes, absolutely. In passing, that is my personal opinion, which does not appear in the bill. The bill simply states that regulations shall be made.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's understood. Of course, that's already contained in the voluntary code, which, as my colleague Mr. Abbott said, is really not voluntary because it's part of the condition of licence.

Is your concern also the types of programs being shown on TV? Are you concerned about the gravity--the amount or degree of violence shown in some of the programs we see on television, even after 9 o'clock?

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

No, not at all. I am not concerned by the degree of violence in films. Let us be clear. What I am concerned about is that films with high levels of violence are broadcast during peak viewing hours for children. It is one thing that a film is violent. It is another, however, that the film be broadcast at 7 p.m., which I believe is a problem, and the government has to play a role in addressing it. Far be it from me to suggest that it should prohibit the broadcasting of the film, but it must take into account that our children might be in front of the television screen, whether before 9 p.m. or 10 p.m., and that it is in the public interest that such films not be broadcast before 9 p.m.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You've admitted that defining violence is very difficult. You gave a definition of violence, but you've acknowledged that the voluntary code doesn't define violence. Are you suggesting that the commission, through its regulations, should define what violence is?

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

Indeed, there is no definition of violence in the voluntary code, which broadcasters themselves drew up, and there is no obligation with regard to violence on television before the CRTC. I do think that violence should be defined in the voluntary code. To ask the question is to answer it. Why is there no definition in the broadcasters' own code? I don't know, but certainly, in my view, it is not a regulatory code.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So are you suggesting that the commission, through its regulations, should define the word “violence”?

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

I think that the CRTC should indeed define what violence on television is.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Right. So essentially you're talking about censorship. Someone has to make the decision as to what is violent and what is not. In your earlier remarks I believe you referred to trying to find a balance between freedom of expression and protection of children. I think all of us acknowledge that's important. We need to find that balance, but finding that balance requires us to draw a line somewhere.

I believe you're saying it is the CRTC, the commission, that should be drawing that line, which by its very nature is an act of censorship because you're going to allow some programming, but some won't be allowed because of the definition of violence you're adopting. Would you agree with me?

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

My understanding of censorship is that it is a form of prohibition. That is not at all what I was saying. I would not want to be accused of being in favour of censorship. This is not about censoring a film's content or prohibiting its broadcast. This is about programming slots and deciding that a film should be broadcast after 9 p.m. This is not about censorship because, to me, censorship equals prohibition. I would be against prohibiting the broadcast of certain films.

I think that all films deserve to be broadcast on the public airwaves, unless they contain such content as pornography, for example. Furthermore, if the Régie du cinéma du Québec or any other group considers a film to be violent, it should not be broadcast before 9 p.m. That is not prohibition.

If someone wanted to prohibit the broadcasting of a film containing violence, I would call that censorship.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I have one last question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Make it very short.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Is there any type of violence at all that you feel should be prohibited on television? Do you believe that extreme, gratuitous violence should be prohibited on television?

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

I am not here today to debate how to define violence. Besides, that is not the purpose of the bill.

The bill is intended to make regulations respecting violence on television; of course, those regulations have yet to be drafted. I would like to see parliamentarians contribute to the definition, with the help of experts, but the bill is certainly not intended to prohibit the broadcasting of films with violent content.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

That's it for our questioning in this session. We can't get a complete round in.

Thank you very much for appearing today.

We will recess for approximately seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I call the meeting back to order.

I welcome our next witnesses from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Mr. von Finckenstein, Ms. Vallée, and Mr. Hutton. Thank you very much for appearing today on such short notice.

Please start your presentation, sir.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the committee for inviting us to express our views on Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts).

The principle aim of the bill, as we understand it, is to contribute to solving the problem of violence in society by reducing violence in the programming offered to the public, including children.

We assume by “solving”, the bill means that violence should not be glorified or depicted too graphically. By “reducing”, we assume the bill means restricting the most graphic and inappropriate portrayals of violence to time periods when children are unlikely to be watching television.

Given these interpretations of the key terms, we regard the aims of the bill as entirely laudable. These aims are ours as well.

However, it is important to remember that the CRTC does not mandate or dictate programming, but rather ensures that it conforms to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. In particular, the act states that programming should be of a high standard, respectful of equality rights and reflective of Canadian values.

In pursuing these objectives, the act also directs the CRTC to respect freedom of expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The system we now have in place to deal with these issues is a collaborative one that relies largely on self-regulation by the industry in accordance with an obligatory code on violence. This code was developed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and approved by the CRTC. In addition, the CRTC holds the authority to serve as a final arbiter on these issues when required.

Today I will focus on the enforcement of programming standards on violence. I would like to take you briefly through the process to show you how the system works when a complaint is made.

First, the CRTC requires all broadcasters to adhere to a code on violence as a condition of licence. However, it suspends this obligation as long as a broadcaster is a member in good standing of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, the CBSC, and is therefore bound by the CAB code.

The complainant may bring the issue to the broadcaster or the CRTC. If one of the private broadcasters is involved and that broadcaster is a member in good standing of the CBSC, the complaint may be brought directly to the CBSC, or it is forwarded by the commission to the CBSC, if it comes to us.

The CBSC is an independent organization established by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters with the approval of the CRTC. Once such a complaint is made, the council will determine whether an infraction of the CAB's violence code has occurred.

This is a code that the CRTC regards as an important standard, and its terms provide a framework that is used across all sectors of the industry. Among other things: it prohibits gratuitous violence; it requires that viewer advisories accompany programs with violent content, i.e., the verbal warnings that indicate the nature of the content; it requires broadcasters to display a rating that informs parents of the suitable age groups for the programs; it establishes a watershed hour, such that depictions of violence intended for adult audiences must be broadcast after 9 p.m.; and it sets out detailed restrictions on the portrayal of violence in children's programs.

A private broadcaster who is found to have violated the code must acknowledge the violation with an announcement on the air and must provide the council with evidence that this has been done. If violations of the same kind have occurred more than three times, the broadcaster is required to show within 30 days why they should remain a member in good standing of the CBSC.

When the complaint concerns a public broadcaster such as the CBC, an educational broadcaster, or a broadcaster who is not a member in good standing of the CBSC, it is the CRTC that will hear the complaint. The commission will also hear any complaint in cases where the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution provided by the CBSC.

If the CRTC finds that a violation has occurred, it will issue a public decision to that effect, and this goes on the record of the licensee. Such decisions may be considered when the broadcaster's licence comes up for renewal. Measures, even severe ones, can be imposed at that time. That's the principal difference: with CBSC, it is corrected; with us, not only is it corrected, but it goes on the record and will be considered at the time of renewal.

I have taken you through the enforcement process as it is today so that you may understand our reaction to the bill before you.

We have no problems with clauses 1 and 2 of the bill, given the interpretation I mentioned at the outset. We do, however, have reservations about clause 3, which would add two new sections, identified as 10.1 and 10.2, to the Broadcasting Act. These additions would require the commission to make regulations concerning violent scenes on television, including those in programming intended for children. It would also require the monitoring of compliance and the punishment of non-compliance according to law.

This is contrary to our regulatory approach. For us, it has become a high priority to use regulation as an instrument of policy only when regulation is necessary. That means we will regulate only when no other effective means is available to achieve the desired purpose. When we do regulate, it will be with smarter and lighter regulation.

We believe that the present system, based on industry self-regulation and adherence to obligatory codes, and backed up by the CRTC as the final arbiter, does provide an effective means to achieve the desired purpose. We therefore cannot support the provisions of Bill C-327 that call for prescriptive regulation in lieu of industry self-regulation backed up by conditions of licence.

We do, however, share the aims of this bill when it comes to effective enforcement of our policies governing content standards. For some time, we have felt the lack of a full range of penalties to deal with violations.

Our powers of enforcement would be both stronger and sharper if we were given the power to impose administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs. In other words, the commission should be able to fine a broadcaster for infractions. These fines would be proportionate to the offence. They would be large enough to hurt and serve as a deterrent.

The CRTC has such powers as a means of enforcement under the Telecommunications Act. It strikes us that it is equally needed in broadcasting. At the moment, the only penalties we can impose are either relatively light or excessively heavy. At the light end we have an on-air announcement required by the CBSC or a public decision rendered by the CRTC in response to a complaint. At the heavy end we can shorten the offender's term of licence at renewal time or deny renewal entirely. These are very blunt instruments; we need something in between. Those are the AMPs I mentioned.

If the committee so desires, you could have our legal staff draft the appropriate amendments to Bill C-327, which would replace the proposed sections 10.1 and 10.2 with a system of monetary penalties.

We note that the bill calls for the commission to review the new regulations after five years. Should the bill be enacted with the amendments we suggested, we would have no objection to undertaking such a review.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to express our views, and we are ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Fry, I think you have the floor for the first questions, please.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you.

Thanks for your presentation. I want to ask some clear questions.

What other indicators do you have that programming or violence is being reported, or that it's a concern of the public, or that the self-regulation of the industry is compliant with the spirit and letter of all the acceptable limits on violence that are already there in legislation? Is it just reporting? Is that the only indicator you have? Can you suggest other indicators?

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

We operate on a complaints basis. If people complain about the programming, if they feel the programming is too graphic, is too drastic, or is shown in hours when it shouldn't be shown, they'll complain. Most of these complaints are dealt with by the CBSC.

If you would like to know the exact numbers of complaints, we can give them to you. My colleague, Mr. Hutton, has them.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

No, I wondered if you had other indicators by which we could measure the compliance of the self-regulation of the industry itself. Only complaints? That's the only indicator people might have?

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

Complaints and the remedy of the complaints as enacted either by the CBSC or us.