Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 19th, 2023

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe that my colleague Ms. Gladu raised a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Gladu is not the first in line.

We'll go to Martin Champoux, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

She raised a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Martin.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It was the same point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Ms. Gladu is next.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll start by saying that what I agree with in this motion is that Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization by the Government of Canada. That is clear, and it has has been constantly reflected in CBC coverage. I also agree that the horrific Hamas terrorist attack against Israel left thousands of innocent people dead and injured. I also agree, as my colleague Mr. Champoux said, that as part of our responsibility as a committee, it would be good to have Mr. Achi and Mr. Jack Nagler, the CBC ombudsman, come before the committee. That is where I agree.

Where I profoundly disagree is with the characterization in the Conservative motion that is not fact-based at all: the characterization that is saying that in some way the CBC was directed to downplay coverage of the horrific violence perpetrated by Hamas against innocent people in Israel. It is obvious to me that there is not a single Conservative at this table who actually watches CBC News, because CBC coverage throughout this conflict has exposed the incredibly sadistic nature of the terrorist attack that took place.

We have CBC journalists who are literally putting their lives on the line, and as a result of that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Peter. There's a point of order.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I just want to correct the record.

If you can see my phone, you'll see that I have CBC News and CBC Gem, so there are actually some Conservatives who watch CBC.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Why, then, did no Conservative say that the word “terrorist” has been used repeatedly in CBC coverage citing other individuals?

What Ms. Gladu neglected to read, of course, because they're trying to torque this, was the most important parts of the memo that went out. One is, “Our description should be fact-based, referring to the end of permanent Israeli military presence on the ground” in Gaza. That is a fact.

For those of us who have been to Israel and Palestine—as I have—we know that the Israeli military controls access to certain areas. Again, that's a fact.

As always, please use fact-based language, avoid loaded qualifiers and anything that sounds like opinion. The story, with its context, speaks for itself. There will obviously be a lot of external opinion to report as part of our coverage: it is important that those clips and quotes are very clearly attributed and not separated from fact-checking and context. This is not a story that comes out of the blue, but is deeply rooted in the political and military landscape of the past few years.

What the CBC is attempting to do, under difficult circumstances, is take a fact-based approach to coverage. As a result of that, you can see that the CBC is putting forward the same kinds of journalistic standards that we see from the BBC, from the AP, from the Agence France-Presse and Reuters, among many others. These are standard journalistic approaches that are fundamental for Canadians to understand the truth of the horrific violence of the terrorist attacks and the truth of the growing civilian casualties that we're seeing in Gaza.

We need to have a fact-based approach.

Often, CBC/Radio-Canada journalists put their lives on the line to do their job, to give Canadians answers and to ensure that they receive the information that matters. It's very important to be able to hear the facts, even though the environment is extremely difficult and the situation is often nebulous. That is what we expect from CBC/Radio-Canada, whose journalists have once again succeeded despite all these challenges in providing accurate and important information.

One other area on which I think Mrs. Thomas and I agree is the issue of the information that was put online around the bombing of the hospital in Gaza, or the rocket falling on it. It is very clear to me that we need that information. We need to know the sources of that information.

I think she's correct to point out that CBC went with a story that may well not have been true. As a result of that, it ran the retraction. That is extremely important. That is the kind of high journalistic standard that I think we all expect.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, let it be a point of order, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I know Peter Julian is interested in the facts. They actually didn't run a retraction; they just silently changed the title of the article.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's not a point of order. It's debate.

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'm quoting Mrs. Thomas, who said they retracted it. I'm quoting her. If she was wrong on that, that's fine.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Thomas, this is not a point of order. It's a point of information or whatever. It's not a point of order.

What would you like to say, Ms. Thomas?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, a point of information isn't a thing. There's only a point of order, and you're insinuating that you know the thoughts in my head. Is that what you're implying right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, I'm not. You just said what you said, and I told you it was not a point of order but debate.

Now, I hope what you're going to say is a point of order.

Go ahead, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I would just like the honourable member to speak the truth and to not sling false accusations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.