Evidence of meeting #21 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 qualifications.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you for being here today, Ms. Wong.
According to your philosophy, the state should not interfere in people's private lives; it is up to parents to make these decisions. It is true that efforts must be made to educate parents, but your argument reminds me of the situation we faced years ago. People said that men could continue to beat their wives because it was a private matter, and the police did not take any action. The government refused to legislate because they did not want to get involved in people's private lives.
Attitudes changed and the government understood that wife-beating should not be allowed. There is now zero tolerance in that regard. Laws have been passed, the government brought in legislation and the police now intervene. So when I hear about government interference in people's private lives, I have reservations. But that is not my question.
Could you tell me how the regulations work right now, in your opinion?
4:50 p.m.
Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
In terms of your initial comment, madame, there are differences between violence against women and, I would say, regulating violent content on television.
We have over 1,000 members, so we're not all going to agree on how you define civil liberties, but traditionally speaking, civil libertarians believe that state intervention is only necessary when it's to prevent harm. In the case of violence against women, definitely there was harm. I don't think there are very many civil libertarians who would say yes, let's go and beat women--although I can't speak for all of them.
In this particular situation, as I said earlier, if there were a proven causal link between violent content on television and increase of crime—
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked a very specific question and I would like the witness to answer. I will not have time to ask any other questions. I want to know whether she is familiar with the current regulations. How do the current regulations work? I would like you to answer that question specifically, please. I do not have much time for my questions.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I think she's getting to that. Just to make you feel good about it, I'll give you an extra minute.
4:50 p.m.
Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
I'm sorry. I thought you wanted me to comment on your initial point.
4:55 p.m.
Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
You're asking in terms of how...?
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
Do you mean in this specific circumstance?
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
To date, I believe there is a 9 p.m. threshold that the commission has decided to uphold. I know there were hearings held, but I don't know the logistics of how, if this were to be passed into law, the actual commission would make the laws. It's very vague, so I'm assuming that they're not constrained by any rules as to how they can regulate this.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
If I understand correctly, you do not know exactly how it really works, but you know that there is no real regulation. There is self-regulation based on the industry's goodwill and, of course, a code that was developed by the industry. I am telling you this for your information.
That said, your brief states: “First, the provision delegates a broad power to the commission and thereby advocates the responsibility of democratically elected legislators to fashion clear and understandable laws.” You say that this legislation would give powers to the commission. But you also say that the government passed a measure, subsection 163(8) of the Criminal Code, to regulate the importing of obscene material. So there is a contradiction in your brief. On the one hand, you are saying that the government needs to legislate and must not delegate the powers to the CRTC, and on the other hand, you say that the government has already brought in subsection 163(8). I have to admit that I am not all that familiar with the Criminal Code, and I do not know where subsection 163(8) comes from. I do know that section 163 deals with child pornography.
In your opinion, is child pornography the sort of thing that we should see here in Canada? Why did customs officials prohibit the material sold by Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium? Was it child pornography? I do not know. Now, for your information, do you think...
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chairman, 1.3 million people have signed petitions calling for regulation. You said earlier that there was no problem. So I am wondering whether we need to regulate this or not? What is the story with section 163 of the Criminal Code and obscene material? I have to admit that I do not really understand this and I feel a bit lost. When I read your brief, I feel a bit confused overall.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Make your answer very short, because we've already gone over time.
You've taken advantage of me.
4:55 p.m.
Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
If the question is about subsection 163(8) of the Criminal Code, that's a separate case. We're using that as an example of how the delegation of powers went wrong. In that case, the delegation of power to determine what was obscene was given to customs officials. In that case there was abuse of that power, because the customs officials were not educated in terms of making that decision.
We're saying that in this situation we think there's a great likelihood, if not an inevitable chance, that there will be the same problem. In terms of the 1.3 million who signed a petition for regulation of violent content, that's fine; we need rules to determine how to regulate. Just to say that the commission shall make regulations....
I'm assuming this is different from the voluntary code of conduct you mentioned. I'm aware of that code of conduct. This sounds to me as though a completely separate set of regulations is going to made by the CRTC respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes, which is such a vague and broad power that it's inevitable, we think....
We've seen this happen before, in Little Sister's. We're going to see it happen again, and rights will be trampled.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you.
I might have to cut the next questioner's time a little, because we really went over.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
No. That discriminates against my colleague, Mr. Chairman. I disagree.