OTTAWA (CCN) — A piece of legislation drawing concern from various civil liberty groups and online rights organizations over the potential threats it poses to individual Canadians’ telephone and Internet access passed second reading in the House of Commons on Oct. 3.
Bill C-8, formally titled “An Act respecting cyber security,” was “agreed to upon division,” meaning a motion was adopted but it did not receive unanimous consent. No formal roll call vote was held.
Now, Bill C-8, tabled by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree, will be scrutinized by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. He touts this legislation as a method to counteract “unprecedented cyber-threats.”
“Malicious cyber-actors are breaching our country’s IT systems, accessing sensitive information and putting lives in danger,” stated Anandasangaree.
The passages in the bill garnering the most criticism are proposed amendments to section 15.2 of the 1993 Telecommunications Act, concerning the powers afforded to cabinet ministers. Similar powers would be granted to the Governor in Council (GIC) by amending section 15.1.
If Bill C-8 receives royal assent, Minister of Industry Melanie Joly and the GIC, in consultation with Anandasangaree, will have the authority to “prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person,” and it can direct a provider such as TELUS, Bell and Rogers to suspend providing telephone and Internet access to said individual “for a specified period.”
This authority is to be exercised if there are “reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.” It can be argued that the bill does not zero in on what constitutes interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.
Peter Menzies, a former vice chairman and president of telecommunications for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), told The Catholic Register the bill “on the face of it has a troubling extent of powers,” however, “I would think that it gets made more specific as it goes through the process.”
Menzies added that “hopefully it will get amended to have some more details.” Drawing on his expertise in this sector, Menzies said his “primary concern” are the regulations that are written after the main bill is passed.
In multiple past interviews with the Register, Menzies has warned that “religion has always been a “topic of interest” for government radio-television and telecommunications supervisory agencies like the CRTC. He also stated religious programming is historically “something that makes them institutionally nervous.”
It could be argued that the fault lines between the federal government and the Catholic Church’s views on a number of hot-button cultural and social issues like abortion and medical assistance in dying are especially pronounced in 2025.
The cutoff order can be given by the minister or GIC without requiring a warrant. It is only after the minster orders a “specified person” be deprived of access that a federal court can subject the decision to judicial review. The order can also remain secretive if a non-disclosure provision is attached.
Any “specified person” seen as a threat by either of the aforementioned parties could be fined up to $25,000 on their first offence, and up to $50,000 on a subsequent violation. “Imprisonment for a term of not more than two years” is another potential punishment that could be issued by the court.
Tamir Israel, the director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)’s Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program, warned that “by failing to guarantee critical end-to-end encryption protocols will not be undermined, Bill C-8 risks doing more harm than good to cybersecurity. Its ongoing inclusion of warrantless data access mechanisms and use of a secrecy by default approach pose an additional threat to privacy and other civil liberties.”
Matt Hatfield, the executive director of OpenMedia, an organization that “works to keep the Internet open, affordable and surveillance-free,” also condemned the proposed act.
“There is no such thing as a private intercepted message, and no backdoor that exists only for law enforcement,” stated Hatfield. “Our government knows it, yet their draft cybersecurity legislation Bill C-8 can be abused to surveil Canadians in secret, well beyond its legitimate purpose.”
Bill C-8 is largely considered a renewal and emulation of Bill C-26, which was introduced in 2023 during the 44th Parliament. That version became null and void when the federal government prorogued on Jan. 6. It was on the precipice of becoming law as it passed at third reading in both the upper and lower chambers. The only remaining step was the House of Commons’ vote to approve Senate amendments.
