Canadian Heritage Committee on March 13th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Malo, a very, very short question, please.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

You said that all programmes ought to be screened before being broadcast. Does that mean that you believe the current system for rating television programs to be inadequate?

[Shari Graydon]

No. I'm really suggesting that for shows that contain a great deal of violence, violence that would come under the violence code—and many programs on television do not fall into that category, but for the television programs that do contain a great deal of violence—it should be incumbent upon broadcasters to be attentive to ensuring that those shows do in fact adhere to the code in advance. It should not be on the consumer to make that adjudication and to make the complaint.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

We have Mr. Fast for the last three-minute question.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all three of you for attending today. I must commend you for your role in doing your best to protect children and educate children in this whole area of violence.

One of the struggles I've had, too, with this legislation is that when it first came forward in the House, I said, “Well, how can I vote against this? This is about reducing TV violence that our children might be exposed to.” When I looked at the bill—and I think all three of you have done that as well—it's actually not about violence aimed at children; it's a broad regulatory power to actually censor all violence on TV, not that it would be exercised that way but that's the way the bill is worded.

An even greater difficulty is one that I believe Ms. Graydon put her finger on: it's not going to be effective.

We live in a universe now that has PVRs, that has time-shifting. Our kids are watching violence on the Internet. On top of that, in a 500-channel universe, kids on the west coast can watch an 11 o'clock show on the west coast and there would be no restrictions on that.

I think one of the keys is media literacy. The other one is making sure that parents are involved. It's shocking to hear the statistics that you cited about the lack of parental supervision. In our family, we made a point of making sure we knew what our kids were watching.

Could you perhaps comment on how you found the bill itself, if you did review the bill, and perhaps the broadness of it, the vagueness of it, and the incredible power it's giving to the regulator to actually address all TV violence, not just that focused on children's viewing hours?

[Myles Ellis]

We did review the suggested amendments and we found ourselves asking ourselves whether this would do what we wanted it to do, whether it would get at the broader areas of concerns we have, not only about television. We didn't see that it would. So we're saying, as we said in our submission, this may or may not address some of our concerns, but we're looking at something much broader and more comprehensive than that.

At the same time, as teachers, we have to be concerned about something being overly censored. So we were not certain about how much power the CRTC was going to have, who was going to pay for it, where the funding was going to come from, and even if you did all that, were they going to be able to address the much broader concerns we had? So when we looked at it in that regard, we said in its form and in the intention we see, we can't support it right now.

[Shari Graydon]

I also didn't see the bill as being practical in terms of achieving its objectives, so I didn't support it for that reason.

I would like to add one quick thing. It sounds as if the CRTC suggested a form of financial penalties. I would like to recommend that if this is the direction in which this committee or the government goes, the financial penalties levied against broadcasters should go to media literacy programming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

I have one comment to make about your presentation, when you mentioned that 50% or 70% of children have televisions in their rooms. When I was younger I was always denied television by being sent to my room. I wasn't sent to my room to watch television. So I think again, yes, as parents and as grandparents, we all should take a big look at what our children and grandchildren watch.

Thank you very much for attending.

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

If I may, I wanted to give our committee members some information. At the last meeting, we had asked for information from the CRTC. I have also received a communication from Mr. Cohen on this particular topic, which I have advanced to your offices. I made sure it was translated, and it relates to the information we were asking for from the CRTC.

I wanted you to be aware of that so you could be looking for it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Ellis.

[Myles Ellis]

Just very quickly, we do have some materials here to share that we've produced at the CTF. If anyone is interested, you're very welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We'll recess for five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just before we ask our next witness to come forward, Mr. Chong has asked for a minute to suggest something we may look at in the future. It's going to be very short; I'll make sure of that.

If you could, please, just...because you approached at the end of the last meeting.

Go ahead, sir.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Last week, the CBC broadcast the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame gala, and during that broadcast they cut out the francophone portions of the broadcast. What ensued was a great controversy, wherein many people were quite upset that the CBC had done this. In particular, singer Claude Dubois voiced his strenuous objections to it.

Since this is the heritage committee, which has oversight over the CBC, I want to point out that the 1991 Broadcasting Act mandates that Radio-Canada and the CBC provide programming that—there are three points: actively contributes to the flow and exchange of cultural expression; is in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities; contributes to shared national consciousness and identity.

I think the third section is the most relevant to this controversy. I also think we have here an opportunity as a committee—because I sense that the study of the bill in front of us today is winding up—to have CBC appear in front of our committee to explain how they are fulfilling that part of their mandate, in particular the part of their mandate that demands that they contribute to shared national consciousness and identity. I think there might be an opportunity for the committee to take a look at this for one or two committee meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. My thing is that....

Mr. Bélanger, be very short. We're not going to get into discussion. We have a witness here today on this. Can I ask that we think about what Mr. Chong has said here? I don't want to hold the witness up any longer. We'll deal with this at our next meeting.

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

Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I don't have a difficulty with Mr. Chong's suggestion. I just need to advise you that another committee has decided also today to look at this—the official languages committee—so we may need to coordinate it.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think we should consider perhaps adding on to our next meeting, because as this may indeed be winding up, there are a number of other issues already on the table that we have to look at, and I would be quite prepared to add another one—where the Portrait Gallery of Canada should be located, for instance.

There's an awful lot of work we have to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Be very brief, Madame Mourani, because Mr. MacKay is patiently waiting for us.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, but I am going to approach it from a different angle. The justification for only broadcasting the English-language portions may be that the CBC is the English-language network. I wonder whether Radio-Canada, the French-language network, could broadcast the French portions of the gala? The issue that I raise is even more specific than the one that you raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Since I've given everybody a chance, I have to give Mr. Siksay one.

Make it short, please, and I'll accept it.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think we were all very concerned about the situation that arose from that particular broadcast. I understand the CBC has issued an apology that indicated they had made an error in judgment when it came to their decision around this.

That doesn't preclude the committee taking a look at it. I wonder, though, whether Mr. Chong shouldn't submit a notice of motion to the committee. It seems to me that's the way other things have gotten onto our agenda, and I wonder whether he might consider doing that so that we could consider it at a future meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That would be my suggestion.

With that put aside, we've used some valuable time here, which we're taking away from our next witness.

Our next witness is here as an individual, Mr. Al MacKay.

[Al MacKay, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you today.

As you know, I'm not representing any particular organization, but rather participating as an interested Canadian, as a father of three—and in spite of the hair, not a grandfather yet—who's been intimately involved with the issue of violence in television for more than 15 years from a number of different perspectives.

I've provided to the clerk a brief summary of my involvement with the issue of violence on television, and I understand that's been circulated to you, so you can see that I have played a role in most of the major initiatives that have happened in the violence-on-television dossier since the early 1990s. While I am now retired from the broadcast industry, I continue to be involved as a bit of an elder statesman, one who was actually there when the codes were developed, when the classification system was created, and when media literacy initiatives were first undertaken.

While I do have an opinion of the proposed legislation in front of you, I see my role today more as a resource for this committee, to be available to perhaps provide some context, clarification, and increased understanding of how the broadcast industry, the regulator, and the government have dealt with this in the past, and continue to deal with it today. To that end, I don't have an extensive opening statement, believing that my limited time with you is probably best served by being available to answer your questions.

For example, in watching the committee's recent deliberations, I know there's confusion over the title of the broadcaster's code on violence on television. Why is it called a voluntary code when in fact it's a condition of licence? Well, the answer to that lies in history, because today's code is a successor to the self-regulatory violence code that was first created in 1987, entitled the voluntary code on television violence—and when it was updated in 1993, the title just carried over. Furthermore, it was only when the CRTC approved the code that it stated in its public notice that adherence to that industry-developed code would be a condition of licence at any upcoming licence renewal hearings and for all new licensees. They just never got around to renaming it.

During one of your sessions last week, there was a committee member who asked about a statement attributed to Keith Spicer, chair of the CRTC in the nineties, referring to a 10-10-80 approach, with 10% being industry codes and standards, 10% technological tools such as classification systems and the V-chip, and 80% being public awareness, education, and media literacy.

I was there in October 1995 when Mr. Spicer made that comment at the opening session of national hearings in Hull, following regional public consultations on what should be done about violence in television. It was his firm belief that there were three pillars to a strategy to protect children from the harmful effects of violence: one was a collaborative and a cooperative approach, with all sectors in broadcasting, the cable industries, and the programmers accepting the responsibilities; two, parents had to play a role in their children's viewing and utilize empowering technologies such as the V-chip, which worked with the classification system; and three, ongoing public awareness and media literacy, the most important element of the successful approach to dealing with the issue of violence on television.

You talked with Cathy Wing of the Media Awareness Network last week, Mr. Chairman, and there was some mention about their undertaking some fresh research on questions that had been raised during your discussion. While additional research would be very useful in expanding our knowledge base, I suggest the committee take that further.

Media literacy has been clearly identified by a previous generation of this committee, as well as the CRTC, as the most critical element of the multi-faceted strategy that we've put in place in this country to deal with violence on television. I firmly believe this committee should work to ensure that the Government of Canada provides secure and long-term funding to this internationally respected organization, which is doing great work for Canadians, with limited financial resources. You've heard the accolades given to the Media Awareness Network by previous witnesses.

The codes and the tools are in place, and in my view they're working. The media literacy part of the strategy needs more support, but through more than just project funding.

Mr. Chairman, the last time this committee examined the issue of violence on television was in 1993, when the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture released its report “Television Violence: Fraying our Social Fabric”. Following extensive hearings—in which I participated—that report put forward a number of recommendations on how the CRTC could use its regulatory authority to work with broadcasters to ensure children were protected from the harmful effects of television violence. The report did not suggest that changes to the Broadcast Act were necessary, nor did that suggestion ever arise at all the hearings conducted by the CRTC. I believe that approach was valid then and is still valid today.

I believe we have a good system in place. It's one of the most comprehensive in the world, and it's been working well for more than 15 years. It's one in which there are effective regulations and an effective regulatory mechanism system. It's a balanced system that has been built with the primary objective of protecting children while at the same time preserving freedom of expression. It minimizes direct government intervention or regulation of program content, which is a minefield that I think most everyone wants to avoid. And, as do many other jurisdictions, it makes education a cornerstone.

Before I go to questions, I'd just like to pick up on an observation made by Monsieur Bélanger. During the national hearings in Hull, Chairman Spicer noticed that there was a group of children at the back of the hearing room. They had been brought in by a teacher as a field trip to see how a government commission worked. Keith had exactly the same idea that you did. So much to the consternation of his officials and those who were running the hearing, he just put a stop to all of the proceedings with the witnesses, and he said let's get those kids up here. It was quite an education. The kids were not prepared. There were no presentations or anything, and the commissioner just talked to them about what they thought about all of this. It would be a good exercise for this committee as well, I think. So I support your approach.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my introductory remarks. I'm available for questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

First we go to Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You've whetted our appetite. What did the kids say?

[Al MacKay]

It was interesting, because a lot of the parents were complaining about programs like The Simpsons and everything like that. The kids said that was their favourite show. They didn't see anything wrong with it. They knew the difference between right and wrong, what was real and what was imagined. They were very open and they were very frank. I think it was a refreshing change from all the vested interests who were in front of the commissioner.