You're referring to the 2010 Supreme Court case involving the National Post. We were discussing it earlier, before the temporary suspension of the meeting.
I'll refer to subsection 39.1(8) on page 2 of the bill:
(8) The court, person or body may authorize the disclosure of information or a document only if they consider that (a) the information or document cannot be produced in evidence by any other reasonable means;
This is perfectly legitimate.
(b) the public interest in the administration of justice outweighs the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the journalistic source, having regard to (i) the essential role of the information or document in the proceeding,
Since you're familiar with this Supreme Court case, you know that Justice Abella dissented. Her dissent concerned precisely this issue.