Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Canadian Heritage committee Thank you.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee I would need to become more familiar with that code before I could answer.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee Could you be a bit more specific?
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee We're not the ones purporting that there's a link. We think that's in great dispute, that there is a relationship between violent content on television and violence in society.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee I can speak to this. Some studies have recently been done about actually bringing that into question and actually disreputing this relationship. I would have to look through my file to find the exact notation. That is in dispute.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee The association played a big role in the Little Sister's case. We were a co-plaintive. We fund-raised on behalf of the owners of Little Sister's to be able to litigate it. Sadly, it's still ongoing, despite the 2000 ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. What we can learn from Little Sister's is that when architecture for censorship is created, despite the benign nature of it, we can expect to see censorship happening, unnecessary censorship.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee I think we would disagree with that. This is something I would have to take to my board for a more definitive answer. But we generally take a principled approach to free expression. This is an almost non-negotiable point with us. Whether it's government regulated or privately regulated, I believe the point is individual choice and the ability to regulate access to expression yourself.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee The position paper that Mr. Siksay is referring to is one that we had drafted in 1995, I think specifically relating to violent programming directed towards children, and specifically with regard to the technology of the V-chip, which at the time was coming into prominence. The association now views that position paper to be outdated, seeing that it's 13 years later and technology has changed so much.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee Our concern, I think, is that it doesn't prohibit the prohibition of news content. It doesn't state the value of free speech in political, creative, artistic expression, and I think that's very problematic.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee You're asking in terms of how...?
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee Do you mean in this specific circumstance?
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee 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.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
Canadian Heritage committee 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.
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong
March 11th, 2008Committee meeting
Catherine Wong