This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in September 2008.
This bill was previously introduced in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session.
Serge Ménard Bloc
Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Report stage (House), as of April 30, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
The purpose of this enactment is to protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources. It allows journalists to refuse to disclose information or a record that has not been published unless it is of vital importance and cannot be produced in evidence by any other means.
It establishes specific conditions that must be met for a judge to issue a search warrant to obtain information or records that a journalist possesses.
It also allows journalists to refuse to disclose the source of the information that they gather, write, produce or disseminate to the public through any media, and to refuse to disclose any information or document that could identify a source. However, a judge may order a journalist to disclose the source of the information if the judge considers it to be in the public interest, having regard to the outcome of the litigation, the freedom of information and the impact of the journalist’s testimony on the source.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has the floor for his right to reply.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, since I do not have much time left, I will cut to the chase. First, I would like the members to realize that a great deal of work has been put into this bill. In my view, a well written law is clear and concise and, at the same time, has more to it than meets the eye.
I was struck by the comments of one speaker who seemed to think that journalistic sources are the same as police informants. That is not at all the case. When a confidential source speaks to a journalist, I do not believe they commit an offence. No matter, the journalist investigates on the basis of the information provided by the source. When the story is published, he and his newspaper take responsibility for it on the basis of the evidence collected, independent of the source that pointed them to it. It is not the same issue.
I urge those who criticize the definition of the term “journalist” to read it and then read it again. I could provide thirty definitions taken from all over: they would all provide the same meaning. Journalists do not wish to be members of a professional corporation because they believe they exercise a right that should belong to every individual. Everyone acknowledges that true journalists are defined by their activity, which is to seek out and collect information in order to disseminate it to the public. Thus, it is the best definition we can provide.
I wanted to add the phrase “or anyone who assists such a person”—that is, the journalist—to the legislation because of the experiences in other countries. I would like to point out again that such laws exist in almost every democratic country to which we generally compare ourselves. In some of these countries, the police have hired cleaning ladies or other individuals to obtain information from these journalists about their sources. That is why protection given to the source must be complete and extended to anyone who assists journalists.
There is something odd I would like to mention. I sometimes wonder if the rest of Canada is really listening to us. In Quebec, the profession has almost unanimous support. Both the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec and the Quebec bar have stated they support this bill. I consulted Quebec experts who told me, among other things, that the bill is great. First of all, rather than the 500 pages of jurisprudence that a judge must consult, we finally have something that provides a good summary—
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Unfortunately, I must interrupt the member.
It being 7:29 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division is deferred until Wednesday, November 28 just before the time provided for private members' business.
The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-426, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (protection of journalistic sources and search warrants), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-426, under private members' business.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)