As I think was mentioned earlier, the revelation of the name of the source would be protected, of course, as personal information that would not be disclosed under an access to information request. There is protection already provided for in the current regime, as it would be under the amendment.
Recently the Supreme Court, in 2010, looked at the protection of journalistic sources. Although they didn't entrench charter protection, they did say the common-law rules of privilege in the Wigmore criteria would continue to apply. So there would certainly be protection through the courts to withhold that information in cases where the public interest did not justify their disclosure. The common-law protections would continue to apply.