In August, I was selected to attend a Student Journalism Conference hosted by The Democracy Fund (TDF) in Toronto. Each year, TDF selects around 25 students interested in journalism from across Canada to learn from expert speakers, ask direct questions and explore how the industry is evolving.

On August  28, I joined a room filled with both aspiring and seasoned journalists, excited to learn and ready to share their ideas.

Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund is a Canadian charity dedicated to strengthening democracy by advocating for civil liberties and independent journalism. The theme of this year’s conference was Citizenship and Civil Liberties.
Over three days, nine expert speakers shared their experiences and knowledge on topics ranging from censorship in media and civil liberties to asking the right questions, conducting research, creating reports to back your findings and even video editing. The goal of the event was to highlight independent thought and critical thinking in journalism.

Among the speakers were Kris Sims, David Menzies, Elie Cantin-Nantel, Ezra Levant and Sheila Gunn Reid, journalists and media professionals with very different experiences and perspectives. The event turned out be more political than most of us had expected, however, that also became one of the most interesting aspects of the conference, it pushed us all to utilize our critical thinking skills.
Every student in the room had their own beliefs, values and ideas about Canadian society and the role of media. Some were already working as independent journalists, while others were studying journalism or hoping to enter the industry.

Politics and social media can make it feel as though we are constantly being pushed into opposing sides. But when you put that division under a microscope, something else becomes visible. People can disagree and still listen to one another. They can have different beliefs and still sit at the same table, work together and find common ground. Our group assignment was a perfect example of that.

My group included Tiauna Lodewyk, a TV7 Israel News assistant producer; Joshua Rosenberg, a psychology student from Toronto; and Mohammed Ahmed, an Ottawa-based writer.

We each came from very different walks of life, but somehow fell naturally into a team that worked incredibly well together, that too, under a looming deadline and with only few hours of sleep over the weekend. In about 24 hours, we had to produce a three-minute video report, a 500-word article, a social media post and a marketing plan. Our topic had to reflect the theme of the conference.

After hours of discussion, we chose COVID-19 mandates and lockdowns. We took our cameras onto the streets of Toronto and asked people how the pandemic had changed their lives and, looking back, how they felt about the regulations.
The answers were mixed.

Some people were grateful they had access to vaccines. Others felt they had not been given a genuine choice about whether they wanted to be vaccinated. Almost everyone we spoke with felt the lockdowns went on for too long.

Another theme came up repeatedly: the impact of isolation on socialization. People told us that after spending so much time separated from one another, they felt communities had become more reserved, and that social anxiety had become more prevalent.

Our goal was to create a balanced piece that reflected the different experiences people had during one of the most uncertain chapters of our recent history. For our individual roles, we each chose something that would allow us to learn skills outside of what we already knew.

Naturally, I decided not to be the writer or editor. Instead, I took on videography and graphics allowing me to develop my camera and photography skills. My teammates took on other roles, and together we brought a project together that received wonderful feedback, particularly on our use of logos, names, and interview questions.

But what truly came out of the assignment were the hours spent talking about journalism. We talked about the current state of Canada, the world around us, our generation and the issues we care about. The assignment topic itself may have been Covid-19 regulations, but the conversations it created encompassed it. And perhaps the biggest takeaway was that what unites us can be much more meaningful than what divides us.

Hearing what issues are on the minds of the next generation of journalists and readers opened my eyes to the different ways people experience news.
The conference ended with all students receiving our certificates and leaving with new skills, new perspectives and, hopefully, some lifelong connections.

As I reflect on those few days away from our newsroom, I also realized how much I appreciate being part of an independent community newspaper. At The Camrose Booster, our editorial direction is focused on reporting relevant topics, but also on boosting our community. In our coverage, we get to highlight the people, organizations, events and good news that make Camrose what it is.

After hearing from several journalism students who said they sometimes avoid reading or watching the news because the constant negativity can affect their mental health, that direction felt more important than ever.

Journalism has a responsibility to tell people what is happening, ask difficult questions and hold people accountable. But it is also a tool to highlight the positive stories that are taking place in our communities. I came home even more confident in the direction we are taking at The Booster and being able to tell the stories of our community and remind people of the good happening right here is something our readers appreciate and need.
And after three days with other journalists, I left believing that maybe Canada isn’t quite as divided as it sometimes appears. We don’t have to agree on everything.

We just have to keep talking, keep listening and remember there is far more that connects us than any single headline can capture.

Without study, the concept of a referendum appears to be the perfect approach for a democracy. In a larger population, the concept of direct democracy – referendums – disregards the promise.

Canada follows the British Parliamentary system for governance – a system of representative democracy. Since Magna Carta in 1215, England has only used referendums on three occasions. Once, to reflect on England’s voting system. Then recently, first to consider if a referendum ought to be held to ask if a binding referendum on leaving the European Common Market should be held. Finally, a binding referendum asking, “Should England exit the European Common Market.”

In more than 800 years, England engaged direct democracy three times. On the question of leaving the European Common Market, polls today affirm that citizens of England believe that they made a serious mistake by choosing to leave the European Common Market.

To understand the process that is used with representative democracy, I will share a personal example of how a parliamentary-committee works. I was a member who studied three parliamentary bills considering reducing tobacco use.

More than 20 witnesses provided testimony to the committee. These witnesses would deliver an opening statement, then remain for an enduring session of questioning by an all-party committee. Sometimes, a witness would be asked to return for an additional day(s) for further examination. A witness could be subpoenaed to attend if they did not volunteer upon request. The process would continue until the committee felt it had exhausted all relevant considerations.

Some of the witnesses were as follows: The federal Department of Health, some Provincial Departments of Health, Canadian Lung Association, Canadian Heart Association, Canadian Cancer Association, representatives from an association for Hospital Administration, and others. All of these organizations claimed that smoking was causing great harm to human health and there was a lot of data provided regarding the high level of cost and misery brought on by smoking tobacco.

Also appearing as witnesses were owners of tobacco stores, an organization of tobacco farmers (mostly southern Ontario), and numerous tobacco manufacturing companies. (I was called to attend an annual meeting of the Canadian Cancer Society to receive their highest recognition for my cross examination of the tobacco industries.)

This process – sometimes taking months to conclude – is a practise for almost every legislative bill. This is the same procedure in England. Now, think about what happens in a referendum process.

Instead of elected persons who are expected to research and exercise leadership, England turned over the examination regarding international trade, economic impact, transportation agreements and inter-government coordination to the persons who operate the hair salons, the butcher, the carpenter, the farmer, and on and on. Citizens do not have the opportunity to balance all that needs to be considered. In referendums, citizens are left to guess which advertising campaign they should trust.

Critical issues are being decided by persons who do not have the means to reflect on all of the intricacies that should to be considered. No wonder England, after voting to leave the Common Market, now regrets their own choice. How could citizens – involved as they are with their everyday life – ever consider all of the entangled factors that need to be balanced?

Referendums place a heavy burden on citizens when they are asked to do what governments were elected to do, but without the resources those governments have in abundance. Referendums are not about a simple question. Always, the whole is the result of balancing a number of intertwined complicated parts. For all of those considerations, the citizen is asked to select “Yes” or “No”; “agree” or disagree”. The complicated is reduced to gross simplicity. Then the citizens are asked to live with their uninformed choice.