Canada

Free expression runs the risk of curtailment in Canada. Since March, Canadian parliament has received two bills that increase legal surveillance capabilities, the Supreme Court has taken on a second press freedom gag order and additional pressures are impacting reporting of faith-based political issues. Two bills, C-46 and C-47, currently before the parliament, would mandate upgrading the surveillance capabilities of telecommunications carriers and command their compliance to release tapes under orders from authorized officials. They are intended to address concerns, by law enforcement and national security authorities with the speed of developments in information technology and the anonymity they afford by recognizing the consequent public safety challenges. The bills, as written, are criticized by some for not defining and narrowing the officials that will have the power to request tapes and allowing too broadly the circumstances where surveillance is permitted. Also under criticism is the implementation of the Access to Information Law. The law requires a response by government agencies within 30 days but delays of 120 days are common. The Harper government responded that proposed reforms, which would have given the information commissioner more power to force government disclosure of information in a timely manner, were too cumbersome and/or ill considered. The Supreme Court has admitted a press freedom case involving The Globe and Mail's challenge of a gag order that barred it from reporting settlement talks between the government and a Quebec advertising firm. The Court had already agreed to hear another major case challenging the Quebec Superior Court's ruling to force Globe and Mail reporter Daniel Leblanc to reveal his sources on his first stories that broke the Adscam scandal, a Quebec Government sponsorship scandal. In the high court of the land, The Douglas Quan, et al. v. Danno Cusson Case #32420 is under media lockup by the Supreme Court following hearings in February. The Ottowa Citizen's criticism of a public official's actions post 9/11 was ruled to be defaming and is on appeal. The final decision may confirm the new defense of "responsible journalism," adopted by the Ontario Court of Appeal 15 months ago which argues that journalists can be protected from libel suits, even if some facts are inaccurate, as long as they can prove they acted responsibly. In other words, the public's right to knowledge takes precedence over possible damage to an individual's reputation. Also still undecided is Case 32601, National Post Newspaper, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, which is based on the publication by the National Post of a document from a confidential source implicating former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's business dealings which might show a conflict of interest. The document, a loan, is forged according to the issuing bank. The National Post was ordered to hand over to the courts the document and envelope for forensic tests to identify the confidential source for the purpose of criminal charges of forgery. Concern is rising over the potential chill on journalists reporting on faith-based political issues. On October 23, Grewal founder and editor of the Brampton-based newspaper Punjabi Post was attacked during an attempted kidnapping. Grewal had received threats in the past from pro-separatist Sikhs who disagree with his moderate politics. Two years ago, in a similar incident, journalist Jawaad Faizi, formerly of Pakistan Post, was attacked in Ontario (April 2007). His attackers ordered him to cease writing against Islam and the Pakistan-based religious organization Idara Minhaj-ul-Quran. In 1998 journalist Tara Singh Hayer was murdered in British Colombia for speaking out against the use of violence by Sikh separatists. Adding to the issue of religious/political issues, in a highly criticized decision, the Canadian Human Rights Commission threw out a case involving a Maclean's magazine excerpt authored by Mark Steyn which was claimed to promote hatred and contempt of Muslims. In an ongoing and common occurrence between police and journalists, on April 5th, Jason Payne, a veteran photojournalist with the Vancouver Province photographed a crime scene and had his camera confiscated by police who claimed he was ''obstructing justice". Confiscation is permitted in Canada only when the photographer is arrested or a warrant has been issued.