I think that's a very good point. I was somewhat surprised when I found out that the implications of the Information Commissioner's recommendation would be that CBC journalists—because it was a crown corporation, or at least at arm's length from the Crown, but through appointments and such, a crown corporation—would have to disclose their sources and that it would be the Information Commissioner who would then determine whether or not that source should remain confidential. I found that, quite frankly, shocking. And I think most Canadians who rely on at least some private but also to a great extent public broadcasters...that those journalists would be somehow subject to a standard that would compromise their ability to gather information.
I think the parallel here is this. Do we say we should just allow solicitor-client privilege for private lawyers who are advising clients but not in the public context? I think the same issue is fundamental there, and that is the protection of that source in order to ensure that ministers receive the best information. Similarly, a CBC reporter should be entitled to assure his or her sources that this information will be treated confidentially and will not be released to the Information Commissioner.
Having said that, in law, we know that the courts can demand that journalists, in particular situations, release that information. The solicitor-client privilege is even in a more separate part in terms of protection. I'm trying to think of a situation where we could in fact order a solicitor to reveal information provided by a client, where the client does not consent. It would be, as the Supreme Court, nearly absolute. I'm still trying to figure out when it isn't absolute.
Your point is a good one. And yes, I think you've summarized my position very accurately.