Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let's say that what we just heard was at least distracting, as it was a clear demonstration of Ms. Thomas' ignorance of journalism. This spread of her ignorance about journalists has consequences because there are people who subscribe to it and believe in it. There are people who do believe that journalists on the ground are being influenced and brainwashed by Hamas or any party in a conflict. You really have to think that journalists are naive and incompetent to believe such a thing.
I want to take advantage of the time I have right now to highlight the work of journalists on the ground, be they from CBC or Radio‑Canada. Like most of us, I am obviously following the conflict from afar, and I find that these journalists do an absolutely remarkable job. That is worth noting. Their working conditions are unimaginable. We have no idea what they are going through on the ground. They provide us with the most professional and accurate information possible.
Of course, this is a conflict and, in a conflict, there is so much information circulating. It is handled in the best possible way, but there are times when information is incorrect. In the case of the bombing of the hospital in Gaza, just about every news outlet—even the most serious and rigorous ones in the world—ended up disseminating the same information and retracting it when the information later became clear. So accusing the CBC of being incompetent in conveying information provided by Hamas is such a show of bad faith that I want to denounce with all my strength because it is unacceptable that this is being done in this way.
On the issue of the directive, as I pointed out in the House, it is unacceptable for CBC management to issue directives to the newsroom. Newsrooms must be airtight and absolutely independent of any management influence and ideological influence. We know that there are currently situations at the CBC that are raising questions about the message or ideology being pushed everywhere. That is not just the case at the CBC, but we will come back to that. Journalistic independence is a principle we discussed when we studied Bill C‑18. We talked about the importance of rigour in this profession. If there is one place where I am convinced people are rigorous, it is at the CBC and Radio‑Canada.
A number of experienced journalists have spoken out about this directive not to label an organization or not to use qualifiers to label it. On Sunday evening, on Tout le monde en parle, Céline Galipeau, whose values, credentials and reputation will not be questioned, and Jean‑François Lépine, a journalist whose experience no one will question, either, both explained why organizations are not labelled in conflicts. And yet, it seems that people are not listening to these arguments and do not want to understand them. They just want to look at the sensationalist side and say that news agencies don't want to label Hamas as terrorists because they want to protect people. That's not it at all. They simply want to make the information as clear, precise and non-partisan as possible. This is a principle that is generally debated even in large newsrooms. Some people agree and some don't, but the fact remains that it is up to newsrooms, journalists and information professionals to make those decisions.
I read an excellent article written by Mr. Shapiro in The Conversation. A short sentence in the article did a great job of expressing the neutrality, objectivity and independence that journalists must have in their choice of words when talking about situations as sensitive as the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. As soon as you start using labels, you designate a bad guy and a good guy because, by default, if you label one party as the bad guy or call it a terrorist, you automatically declare that the other is the good guy. The journalist doesn't have to make that distinction. What they have to do is make sure that the facts are as accurate and as rigorous as possible. The journalist reports facts.
The blunder is not the fact that the directive was sent; it's the fact that it was sent in writing. This is a directive that has been in place for years in the largest newsrooms in the world, in the newsrooms that cover these kinds of conflicts. That directive exists at the Associated Press and the Canadian Press. It exists in large agencies, such as Reuters. It also exists at the BBC. In fact, the BBC has fought the same fight that we're fighting right now. The BBC news service had to defend itself, not too long ago, in order to protect itself from political influence and the influence of lobbies. That, too, is a challenge for journalism.
Personally, I do not completely disagree with the motion before us today, but not for the same reasons as my Conservative friends. I quite agree that the committee should hear from CBC/Radio-Canada representatives, so that they can explain to us why things are the way they are and why there is a good reason for them being that way. It is not a matter of blaming them for something that has not been done, as has been reported, quite the contrary.
I think it's important to give the credibility that we owe to the newsrooms of CBC/Radio-Canada, but also to the major media outlets of the world that cover conflicts in extremely difficult contexts and situations. We have no idea of the challenges these people face on a daily basis. Instead of thanking them, congratulating them, honouring them and encouraging them, we are dragging them through the mud, impugning their motives and saying that they are engaging in reprehensible practices. I must say that I find that embarrassing.
Journalists' work is essential. It is extremely well done at the moment, in the current context. If we decide to adopt the motion, it will have to be amended. It contains elements on which I completely disagree. If the committee decided to invite CBC/Radio-Canada's senior management, it would be to give them an opportunity to explain in a clear and calm way why these directives are in place. I hope that, at that point, my Conservative friends will be open-minded enough to hear how things really work in a newsroom and how information is handled.