(The Lion) — A Canadian bill advancing in Parliament could give a single government official power to shut off internet access for an individual deemed a “threat,” in what opponents say would be a major infringement of civil liberties.

“Imagine being cut off from every facet of your online life, your social media, online banking, email, and work portal, without a court order and without being able to determine the cause,” Dr. Leslyn Lewis, MP-Haldimand-Norfolk, said.  “This is what Liberal Bill C-8 could do to Canadians in the name of cybersecurity. Without proper safeguards added to this bill, Canada runs the risk of implementing security at the cost of liberty.”

The C-8 Bill includes a provision to amend the Telecommunications Act, giving the minister of industry authority to suspend all telecommunications services of an individual who poses “any threat.” The bill does not specify the nature of the threat beyond the categories of “interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.”

“Translation: rip out equipment, block services, and yes, cut off an individual’s service entirely,” Canadian journalist Dan Knight said in a post on X. “No warrant. No judge. No independent tribunal. If the minister decides you’re a “threat,” you’re gone. And here’s the kicker: you may never be told why.”

Under C-8, the minister of industry can “prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person,” or “direct” providers “to suspend” such services.

The bill also establishes a “non-disclosure” policy, meaning neither individuals nor companies involved can discuss the order.

Non-compliant individuals could face imprisonment for up to two years or fines up to $25,000 and $50,000 (Canadian dollars) for “a subsequent contravention.” A company could face up to $10 million in fines and $15 million for subsequent offenses.

The bill also gives the minister directive power over telecommunication providers in a list of 14 provisions, including “to direct a telecommunications service provider to do a specified thing or refrain from doing a specified thing.”

The bill was sent to a committee after its second reading before the House of Commons Oct. 3. The committee will examine the bill “clause by clause,” propose amendments, and vote upon the bill, according to Parliament of Canada. The committee will then present the bill and any amendments to the House of Commons for a third reading. If approved, the bill passes to the Senate, where it undergoes the same reading and voting process.

Once approved in its final form by both houses, the bill is sent to the Governor General, who gives “royal assent” and signs the bill into law, effective on a specified date.

Matt Strauss, MP-Kitchener South, Hespeler, testified before the House of Commons on Oct. 3, saying the bill fails to protect Canada from the real threat of “hackers in Russia, China and Iran wreaking havoc on our telecommunications infrastructure.” He said conservatives will work to amend the bill but such efforts should never have been necessary.

“It is the conservatives who care about and understand cyber security… We will salvage what is good out of this bill, and we’re happy to do that work for the good of Canadians,” Strauss said. “This cleanup job should not be necessary. If the liberals would merely live up to their apparently insincere reverence for our Charter rights, we wouldn’t even need to have this conversation.”

The Canada Constitution Foundation said it is concerned about the “civil liberties implications” of the current version of the bill. The CCF also said it was concerned the bill allows “unconstitutional access to Canadians’ private information” and allows the minister to “engage in unconstitutional searches.”

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said the bill lacks safeguards against “very serious powers” prescribed.

“While this power may be necessary in some cases to prevent cyber attacks, it also poses serious risks to civil liberties,” Dehaas said. “I worry that this law could be used to secretly cut off political dissidents from their phone or Internet service on the pretense that they may try to manipulate the telecom system. Such an action would violate our most cherished freedoms including free speech.”