Canadian Heritage Committee on March 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I call to order meeting number 19 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2007, Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts). We welcome Mr. Bigras.

Please give your opening statement, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the committee for allowing me to appear. I have prepared a short brief, which I have unfortunately not had time to translate, given the short lead time for today's meeting.

Colleagues, in November 1992, a 13-year-old girl named Virginie Larivière, who had just lost her sister in a heinous crime, submitted a petition to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that was signed by over 1.5 million Canadians calling for legislation to reduce violence on television. At the time, this young girl's action provoked a great deal of public debate about the role of the government, broadcasters and parents in the face of the ubiquitous violence shown on the small screen.

The response from broadcasters and the CRTC was swift. A few months later, in 1993, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, brought in the Voluntary Code Regarding Violence in Television Programming, which was developed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

By signing on to the code, private broadcasters in Canada publicly endorsed the following principles: that programming containing scenes with gratuitous violence not be broadcast; that young children not be exposed to programming that is not age-appropriate; and that viewers be informed of the content of programs that they choose to watch.

In June 1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture concluded that the self-regulation approach needed to be given a chance. However, the committee did agree that if that approach did not work, legislation would need to be considered.

Where are we 15 years on? An analysis done by Laval University's Media Study Centre in December 2004 indicated that the number of acts of physical violence on television had increased by 286% in 10 years, with 81% of those acts of violence occurring in programming beginning before 9:00 p.m. and 29% occurring in psychological films.

Of course, the figures can be presented in different ways, but it is clear that television violence is widespread to the point that it influences the behaviour of our young people. It has to be concluded that the voluntary approach used with broadcasters does not seem to have given the desired results 15 years after the voluntary code was adopted.

In Quebec, the report by Dr. Catherine Rudel-Tessier as a result of her coroner's inquest into the death of an 11-year-old boy on December 31, 2005, is still fresh in people's minds.

In her report, the coroner described Simon as a lively, healthy boy with a bit of a sense of adventure. On December 30, 2005, at around 7:00 p.m., Simon and his father decided to watch the movie The Patriot on television.

As the report indicates, the plans of Simon and his father to watch the movie together changed when an unexpected visitor arrived. The child started to watch the movie alone, and his father promised that he would come and join him. At around 8:10 p.m., the boy was found hanging from the ceiling with The Patriot still playing on the television. The movie was rated “13 and over with violence” in Canada.

According to the coroner, there was nothing to indicate that the boy had committed suicide. She said that he had almost certainly been trying to play out a scene from the film shown at 7:34 p.m. where the hero's oldest son is brought by soldiers to be hung from a tree. According to the coroner, Simon may also have been influenced by another scene, which was shown at 8:01 p.m.

Finally, she questioned whether the film should have been shown at 7:00 p.m.

Similarly, under the voluntary code, the French version of the movie Striking Distance was shown at 8:00 p.m. on a major network on August 16, 2006; it was rated “18 years and over with violence and coarse language” and the movie Cradle 2 the Grave was shown in its French version on September 12, 2007, at 8:00 p.m.; it is rated “14 years and over with scenes of violence and coarse language.”

I sincerely think that it is time to act.

I would remind you that, in 1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, which is now the Committee on Canadian Heritage, concluded that self-regulation needed to be given a chance to work. However, the committee agreed that if that approach did not work, legislation would have to be considered. That is the spirit behind Bill C-327.

The bill before you today would require the CRTC to adopt regulations to limit violence on television, force it to monitor compliance by broadcast licence holders with their obligations concerning violence, and sanction those that violate the rules, as well as require it to hold hearings every five years to assess the results of this approach.

In closing, over 15 years after adoption of the voluntary approach, it is clearly time to take a regulatory approach. Our children and the teachers that work with them day-to-day deserve it.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Our first question will come from Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Bigras. Have you had discussions not only about the time of day when certain movies and shows are broadcast, but also about the programming itself?

There is another debate going on in Parliament and elsewhere about programs and films that might not receive funding from the government, etc. If possible, I would like us to make a distinction between that debate, which will certainly be held in the days and weeks ahead, and the issue of when programs containing violence should be shown on television. In your discussions and research when you were preparing your bill and your presentation here today, have you made that distinction?

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

Of course. We absolutely need to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the protection and best interest of our children. It is important not to limit freedom of expression, but we need to guarantee that our children have quality television.

To begin with, the bill does not specify what the regulations should be. It simply states that regulations concerning violence on television must be added to the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The regulations would be defined through public debate, in which parliamentarians could perhaps participate through the Committee on Canadian Heritage. Ideally, the draft regulations should be reviewed by parliamentarians.

Second, regarding appropriate broadcast times, there is no intent here to prohibit a given film from being broadcast. That must be very clear. To do so would be unconstitutional and a violation of people's freedom of expression. It simply says that the broadcast time must be appropriate. Would it be possible for films rated “13 years and over with violence” or “18 years and over with violence and coarse language” to be shown after prime time for children? Is that 9:00 p.m.? Is it 10:00 p.m.? That issue is still being debated. There needs to be a debate about it.

In my opinion, it is clear that the Canadian Broadcasting Act needs to have regulations in this area. That is the objective of Bill C-327.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Are you aware of the technological or technical proposals that have been made? There has long been talk of a silicone chip being used by parents or babysitters to program the television so that extremely violent shows cannot be watched at certain times or not at all.

When you drafted your bill, did you consult anyone on this matter and look at the results of that technology?

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

That technology is now integrated in all new televisions. Fifteen years ago, it was in its infancy but now it is in all televisions sold on the market.

However, between you and me, if you ask most people whether they knew that their televisions contained this chip, the answer would generally be no. Moreover, in her April 11 report, Dr. Rudel-Tessier states very clearly that she feels that those measures may not be adequate, and she urges parents to monitor what their children are watching on TV using a V-chip, which is integrated into the newer television models and automatically filters programs.

So this technology is currently available. However, I believe that it is too early to conclude that this chip is the solution to protecting our children from what is shown on the small screen.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

In your opinion, if parents were aware of this chip and did use it, would it be a solution?

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

There's another problem, which is the rating system. The movie The Patriot, for example, has been rated “13 years and over” here in Canada, whereas parents in the United States are advised that their child should be accompanied by someone over the age of 17. So it is not just a matter of technology, but also one of rating systems and education. Finally, while education is absolutely necessary, it does not solve all the problems.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Mourani, please.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Bigras.

I would first like to congratulate you on this bill, since I think that our children's lives are important and the examples that you gave were really very tragic.

I would like to hear from you about the link that can be made between violence on television and the victimization of children, violence among children, basically the impact that television violence can have on children. Is it really so tragic or is this a tempest in a teapot?

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

To begin with, we need to distinguish two types of violence. There is physical violence and psychological violence. A new study has just come out on this subject. I hope that the committee will have the opportunity to hear from Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise from Laval University's Media Research Centre, who have been studying this issue for many years and published a report in 2004. By the way, they can no longer do such studies because the Government of Canada has decided to withdraw the necessary funding from the centre.

Their research shows that violence can be divided into two types: physical violence and psychological violence, which is increasingly difficult to define. There is no adequate definition of psychological violence. There is more and more psychological violence and it is increasing dramatically, even more so than physical violence.

Many teachers in Montreal have told me that children tend to imitate what they see and what they hear. One teacher told me that some children out in the school yard throw their school bags around to imitate Pokemon characters. So teachers are on the front lines and they see that when children have watched violent shows the night before, they tend to act out more. There have been over 3,000 studies on this issue of violence. Children clearly tend to imitate what they see. I think that we need to be aware of that and especially of the fact that there is more and more psychological violence.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

We are talking about violence on television in general. In fact, this includes both movies and cartoons. Are you referring to all kinds of programming, when you talk about violence on television?

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

I am talking about programs that are the most accessible to our children. I could give you the example of young people who, for example, after having listened to the evening news and seen the hanging of Saddam Hussein, tried to imitate what they saw. Two deaths were linked to this in the world.

We must be very careful, but it is clear that when our children watch certain programs, we must be sensitive to the fact that they have a tendency to imitate what they see.

Ms. Rudel-Tessier's report is crystal clear on this issue. Also, various studies by well-known psychologists have demonstrated the existence of this imitation by children of things they see in violent cartoons or movies.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I will take the example of cartoons, because my son often watches channels that specialize in them. Sometimes I watch them too. Some very vulgar language comes out of the mouths of some of these animated characters. Sometimes one feels that this is not intended for children who are 10, 11 or 12 years old, but rather for youths that are 14 to 16, or even more, sometimes 18 years old. But we are talking about cartoons.

Should we also regulate cartoons that might be found to be too violent or have vulgar and disparaging language?

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

As an example, we could talk about South Park or others. First of all, we have to properly classify these kinds of programs. That is the first step to take, and that is true both for movies and for cartoons.

We must begin by establishing a strict classification system. It is true that south of the border, on the American side, there is a lot of violence. However, if we compare the Canadian classification system to the American one, we realize that the American system is more rigorous. We must therefore establish a classification system. Clearly, if cartoons are rated “18 years and over” because they have vulgar language, they should only be broadcast after 9:00 p.m.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I have a final question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Siksay is next, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Bigras.

I know this is something you've worked on for a long time, and I commend you for following up on the efforts of Virginie Larivière and the millions of Canadians who supported her campaign.

Monsieur Bigras, I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about organizations or individuals who have supported your bill. It's been around for a while, and I wonder if there are organizations and individuals who've come on board to say they think this is an appropriate way to go and have commended the work you've done.

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

Yes, of course. As you said, the bill in a sense is a kind of follow-up of Bill C-470, which I had tabled at the beginning of 2000 if memory serves me well. From that, in Quebec, we set up a coalition to support the bill, including among others the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, which includes the biggest Quebec teachers' union who experience this reality on a daily basis.

I am also thinking of the Fédération des intervenantes en petite enfance du Québec, which was part of the CSN at the time. TROP, the anti-violence organization whose spokesperson is the well-known actor René Caron, also comes to mind. Mr. Caron toured schools in order to make young people more aware of violence on television. I think of organizations like these who are working with our children daily and who wish for more peace on the airwaves. In fact, television is a means of transmission.

Of course, there are other modes of transmission. I'm thinking of the Internet, of video games. But television, and the regulation of violence on it, is the first medium that we must attack. This medium is symbolic and deserves all of our attention.

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

Has there been any feedback from the creators of television programs and films to the kinds of suggestions you're making in this bill?

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

No, I have not heard anything from those people.

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

You focus on television violence, but there have been concerns raised about violent video games. Have you paid any attention to that? Is there a reason why you haven't addressed that in this legislation? It seems to me that's also an area where people have expressed many concerns about what children and youth are exposed to in video games.

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

Absolutely. Violence on television is probably the easiest kind of violence to regulate. The Internet is an open network that is accessible to everyone; its regulation will therefore be very difficult.

As a society, the message we would be sending if we pass Bill C-327 is that we hope to build a peaceful society in Quebec and in Canada, without violence, or discrimination, regardless of sex or origin. This is an important social message that Parliament can send through Bill C-327. The bill deserves to be improved, of course. I hope that there will be the broadest possible debate on the coming regulation.