I understand there were some amendments put forward yesterday, and I have to apologize that I haven't had the time to review those, since I had a lot of work during the day. So I can't comment on what was proposed yesterday, sir, but when I read what's in the bill that was provided to me and I read that “‘journalist’ means a person who contributes regularly and directly to the gathering, writing, production or dissemination of information for the public through any media, or anyone who assists such a person”, I see that as being very broad. It wouldn't allow me as an investigating officer, if I was investigating a crimes against a person case where I felt that it was important for me to get the information as soon as possible...and I want to be very careful here because I believe that a majority of the journalists out there would always provide that information. I do believe that, and I've worked in various capacities, whether it be on the front line or when I did do quite a bit of work in the area of sexual exploitation on the Internet, where we relied heavily on the media to support us in getting that information out.
Our worry is that I believe, because it's so broad, some could utilize that definition to their defence. And I actually see it as a means of bringing unprofessionalism to journalists as a group of professionals.