Public Safety Committee on June 19th, 2017

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, from my reading of the amendment, it does create a lot of leeway for police, as Mr. Carignan was noting, in regard to this whole notion of not knowing that the person is a journalist. I should probably just leave this comment as a ditto for a few of the amendments, but I feel that the pendulum in Canada is too far to one side in favour of police powers and very little for journalists. As we've heard, this is only a first step, so once again I will be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment LIB-4, Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

This one adds some additional subsections to ensure that the new test for warrants doesn't apply when the application relates to a journalist's criminal activity.

I'm going to leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments?

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

This speaks to an amendment that Monsieur Pratte brought to the Senate after hearing testimony from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It adds to that. Considering that the compromise was already acceptable, it once again, as far as I'm concerned, goes too far in the direction of leaving loopholes open for police. In this case, when it is related to other offences that a journalist may have committed, there was a concern raised by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police related, for example, to someone who might have outstanding charges from driving under the influence or something of that nature that is completely unrelated to the source, but the ongoing criminal investigation into that journalist on this other matter could be seen as a way to find a source. The bill was originally drafted in a way that completely isolated the two proceedings, which the police did not like and, rightfully so, Monsieur Pratte had already found a compromise. I don't feel that going further in this direction is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment LIB-5, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Liberal 5 has to do with the powers of the judge. It introduces new subsections, and once a judge becomes aware of a warrant relating to a journalist, police would be required to inform the judge of a superior court, refrain from examining or reproducing the evidence, and seal it until the superior court judge disposes of the application.

Again, we're just adding some precision to it. As the bill went through the Senate, they didn't have the benefit of Justice officials looking at it. Having had discussions with the Justice officials, I think all of these are appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a subamendment to the second part of LIB-5 dealing with the powers of a judge under proposed subsection 3(8). This relates to proposed subsection 488.01(8). I will read out the English. I'm told that we have it in both languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Exactly where is it going? I missed that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It's the proposed subclause 3(8) that adds subsection 488.01(8) in LIB-5, which deals with the powers of a judge, the first paragraph of that. The language in its entirety is:

(8) On an application under subsection (7), the judge may (a) confirm the warrant, authorization or order if the judge is of the opinion that no additional conditions to protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources and to limit the disruption of journalistic activities should be imposed;

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It is a subamendment to proposed paragraph 3(8)(a), with an additional sentence.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay. Could you get that to the clerk?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Isn't that covered in proposed paragraph 3(8)(b)?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, proposed paragraph 3(8)(b) relates to the variance of warrants. This is just the initial step of confirming the warrant, without any evidence to vary it. They are two distinct approaches.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm looking at the Justice officials, whether they have any comment on that—because you're here.

[Normand Wong, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the way that proposed paragraph 3(8)(a) has been moved in the subamendment is a mirror of 3(8)(b), so it doesn't replicate the considerations in 3(8)(b), and the judge may confirm the warrant authorization or order if he feels that no additional conditions should be imposed to protect journalistic sources or the freedom of the press. I don't think they're inconsistent or replicative of each other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Proposed paragraph 3(8)(b) then stands. Proposed paragraph 3(8)(a) mirrors the consideration in 3(8)(b). Am I clear on that?

[Normand Wong]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Is there any chance we can get a text of the subamendment you put forward, Mr. Spengemann?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We could suspend in order to get a copy of it, if that is your desire.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I would like to see it, yes.