Evidence of meeting #71 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was journalists.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
General Manager, News and Current Affairs, French Services, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Media Coalition
We're very happy with this definition.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Do the Conservatives have any other questions? You're good?
Mr. Dubé? Any others?
Thank you to our panel of witnesses.
We'll suspend for a few moments and then move to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We can begin.
Just before we begin, I wonder if there has been any news on Larry Miller's mother. Nothing? I know that she was sick last week and he wasn't able to come, so I wanted to share that.
Also, I would mention to the committee that apparently Dianne Watts had an accident or incident with her ankle and has hurt it. That's that's why she is not here today.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
She fell outside the Wellington Building. Is that what you're referring to?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Maybe it was from that. I don't know when or where it happened.
We begin clause-by-clause of the bill now. We welcome Mr. Wong and Mr. Noël from the Department of Justice, who are here to help us with any questions we have. Monsieur Méla is here as our legislative clerk to help us with any procedural questions we have regarding our clause-by-clause process.
We are going to begin. As is our custom we will postpone clause 1, the short title.
(On clause 2)
As you can see from your amendment package there are three amendments to clause 2.
I am going to note for the committee that there was discussion about the eligibility of NDP-1 and whether or not it was within the scope of the bill. I have read it and have decided that yes, it is within the scope of the bill, because the scope of the bill is broadly the protection of journalistic sources. So I think it is appropriate for us to begin with it.
I will turn to Mr. Dubé if he would like to move that amendment.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Certainly.
I will defer to Mr. Henheffer's testimony as to why it's an important amendment to broaden the definition of “journalist”, given the changing media landscape, and leaving, quite frankly, the criteria open and letting the judge decide, as already prescribed by the bill.
I just want to add one last piece, Mr. Chair. There was also testimony in regard to the current definition being acceptable. I certainly don't disagree with that, but I'm not in the business of taking good first steps. We have a long way to go, so if we can get there more efficiently and more quickly, I think that is certainly our responsibility as legislators.
I move the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Is there discussion or comments about the amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We move now to LIB-1.
Ms. Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I can say this about all of my amendments, so I don't need to repeat it. They all add further precision to the bill.
LIB-1 would remove the override provisions. They are not necessary and could conflict with other federal legislation. They are not needed to give effect to the protection of journalistic sources that are in the bill.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Yes, just with respect to part (b), I have suggested that there are two instances of a question of renumbering the subsections, but that is not necessary. There was some discussion among the clerks in the House and the Senate that it was required; however, Philippe has informed us that after those discussions, it's considered not necessary as an amendment, so I understand that you're not moving part (b).
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Is there any discussion about amendment LIB-1, part (a).
(Amendment agreed to)
Moving to LIB-2, Ms. Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Again, on that one I'm not moving part (d).
On this one, I'm just going to leave it that it's providing further precision to the bill.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to say we changed “essential role of the information” to the “importance of the information”. As for the “central issue in the proceeding”, I think the language has become a little vaguer, so my reading of it is that it creates a little bit of a loophole that jeopardizes somewhat the objective of the bill, so I am voting against the amendment.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I only want to make the following comment. There's always a conflict between the public interest in the administration of justice and the interest in preserving confidentiality. Nevertheless, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, which we were discussing earlier with Mr. Pierre-Roy, I have no problem accepting these amendments. They're entirely consistent with the Supreme Court decision.
I support this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Are there any other questions or comments?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 3)
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Amendment LIB-3 deletes any reference to any other act of Parliament. The override provisions are not necessary to give effect to the protections for journalistic sources contained in the bill and, as I mentioned in regard to another amendment, they could conflict with other federal legislation.
I will leave it at that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
That's good. Are there any questions or comments on the amendment?
Mr. Dubé.