The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) called for the CRTC to require corrections to “errors of fact” in newspapers and online news articles.. National Council of Canadian Muslims .According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Senate Transport and Communications committee members were shocked at NCCM’s proposal..“The current approach of having media regulate themselves has just not been working as effectively as it should be,” testified Rizwan Mohammad, an advocacy officer with the NCCM..“It has led to spikes, especially during election cycles, of targeting ethnic and religious minorities.”.“Existing kinds of mechanisms that have been put in place to offer remedies for people to correct errors and attempt to have balanced coverage or content about an issue when there is legitimate disagreement about things are just not working,” said Mohammad..The remarks came at committee hearings on Bill C-18 the Online News Act that would compel Google and Facebook to pay newsrooms a portion of ad revenues generated by linked stories..The bill states funding must be limited by CRTC to newsrooms that “follow the code of ethics of a recognized journalistic association or have their own code of ethics.” The terms are not defined..Karine Devost, legal counsel for the NCCM, said news ethics must be defined in the bill. Amendments should require “any errors of fact are corrected promptly and in a transparent manner,” said Devost..READ MORE Fildebrandt testifies before Senate about gov’t interference in news media.Senators expressed alarm..“Who decides what is good journalism or what is discriminatory?” asked Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne (QC), a former CBC reporter.. Julie Miville-Dechêne .“That is the whole problem. A free press, you cannot have a regulatory body decide on that.”.“Hate speech is a criminal offence,” said Miville-Dechêne..“I often disagree with remarks in newspaper articles in Québec, but a question of hate speech can be dealt with by the courts, it seems to me.”.Mohammad suggested the CRTC needs the power to correct news articles when necessary..“If there is a code of ethics mentioned in this legislation and there is no clarification on what to do if a code of ethics appears to be breached, there should be some clarification and guidance about what happens,” said Mohammad..“Are you actually calling for regulation of the free print media?” asked Sen. Paula Simons (AB), a former Edmonton Journal columnist..“There has to be a clarification in the bill that imposes real consequences upon those who appear to be in breach of that code of ethics,” replied Mohammad..Simons mentioned a previous law passed by the Alberta legislature before the second world war that was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada..The 1937 Accurate News and Information Act required newspapers to publish corrections or rebuttals given by a Social Credit Board or face fines of up to $20,000 (in today’s money)..“The act gave the government the power of rebuttal and the power to basically fact-check and ‘correct’ anything the government believed was inaccurate,” said Simons..“The courts properly struck that down.”.“I am always concerned about what happens if someone you don’t like or whose opinions you don’t share suddenly has the power to regulate, even at arm’s length, what is said in the press,” said Simons..“Having been a journalist, lots of people think there are factual errors in the newspaper that are just things they don’t like.”.In addition, the Alberta law mandated publishers disclose their sources. At a Liberal Party convention on Saturday, delegates passed a resolution that mirrored this requirement..“The government explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms and to limit publication to material whose sources can be traced,” said the Liberal Party resolution..On Wednesday, Labour Minister Seamus O'Regan, previously a host on CTV Canada AM, stated the government would never require the disclosure of sources for journalists..“We would never allow that to become law,” O’Regan told reporters..“Do you think people understood the ramifications of what they were voting for?” asked a reporter..“I don’t know,” replied O’Regan..“I just want to make it very clear, particularly for you guys, that would never happen.”
