Evidence of meeting #58 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was journalists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I just wanted to know, because I'm not familiar with the journalistic codes that they have in place, when we say someone must adhere to journalistic professionalism and a code, is there a standard in Canada that falls outside of the association, or in general practice is it just what they are taught in university and schools?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think there's a journalistic code of ethics. I'm not sure.
Does anyone else want to answer that?
I think there's a journalistic code of conduct.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Coteau's question is indeed quite relevant.
There is a general code of ethics for journalists, and it reflects the recognized principles that I proposed in BQ‑4, which are intrinsic to the work of journalists and that guide their daily work: independence, fairness and rigour in the treatment of the news and sources.
December 2nd, 2022 / 2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I'm only asking this because I don't know the answer. Maybe I should have paid more attention to this aspect when we were presented with this amendment a while back. If organizations have to adhere to their own code that they have developed based on some guiding principles, as we've just heard, could they technically avoid certain things?
I know this might sound crazy, but what stops them from spreading hate and saying that's part of the journalistic code that they've established, versus through an association? I know that it becomes debatable.
I want to know how you approach that. It would come down to interpretation and what people feel if it's left to themselves to actually find what they think that code of ethics sounds like. It seems very loose in the sense that they have to have their own code of ethics. If there's no absolute standard out there, then it's really just an opinion.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Coteau, that is the difference between journalistic coverage and opinion journalism, the editorial. A newsroom can be part of a business, a newspaper, for example, where columnists and editorial writers are going to express opinions that you might find offensive in some respects. However, that remains an editorial, an opinion.
Here we're talking about the content that comes from newsrooms. We agree that a journalist is a human being who has emotions and opinions and who will lean one way or the other. However, in theory, the job of a journalist requires that the person doing it must disregard their biases in reporting the news. Does this mean that the result is always absolutely neutral? I don't think so, but as much as possible, the journalist should do their best to deal with the news independently and fairly and rigorously.
So we have to make that distinction, and that's often what creates confusion with this bill. It also creates confusion when we talk about the reputation of mainstream media. People confuse the editorial policy of a newspaper, its position, with the work that comes out of the newsroom. For example, I think we all agree that in Quebec, La Presse and Le Journal de Montréal do not have exactly the same editorial position. However, we can agree that the work of journalists in newsrooms is done according to the recognized principles for the journalistic profession.
In short, it's important to distinguish between what comes from the opinions or editorials of a media outlet and what comes from its newsroom, that is, purely and properly journalistic content.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Champoux, I would like just one piece of clarification. Wouldn't it be the newsroom that would approve the op-eds? Therefore, there is a connection between the two.
The whole purpose of this piece is to put in place some type of qualification for eligibility.
You don't have to answer that, but that's where it just seems like a bit of a grey area. We can move forward. Otherwise, we're going to take too long. I just had a curiosity around that overall.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I'd like to chime in very quickly, Madam Chair, because I find this interesting.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Coteau, you raise another good point. No, it's not the newsroom that authorizes or approves the editorial position. Generally, the editorial writer is an executive in the organization or company. The work of journalists is not guided by the editorial position and, conversely, the newsroom does not guide the editorial content. So there's a distinction to be made between the two, and that's often what leads to confusion, as I was saying earlier.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I appreciate it. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If I may, I would like to clarify something.
Mr. Champoux, are a certified journalist and a certified news outlet not also subject to the Criminal Code in terms of spreading a false message, libel, etc? That would fall under Michael's question about spreading hate or doing something like that.
Isn't that also something that journalists are subjected to, whereas an ordinary person just deciding to put out a piece and giving their opinion isn't subject to that mechanism?
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
As I was saying earlier, journalists covering news content of public interest, as defined in the bill, don't have an opinion to express. Journalists don't express opinions. Their job is to report the facts, and they have to do so with rigour in the treatment of the news and sources. Journalists don't interpret the facts on their own; they report them. It's important to treat the source with rigour and look for a variety of sources to support the content of a report.
A newsroom where journalists would make such comments or express such opinions would simply not be eligible. It would certainly not be considered an eligible news business under the act.
As for the Criminal Code question, I don't have an answer. I assume that there must be a framework of that nature. A self‑respecting newsroom would never make that kind of comment. It simply wouldn't be considered a newsroom.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Martin.
I think Mr. Méla is ready to speak.
Before we go to Mr. Méla, we have Ms. Gladu's hand up as well.
I want to tell everyone that I think we're at 2:58 and, Madam Clerk, I don't know how many minutes we have left to play with. Is it five minutes?
2:55 p.m.
The Clerk
We have three minutes, Dr. Fry.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We have three minutes. All right.
I want to suggest that we have to find some order here. That order means to deal with one subamendment at a time, which is what I have been trying to do.
Before Mr. Méla speaks, Ms. Gladu, do you have anything to add to this particular discussion?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes, I am going to help you out, Madam Chair.
There are two things. One is to give points of information. The Canadian Association of Journalists does publish on their website their ethics guidelines, and other news organizations, such as Bell Media, would make sure that people who work for them sign on and agree to abide by the code of ethics of Bell Media, etc. There is another mechanism for students and volunteers to do something similar for their organizations, so I will withdraw my subamendment.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
That helps us. We have only one subamendment.
Mr. Méla, before we go to the vote on the subamendment presented by Mr. Housefather, can you give us your answer to the question?
2:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To the question of Mr. Julian, I note that the amendment says, “(1.1) The code of ethics referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(iv)”. As it stands right now, there is no code of ethics referred to in this part of the bill. The only place it is referred to is in BQ-4, where it's mentioned at that place in the bill; otherwise, it doesn't refer to anything that has been adopted yet or that is in the bill at this point in time.
I would suggest that you subamend Mr. Champoux's amendment so your reference to “the code of ethics referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(iv)” would refer to what's in Mr. Champoux's amendment.