Canadian Heritage Committee on March 4th, 2008

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

Mr. Spicer?

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

According to the site I saw, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. We'll switch over.

I think Mr. Abbott has one short question, and then we'll switch to Mr. Batters, so the time will be shared.

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

Good. Thank you.

Thank you for coming. I think this discussion we've had with you has indicated that this bill is far broader than just simply restricting hours, as the proposer of the bill seemed to be testifying today.

Mr. von Finckenstein, you spoke about being able to come up with some kind of enforcement. You were talking about something in between. Looking at section 32 of the Broadcasting Act, I thought the CRTC had the ability to impose fines. But you're telling us that section 32 isn't a tool that's commonly used. You gave us a brief explanation, but I wonder if you'd just expand on it.

Second, if this bill was not successful and was not amended as you suggested, would you see there being a reason for there to be an amendment to the CRTC Act so that you would have the enforcement you're after?

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

First of all, section 32 is the standard provision for criminal offences that you find in most acts, saying that if you breach this act, you're guilty of a criminal offence, which means you have to go to court. You have to prove the offence. You have to prove it to a criminal standard of proof, that is, beyond all reasonable doubt. It's also a fairly lengthy process. It brings the full majesty of the law against somebody who has committed a criminal act.

That's not what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about, in effect, what's called an administrative monetary penalty. In common parlance, it's called a fine. You have to prove it to a civil standard, that is, on the balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. It's also going to be very quickly done while the offence is there, while the program is still on the air.

The criminal process is.... It's first of all disproportionate. Second, by the time you bring...the program may no longer be on the air and it may be totally irrelevant. It's also very difficult to prove that somebody deliberately, with full intent, went out to breach the code and did something that was in explicit violation of the code.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have now, basically, the power to shame. CBSC does it. They say you've done wrong, so admit it. We do the same thing, and we put it on the record. Or we can have sort of a nuclear bomb: we withdraw the licence. There's absolutely nothing in between, and what we suggest for these things, which may be infractions of various gradations, is that there should be an appropriate penalty.

As far as your second question is concerned, if this bill is not amended, yes, this AMPs power is needed, not only in regard to the violence question but in regard to other issues we regulate too. And hopefully we will see it some day. It was raised in this bill specifically, and as there's a concern with violence, I thought it was appropriate to raise it with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Batters.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank all of you for appearing before our committee, and also to commend Monsieur Bigras for his noble intentions in putting his bill forward again.

Mr. von Finckenstein, in your mind, in the opinion of the CRTC, is Bill C-327 simply redundant given the rules system already in place by the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council?

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

That's really for you to decide, I think, partially.

The bill says at the beginning:

AND WHEREAS the number of violent scenes broadcast on television during the hours when children watch television, namely, before 9 p.m., has nevertheless increased;

I think that's what it is trying to address and trying to emphasize, the need to protect our children and make sure that those offensive programs appear after 9 p.m. As I said, I agree with that. We have a workable system, and this would strengthen it, perfect it, etc.

So whether you want to enact it or not--any regulatory power, of course, brings with it some negative side effects that may lead to more litigation or stifle creativity--that question is really up to you.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Hutton or Ms. Vallée, have you anything to add regarding that? Do you think this bill is redundant?

I mean, we're anxious to hear your opinions on this. That's why you're before committee today. We understand that this ultimately rests with parliamentarians, but that's why you were called today.

[Scott Hutton]

I think what we're suggesting is that improvements can be made to recognize the existing system, because we believe in the existing system. We can build upon the existing system through this route.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. Our time is up for that.

Now I will go to Mr. Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to you all.

To Mr. Hutton, I'd like to get back to the complaints. You said there were about 125.

Are those 125 complaints directed to complaints about violence and children, or are they the entire package of complaints?

[Scott Hutton]

It would be toward the entire package of violence. We receive about 10,000 complaints on broadcasting matters a year. We have 125, according to our own tracking system, on violence, not specifically to children.

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

Not violence vis-à-vis children.

[Scott Hutton]

No; just violence on television.

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

You have 10,000 complaints a year and 125 are on violence. Has there ever been an analysis of these complaints? If so, would you share that? Of what nature are they?

I'm surprised there are that many. I'd be curious to see how many originate from people watching broadcasters that are members of the CBSC and the broadcasters that are not members of the CBSC. Do you have that distinction?

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

Perhaps I could break it down. You have several questions here.

You asked if there was analysis of the 10,000 complaints or of the complaints regarding violence?

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

Both.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

Okay.

As most of you will appreciate, a huge number of complaints are heard by the CBSC. They will be appearing before you, and they can tell you about the complaints they have and what kind of analysis they have done.

With regard to the complaints to us, a lot of the 10,000 are of a general nature--complaining about specific ads, particular programming, the poor variety of programming.

If you want a breakdown, Mr. Hutton can walk you through it.

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

No, no, perhaps you could provide that to the committee.

[Scott Hutton]

We can provide you with our annual report, which includes that data.

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

Fair enough. I stand--or sit--reprimanded.

On the 125 complaints, can you tell me how many are directed to violence and children and how many are not?

[Scott Hutton]

We don't have that with us, but we can provide that to the committee.

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

Would you know, of the 125, how many stem from broadcasters who are members of the CBSC and broadcasters who are not members of the CBSC?