Follow through on shield law

Last week, on World Press Freedom Day, Justin Trudeau affirmed the vital democratic function of a free press and, in particular, the need for government to preserve the privileged relationship between media and their sources. “Of course,” he said, as if it were a truism, “journalists should always be able to protect their sources.”

Yet, unlike nearly every one of our allies, Canada has not enshrined that principle in law. If Trudeau means what he said, he should support an effort underway in the Senate to bring Canada in line with the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries in introducing a so-called shield law to protect journalistic sources, and in turn, the journalistic enterprise.

The need for such a law has been made perfectly clear in recent months. Last October, Patrick Lagacé, a columnist at Montreal’s La Presse newspaper, revealed that police had been spying on him for months, using his cellphone to track his whereabouts and monitoring his calls and texts in an apparent effort to uncover one of his sources.

The state’s spying on a journalist suspected of no wrongdoing seemed at the time to be unprecedented in Canadian history. But we have since learned it was not.

In the days afterward, it was revealed that at least10 reporters in Quebec had had their cellphone communication secretly surveilled by police over the past few years. Then, before a parliamentary committee, a senior official of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said it was possible his agency had spied on Canadian journalists in the past.

Meanwhile, the RCMP continues to fight in court to force Vice News reporter Ben Makuch to hand over communications with a man whom police believe is fighting overseas with Daesh.

This “series of scandals,” as Reporters Without Borders recently wrote, is the chief reason Canada slipped four spots, to 22nd, in the organization’s annual press freedom index. As the Star lamented last week, we’re moving in the wrong direction.

So it was encouraging to hear Trudeau make clear that he understands the democratic imperative to protect the free press, especially because his commitment has not always been obvious.

For instance, many in the media, including the Star, have called on Trudeau to instruct the RCMP to stop going after Vice’s sources. He has not.

Moreover, until last week, his position on shield laws was far from clear. Last winter, André Pratte, an independent senator and former journalist, called on the government to form a parliamentary committee to study the idea. Initially, the Liberals seemed open to the possibility, even preparing a press release to announce the initiative. But, according to Pratte, the Conservatives objected and the government didn’t want a fight over the issue. So it dropped the idea, “thus letting freedom of the press down.”

Instead, Conservative Senator Claude Carignan put forward a private member’s bill, the Journalistic Sources Protection Act, which would make it harder for police to obtain warrants to spy on journalists or to use information so obtained.

If sources feel they cannot safely speak to journalists, journalists cannot do the job Trudeau has rightly said is vital to our democracy. Private member’s bills in the Senate rarely become law. The prime minister should ensure this one is an exception.

If Justin Trudeau means what he says about the vital democratic function of a free press, he should do more to protect the relationship between journalists and their sources