Evidence of meeting #25 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 amendments.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

It is this:

- Bill C-327 has a laudable goal of seeing a reduction of violence in society, particularly as it relates to children;

- Notwithstanding this goal, witnesses convinced the committee that Bill C-327 is the wrong means to achieve the goal;

- The committee unanimously supports freedom of expression, including in the media of film and television;

And the new point:

- The committee also notes the number of witnesses who spoke to the need for education media literacy and parental engagement.

Mr. Chair, I am curious whether Mr. Siksay feels that the points he was trying to bring up with his amendments.... He spent a lot of time drafting, which I deeply respect. I'm just curious about whether he feels that this amendment, particularly in light of the addition Mr. Scott has made, will have satisfied what he's after.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Siksay.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Chair, I'm going to still test the committee's willingness to consider the amendment, so that should Mr. Abbott's amendment and subamendment pass and we get back to the main motion, I'm going to suggest we table consideration of it until we have looked at the proposed amendments to the legislation. Should any one of those fail, then I would propose that we lift it from the table and go back to this motion as proposed by Mr. Coderre and amended.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Bigras.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Unless I am mistaken, if this motion is passed, my colleague will not have the opportunity to present his amendments. Since this is a bill that has been approved by the House of Commons, that the House wanted to be studied, and possibly amended, here, I have to say, though it is the chair's place to do so, that it will really be too bad if we are not able to study these amendments. That is the reality. Members are, I feel, entitled to oppose the bill, but they must also be open to it being amended. That is why we are here. So you should tell my colleague that, if this motion is passed, we will not be able to amend the bill. Am I mistaken?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

No, you're not mistaken. We're about ready to vote on the amended amendment, and then we will vote on the motion as amended. Whatever the outcome is on that.... If the motion is defeated, then we go clause-by-clause. If the motion carries, it's the end.

I will call the question. It's on the amended amendment to the motion.

(Amendment agreed to)

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Yes, Mr. Siksay.

4 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Chair, I move that we table consideration of the motion until after we have gone to clause-by-clause.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Under advisement, I can't accept that motion. We can ask to have the motion withdrawn, and then we can go to clause-by-clause, but right now I will call the question on the motion.

4 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Siksay.

4 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Chair, I fail to understand why a tabling motion is not in order. We often use tabling motions.

I would like to challenge your ruling on that. I believe it is important that we have an opportunity to look at the amendments that have been brought to this legislation, and I see this as the best way of going about that.

4 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak, then, because I believe that in proceeding to this vote at this time without having considered the amendments that have been submitted to us is not performing the duties of this committee appropriately. This does not recognize the work that the mover of this legislation, Mr. Bigras, has put into this legislation over many years and the concerns of many people who appeared before the committee.

Also, I don't think it acknowledges the work that members of the committee were asked to put in by way of looking at the possibility of amendment to this legislation. As the only member who has put effort into that, I am concerned that the proposals I put forward to committee members won't be discussed if we pass this motion.

I believe there is something that can be saved in this legislation that will make it workable and that will make it accomplish the goals that people on this committee have heard from so many witnesses when it comes to the whole question of media literacy education. We heard time and time again that this needs to be an emphasis. I believe we need to call broadcasters to participate in this, and that it should be part of the mandate of the Broadcasting Act, so that Canadians of all ages, not just children, have the opportunity to learn how to become better viewers of programming on television, and that this needs to be part of the mandate of this committee.

I also believe that we need to look at the connections between the depictions of violence in programming and violence in society. We should give a mandate to broadcasters to be articulate about that. That's all my amendment would require, Chair.

I also believe there are a number of specific mandates that we should give to the CRTC in carrying out its work on behalf of Canadians when it comes to the broadcasting industry. I think the CRTC should have a mandate to propose regulations respecting the promotion of media literacy for Canadians of all ages.

I also think, regarding the proposals they have developed over time and worked out with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Broadcast Standards Council, which sees the development of broadcast standards, of programming standards, of classification systems, codes of ethics, that we should give them a specific legislative mandate to do that in the Broadcasting Act. I applaud them for having undertaken those kinds of measures, but I think that power needs to be in the legislation.

We also need to prescribe in the legislation the kinds of organizations and individuals who should be consulted in the development of those codes, which is what one of my amendments would do.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Siksay, hold for just one second.

Mr. Chong.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

This is just a short point of order. We have orders of the day in front of us. We are, by my surmising, on part one of the committee business, a notice of motion from the Honourable Denis Coderre. The committee just decided that it did not have unanimous consent to change the orders of the day. So I think we're going on a tangent here. I would like—

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

I'm going to give Mr. Siksay another two minutes to speak on the motion. I think what I'm understanding is that he is speaking to the motion of Mr. Coderre, so I will listen to that. Then I'll go to Mr. Fast and then to Mr. Bigras.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Are you saying that my colleague's time is limited? He can intervene as he sees fit and take all the time he wants to do so.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Chair, I thought you had put the question, actually.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

I had put the question, but I gave Mr. Siksay the ability to speak. I think he's speaking to the motion and is speaking on the amendments that he brought to the motion.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I am indeed speaking. I do believe that we should have the opportunity to speak to the main motion, once it's been amended. That's what I'm planning to do, and that's what I'm doing at this time. I don't want to waste the committee's time, and I won't be doing that, but I do want to make some points, given the work that I've done and the seriousness with which I've taken the inquiry we made into this legislation. I wish that all members of the committee would approach the task at hand with the same seriousness.

Chair, as I was saying, I think there's also the opportunity to amend this legislation to ensure that the codes of ethics and the broadcasting standards that are developed through the process I've already suggested are reviewed independently and regularly to ensure that they're meeting the goals they're set out to establish; that the complaints mechanism is functioning appropriately and meeting the needs of Canadians to understand the broadcasting system and the place of violence and other concerns about it; and also that any necessary changes or improvements to regulations and legislation might be forwarded to government and to the commission as a result of that kind of review.

So Chair, I think that all of the amendments I was proposing are in order in terms of the normal clause-by-clause consideration of legislation. I wish we had the opportunity to go through this and to judge the possibilities. Unfortunately, the motion that's before us will circumvent those possibilities. For that reason, I won't be able to support it at this time.

But I do think there was another opportunity, another alternative before the committee, to look at some of the ways we could make amendments to Monsieur Bigras' legislation that would improve it and meet the needs and goals of the many people who appeared before us, and others who are interested in this process.

Thank you, Chair.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Thank you.

Mr. Fast.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.

I want to make sure I had a chance to explain my position on this bill, especially since Mr. Bigras has spent a lot of time on this.

When I was first asked to speak to this bill, when it came forward at second reading, I did so with some trepidation. I mean, who among us wants to speak out against reducing violence on television as it impacts children? None of us wants to do that.

When I had a chance to actually look at the bill...as a lawyer, I look at it from that perspective. I think most of us will agree that when you look at proposed subsection 10(1)(1), it's a power much broader than simply restricting violence on television as it relates to children. It's a very broad power. Virtually all the witnesses at our committee agreed that it was so broad that it amounted to a power to censor that would be given to the minister. That in itself caused me some great concern.

I agree that it's unfair to link this bill with Bill C-10, because one deals with direct or indirect public funding of violent programs on television, and the other one doesn't.

I do agree that our focus needs to be on media literacy and on encouraging parents to become involved in the lives of their children. When Mr. Bélanger first requested that we have young Canadians, children, come before us at this committee, I met that proposal with some skepticism.

I believe he was right in bringing them to our table. They gave us a much different perspective from that which we might have as adults. Most of the children there I think acknowledged that it's virtually impossible to regulate all of the violent programming available to them. We have the Internet, new digital platforms that arise virtually every year, and even on television, because of time shifting and different time zones, it's virtually impossible to regulate all of that.

The focus has to be on parents taking an interest in the lives of their children. I was somewhat shocked when even some of our young Canadians admitted that they could watch virtually anything, whether it was on the Internet or on television, because their parents really were never there to control what they were watching. Not one of them could say that their parents were using the V-chip to control their viewing. To me, that's a failing of parents, some parents. I think that's where a lot of the effort has to be.

I want to commend Mr. Bigras for bringing this forward, because I believe there is some programming on the Internet, in video games, and on television that is perhaps still inappropriate for children during normal viewing hours. I had a young family for whom I was very critical. We took some very dramatic steps to make sure they didn't view inappropriate programming.

Given that, though, I would encourage Mr. Bigras to take this up with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and perhaps work with them in implementing some changes to their code that he and they might deem appropriate to fulfill his objectives. This bill will not do that and, just by its plain drafting, is so broad that I think it fairly attracts the label of being a censorship bill.

I'll be voting in favour of the main motion, but I do commend you, Mr. Bigras, for bringing forward an issue that to me is very important and I think to most of us is very important. This should not be construed as not being concerned about violence on television as it relates to children. That's not at all the case.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Siksay.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I just need to respond that I believe that if the issue of censorship is the one that's motivating members of the committee to not consider this bill further, then they're missing the boat by not considering the amendments that I've brought forward and tabled with the committee. Those amendments were specifically designed to deal with the concerns about censorship. I think that if you look at them, you will understand that if the amendments I proposed went through, this bill would not be about censorship.

I want to assure the committee, too, that this is something that I raised and it's why I suggested that we hear from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association on this legislation when we were in hearings. I ran my amendments by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and they have strongly agreed that they can support those amendments.

So we have a way of dealing with the issue of censorship. We have a way of making proposals that will address some of the concerns that Mr. Fast just raised. It's sitting here before the committee, but the only way we can get to it is if we are willing to look at the clause-by-clause proposals that I've brought forward. Unfortunately, if we approve this motion, we will never have the opportunity to do so.