Evidence of meeting #19 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was broadcasters.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Sure. Do you have any indicators you would suggest other than complaints?
4:40 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
No, we don't. It's a complaint-driven system. We set standards. We go on the assumption that broadcasters are in the business to make money and produce broadcasting that appeals to Canadians. They get a licence from us. The licence says comply with the standards. We assume they comply with the standards. Obviously there may be cases where they either fail to or where there's a difference of interpretation of what the standards are. Those will then generate a complaint, and we deal with that complaint.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Do you believe that a complaint-based system is an appropriate way to monitor this?
4:40 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Yes. That's our whole general approach in all of this. We are dealing with a creative industry. You don't want to be too prescriptive, so you say set your standards, administer them, and we will make sure you adhere to them.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I know that's the current approach, Mr. von Finckenstein. What I'm asking you is, do you think it is the appropriate approach? Do you think it is sufficient? Do you think there are other ways in which we can approach the issue of compliance by broadcasters other than complaints, which is hoping the public will have the time to write, etc.? If this is self-regulatory, do you think it is an appropriate way? Should we change it? If so, how do you think we should?
4:40 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The short answer is no. I think it is the appropriate pitch. Obviously there are other approaches. You could have an inspection system, you could have a monitoring system, you could have a reporting system--all of it. They are very costly, they are very intrusive, and I'm not convinced they would be more effective. I think the system we have strikes the right balance between protecting the public by ensuring there's a code that's adhered to, but also by having a system that punishes those who offend the code.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I must admit, Mr. von Finckenstein—I hope I did not mispronounce your name; may I call you Mr. Konrad?— that I don't quite understand how you can monitor broadcasters according to rules that they set for themselves. It is as if the police went to see criminals and asked them which standards should be set in order to better monitor them. Don't you find that strange?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The standards were drafted by the industry, you are absolutely right. However, we have to approve the code. We did so: we held hearings and examined the code. We believe that it truly reflects the appropriate standards for broadcasters. There is no doubt about the fact that they drafted the code, but it contains the standards that we approved.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
That means, for example, in the case of a “13 years and over” rating, that the standards that are set in terms of violence, nudity, etc., are set based on what broadcasters decided? Thereafter, if I understood correctly, the CRTC either gives its okay, that the “13 years and over” rating applies, or states that that is not the case and disagrees with the classification.
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
No. We asked broadcasters to draft a code that reflects society's standards with regard to violence or nudity, whether the content is acceptable or not, what can be broadcast during the day and what should not be broadcast in the evening. They came up with a draft after having held consultations within the industry and the general public. That draft was presented to us. We held public hearings to consider it. We studied it and made a few changes. Finally, we approved a version that, in our view, truly reflects Canada's generally accepted standards. It has become the code to which everyone is subject.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Do you not agree that it should be up to elected representatives and the public to establish such codes pertaining to violence? We know that what society tolerated in the past with regard to violence or nudity was very different from what it tolerates today, and that there has been a change in cultural mores. I find it quite unusual that it is broadcasters themselves who conceived the initial code, but I fully understand your position.
I would like to move on to another topic, something Ms. Fry raised earlier: the complaints-based system. Do you not find that working within a complaints-based system places your organization in a wait-and-see position? The CRTC has to wait for a complaint to be filed. I would have thought that the commission would be a bit more proactive by assessing which broadcasters respect the code and which do not, without necessarily having to wait before a complaint is made.
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
First of all, at the time the code was drafted, broadcasters did not work alone. They hired experts in the field and commissioned studies to help prepare the code.
Second, as I said earlier, we signed off on the code. We agree with its principles. Finally, as in all cases of self-regulation, there has to be a balance between the costs, effectiveness, expertise and results. Would you prefer that the state do it all, establish the rules, regulate, interact with stakeholders, prosecute, etc., or should we consider that broadcasters are able to regulate themselves? It is in their best interest to do so because, after all, if broadcasts and programs contain high levels of violence, they will lose viewers.
Lastly, we are talking about a productive and creative industry. We wouldn't want to... How do you say that in French? Stifle...
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
We don't want to restrict people's creativity, etc. It is a question of balance, and the way we have found to achieve a fair balance is through self-regulation under CRTC guidance.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Very well.
Earlier, you talked about it being very costly. Were you talking about the current system?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
No, I was talking about the system that you are considering.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
That would be a more “controlling” system. I don't really consider that to be “controlling”, but it would be less of a wait-and-see approach. Such a system would be more action-based rather than complaints-based and would require regulations from the CRTC. It would cost more. Approximately how much more, in your view?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
It all depends on the regulations. But it isn't only a matter of cost. We also have to respect the legislation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So, if we are too controlling of content, we might also infringe upon the charter.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Yes, but I think that the bill has passed the constitutionality test. I am talking about this bill.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Very well. Thank you. I will have more to say during the next round.
