Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis said on Oct. 3 that the legislation would “grant the federal government sweeping powers” that contravene Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Lewis, who holds a PhD in international law, said the bill “as it stands would allow the government to deprive individuals of essential services without ever seeing the evidence.”
“Canadians should not have to surrender their rights to remain secure,” she said during debate in the House of Commons.
The legislation, also known as An Act Respecting Cybersecurity, was introduced June 18 by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree. The bill is in its second reading in the House of Commons and still needs to go through several stages in the House and Senate before becoming law.
Bill C-8 amends the Telecommunications Act to allow the Minister of Industry, via permission from cabinet, to direct telecommunications service providers to “do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system,” according to the first reading of the bill.
If enacted, for instance, the legislation would allow the government to order companies like Rogers, Telus, or Bell to block specific services for users or shut down a person’s legal right to access the internet or phone networks in certain circumstances.
The Liberals say the bill is necessary to protect Canada from foreign interference and misuse of the telecommunications systems, such as threats from hackers and ransomware fraudsters.
Criticisms about Bill C-8 were also voiced by other opposition parties on Oct. 3, including Bloc Québécois MP Alexis Deschênes, who said the bill raises “concerns about individual freedoms and the right to privacy.” NDP MP Gord Johns also said the bill presents significant risks of infringing on the rights of Canadians.
“The bill would allow for mandatory information sharing between telecom regulators and federal agencies, and possibly onward to foreign governments,” Johns said. “What is the standard for this disclosure? Simply ’the minister’s own judgment of what is necessary' is vague, subjective and wide open to abuse.”