Thank you for your question.
Initially, the definition was much broader. Both the coalition of Canadian media and police forces thought the definition was too broad, and could include bloggers working for free in their basements. That was problematic for police officers in terms of when the legislation would apply. They weren't quite sure when they would need to request a search warrant. They could not guess that a journalist was involved, even using reasonable means to verify the person's identity. Police organizations therefore had concerns and feedback around the application of the legislation.
In addition, some media outlets wanted to make sure it extended protection to journalists who earned their living working for a media organization, be it a weekly local paper or a web-based publication, but at a certain professional level. They wanted to make sure that not just anyone could claim protection of sources, so they proposed a definition of what a journalist was. There was consensus on the definition, which had the backing of such associations as the Quebec Press Council, I believe. I was in favour of their request.
I have here a passage from the Supreme Court's ruling in R. v. National Post, which establishes limits on what constitutes a journalist.
It reads as follows:
To throw a constitutional immunity around the interactions of such a heterogeneous and ill-defined group of writers and speakers and whichever “sources” they deem worthy of a promise of confidentiality and on whatever terms they may choose to offer it (or, as here, choose to amend it with the benefit of hindsight) would blow a giant hole in law enforcement and other constitutionally recognized values such as privacy.
That statement refers to the weight given to a blogger's source as compared with a professional journalist's source. Even the Supreme Court saw a problem with that, so that is why I agreed to make the necessary corrections to the bill.