Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The government will not be supporting this amendment. The existing defence of public good in our view would likely cover any situation that this amendment deems to address. As Ms. May will no doubt know, the defence of public good currently appears in two other places in the Criminal Code, in subsection 163(3) with respect to obscenity, and section 162(6) with respect to voyeurism. It's been interpreted to mean necessary or advantageous to religion or morality, to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, or art, or other objects of general interest.
In our view, replacing the well-established defence of public good with a new statutory defence of public information or public interest would simply add confusion and remove clarity from the law. On that basis, we will be opposing the amendment.