Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a few comments to make with respect to what's been said about the motion.
First of all, I want to address Mr. Julian's comments. He implied that my colleague was lying by saying what was in the directive. I have in front of me the email from George Achi that was provided, and I just want to read it into the record. It says:
Do not refer to militants, soldiers or anyone else as “terrorists.” The notion of terrorism remains heavily politicized and is part of the story. Even when quoting/clipping a government or a source referring to fighters as “terrorists,” we should add context to ensure the audience understands this is opinion, not fact. That includes statements from the Canadian government and Canadian politicians.
In light of the fact that Parliament has said that Hamas is a terrorist organization, it is not an opinion but a fact, so I find that objectionable.
That said, my greater concern here is that for a democracy, we have to have free and independent journalism. That's very important; “freedom of the press” is part of the charter. Therefore, when I see directives to journalists on how they ought to phrase things, I think that takes away their freedom to portray the situation. There are always differing views.
I'm also concerned about the inflammatory nature of how the inaccurate reporting may impact the situation.
The other thing that came to mind when I saw this directive is this: What other directives are being given about other stories that may bias or influence individual journalists' freedom to report them as they see them? I think it's important for the CBC to come here so that we can ask them some questions about it. I think the Canadian public wants to be assured that in fact we do have free and independent journalism and that we don't have the word police directing journalists on how they need to phrase things.
Thank you.