Canadian Heritage Committee on March 6th, 2008

[Ronald I. Cohen]

First of all, we don't keep tables like that, but the information, like everything we do, is entirely transparently available. Anyone who wished to look at our website could dig it up, but we don't keep anything like that.

Let me, however, get to what I think you want out of this. That would be to say, not to be presuming, to the extent that you're looking for information about broadcasters who repeat the same kind of offence—because there's a critical difference—if they repeat, if they do that three times, what happens is that, as Mr. von Finckenstein said in talking about us, we give them 30 days to explain how they will eliminate the problem in the future, and if they don't, they're gone as members.

In regard to the solutions that they have adopted in the past, among other things, very recently they got rid of Stéphane Gendron and Doc Mailloux in Quebec. They're off the air, because it would appear the broadcasters were of the view that they would not be able to deliver the kind of programming that the codes require. That's the step that has been taken.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mauril Bélanger]

Merci.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cohen, you're a film producer by profession, are you not?

[Ronald I. Cohen]

I have certainly done that in the past. Yes, absolutely.

I'm not sure, when you're talking to me, having had legal training long before I was a producer, that I would be entitled to say that I'm a film producer by profession.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You certainly segued nicely into my next question.

So you are a lawyer.

[Ronald I. Cohen]

Yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

And you have been a law professor at McGill University, correct?

[Ronald I. Cohen]

Yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So I'm asking the question of the right person.

I want to refer you to clause 3—in fact, the first paragraph of clause 3, which is essentially the operative provision of this particular bill.

You had a chance to listen to Mr. Bigras' intervention. Mr. Bigras went to great pains to try to restrict the ambit of this bill to the viewing hours when children would be viewing programming. Yet I'm looking at this clause, which he drafted, and to me it's much broader than what he led this committee to believe.

In fact, I'll read that clause: “The Commission shall make regulations respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes, including those contained in programs intended for persons under the age of 12 years.” As a lawyer, would you agree with me that in fact this provision is much broader than simply restricting viewing hours?

[Ronald I. Cohen]

It would, clearly. This has nothing to do with viewing hours at all.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Exactly.

Would you agree with me that this clause, although it references children, is actually much broader and actually gives the CRTC the right to regulate violence in general?

[Ronald I. Cohen]

Clearly, because it only includes those contained in programs intended for persons under the age of 12.

It says, “The Commission shall make regulations respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes...”. That's the operative provision, and it goes so far as to say that it even includes this limited category. But yes, it clearly is a broader statement.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So it's a very broad regulatory power, correct?

[Ronald I. Cohen]

Yes, it appears to be.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Right.

Would you agree with me that under this kind of regulatory power, it would be open to the CRTC—although I'm not suggesting it would—to prohibit the showing of the movies The Patriot and Gladiator? In fact, it would be open to the CRTC to actually prohibit the showing of hockey games in which there's violence. From time to time, hockey games have violence; they have fights, people break their noses, they might get cuts on their brows. You might get a Bertuzzi incident or a Wayne Maki incident, from many years ago. And the CRTC—under this regulatory provision—would have the right to actually prohibit that kind of programming.

[Ronald I. Cohen]

Needless to say, one of the problems with--if I may it call this--a blunt regulatory instrument is that you may also run into difficulties with the charter. That's another whole issue. But it certainly appears to be a very broad endorsement that would be given to the CRTC. There's no indication of where these violent scenes may occur.

I suppose you could look at this and say that violent scenes could occur in the news as well, and that they could be anticipated to be included here. I mean, it does seem like a very broad power, yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes. And would you agree with me that the way this bill is drafted, it could lead to censorship on television?

[Ronald I. Cohen]

Well, I might have agreed with that statement even before you started asking those pointed questions, just from reading it, yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right.

I want to also refer you to one portion of the preamble. As you know, preambles typically aren't operative within bills, but in this case the preamble says, as follows:

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;

Do you agree with that portion of the preamble?

[Ronald I. Cohen]

I totally disagree. As we've indicated in our written document and in the oral presentation, we don't believe that there's any justification out there--any studies--that would support that statement.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mauril Bélanger]

Thank you.

Colleagues, might we consider doing the same, a second round of three minutes? That's fine?

Madam Fry, go ahead.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much.

Of course, at the heart of all of this is the concern of where censorship starts and freedom of expression ends. This is a very difficult bill, in that you don't know where to draw this fine line. However, I do have some concerns with something that the CRTC told us at the last meeting, and that you are saying. So I'm going to ask the question again, and hopefully I can find an answer.

If complaints are the only indicators you use to decide whether there is too much violence, it could be--and I think my colleague Mr. Scarpaleggia asked it--that maybe the public is so inured to violence now that they don't notice it. It could be that people feel that they possibly don't get the kind of response they want and that they stop writing. I don't know. It could be those reasons; it may not be those reasons. But surely to goodness there are other indicators that we could use, or that a self-regulatory body like yours could use, to define whether or not violence is unacceptable or violence is escalating. I mean, there are the Criminal Code definitions that we could look at.

But is there any other way you think than simply...because for me, complaints are such a poor indicator. It's very nebulous, at best. I just don't know whether there is something else that will not become censorship, but will find a way of tracking, find a way of giving us the data we want, find a way of giving us the information we want. Could you suggest something else? I'm really struggling with this issue as to what are the other indicators we could use that would allow for self-regulation and make it effective.

[Ronald I. Cohen]

I think, Ms. Fry, that Ms. Wing actually provided a very good answer in the last appearance of witnesses. I think we need to distinguish between the trending-type information—to which you're really referring—and what it is that we do.

We at the CBSC are tasked with the responsibility of responding to individual complaints. We're not tasked with the responsibility of trying to measure how much violence there is or isn't in society or, indeed, on television or in the newspapers. That's not our job.

So she suggested that research and research funding might be a very good thing to do. The Media Awareness Network, MNet, might be the very kind of body to supervise something like that. Our job is different and this bill is different. This bill proposes that the responsibility that we exercise—I believe very effectively—should be transferred over to another body, where incidentally, of course, it will cost more money.

But that's the difference, I think, between the two situations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mauril Bélanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cohen.

Monsieur Malo.