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.
Senator, Quebec (De Salaberry), Independent Senators Group
In 30 seconds, yes....
Senator, Quebec (De Salaberry), Independent Senators Group
It's a difficult situation because there's not an obvious business model for journalism, but at the same time I think there is a positive side because if you look at what's going on in the U.S. today, it is obvious that people are yearning for quality news. There is a lot of fake news, but people want quality news. It's a matter of finding the right business model. You can see that in the United States. Quality newspapers are doing quite well right now. The New York Times and The Washington Post are finding ways of getting back in the black. That's good news, but those are exceptions right now. It's a matter of finding how to get advertising back to traditional newspapers or news organizations, and that's very difficult. I worked for 30 years for La Presse , which is now one of the more innovative news platforms in the world, and they're in difficulty.
If I might add a word about police forces, in the Senate committee where we studied Bill S-231, we tested that definition of “journalist”, and they agreed that this definition alleviated their concern. They were satisfied with it. I think it's important to know.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Perhaps I could take the remaining minute to ask you more specifically on the prospect of somebody using the vehicle of journalism and all its salutary aspects to do us harm, to deliberately send news that is false from foreign channels or through foreign channels or whatever the case may be, even domestic channels. That is not to say that this goes into the paradigm of terrorism, but it's simply deliberately misleading and false information about international developments, about domestic elements. How does your bill protect against that? To the extent that we need to ask questions, what kind of questions should we ask?
Senator, Quebec (De Salaberry), Independent Senators Group
I'm not sure the bill would protect against this, but I'm not sure if the bill has anything to do with that either. One thing is for certain: the bill says that journalism has to be his or her main occupation, and it has to be remunerated. Someone who is not a real professional journalist will not be protected by the bill.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, if a foreign government, for example, hires a journalist in our sense of the term to deliberately spread false information, are there any safeguards that we should put in place?
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
First of all, this bill is to protect the whistle-blower, the journalist's sources, not the journalist himself. We define a journalist quite clearly, who in some cases is not a real journalist. I have three points. At the end of the day, a superior court judge will decide if this guy or this woman is a journalist and if we can make inquiries of him correctly if not. Let me remind you that all journalists are human beings. They are not above the law. They must respect the law in their activities, but first and foremost, we have to protect the whistle-blower.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, gentlemen.
My first question is for Senator Carignan.
In former times, when I was your law professor, you were the one asking me questions. Today, it is I asking you.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The only time I asked you a question was on exam day.
Each of you referred to the Patrick Lagacé affair and cases involving other journalists. There were indeed many. You described what happened. An inquiry led by Justice Chamberland of the Court of Appeal of Quebec is diligently examining the issue. The report is expected in the not too distant future.
How do you explain passing a bill before we know all the facts that prompted its creation in the first place?
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
I would say that a combination of factors led to the bill being introduced. The facts surrounding the Joël-Denis Bellavance spying case, which had nothing to do with the Chamberland commission, also played a part.
What's more, I can't remember whether you were the one who taught us about this case, but I would point to the Supreme Court's decision in Keable, in 1978. It had to do with the province's authority to establish a commission of inquiry into a matter under federal jurisdiction. In this case, we are clearly talking about a federal matter. With all due respect to the Chamberland commission, it doesn't have the authority to take action in an area under federal jurisdiction. It is therefore up to us, in Canada's Parliament, to address the issue pursuant to our authority under the Constitution and Criminal Code. They can intervene—
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes, but wouldn't it be informative and useful to know exactly what happened?
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Through the media, we are finding out what happened. Nevertheless, beyond those cases and even if nothing had happened, the fact remains that we need a mechanism to protect journalistic sources. The proof is in the cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court, be it The Globe and Mail or the National Post case, which involved journalists being spied on in order to find out who their sources were. They were being pressured to reveal their sources.
If, then, matters have made their way to the Supreme Court, it means there is a problem, regardless of what comes out of the Chamberland commission. What we are trying to do is establish a mechanism—
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Still, the work Justice Chamberland is doing is quite significant.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Yes, it is very significant, but at the end of the day, what it will mean is instructions for police on how to apply the provincial legislation. Bill S-231 amends the Criminal Code, the measures on how to obtain a search warrant and produce evidence in Canada.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
You talked about provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. At the provincial level, you have common law or civil law, and at the federal level, you have criminal law. Would it not be a good idea to align the protection within civil or common law with the protection available in criminal law?
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
I've kept tabs on the work the Chamberland commission is doing, and I can tell you that reference was made to this bill. I think that if Parliament passes this legislation, the Chamberland commission will surely take notice and ensure that it introduces any necessary changes or directives at the provincial level, as part of its work.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
What would the impact be if you were to wait for the Chamberland commission's report before finalizing the bill?
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
That will take at least six months, and in the meantime, sources are not coming forward and some may even die. People with information that is in the public interest are not coming forward because of the current conditions. As members of the media stated in November, the Lagacé affair has had a chilling effect on sources, making them fear for their safety.
Waiting would mean extending that chilling effect and choking off the supply of sources. These are things that are happening, effects that can't necessarily be measured but are being felt.
Liberal
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I need just one sentence to say this very quickly.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
We applaud the provincial government for undertaking this initiative, but we should also applaud the upper chamber for its initiative, which everyone supports and endorses and whose passage was unanimous. It even has the support of the justice department, police forces, and journalists groups. That's unheard of.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Can we afford to wait six months while more people choose not to come forward? No.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Because we've gone quite a bit over on that side, Mr. Nicholson, I want to give you another couple of minutes if you want them. Then we'll end this session.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I think I'll leave my questions until the next group. Thank you.