[gpm]

Emergency powers don't give you ability to unwind time and not buy Huawei equipment in the past. This bill appears to almost entirely be about allowing the government to exercise control over the telecommunications supply chain... which is certainly necessary if you want the ability to defend yourself against people who would otherwise be in that supply chain.

[petermcneeley]

Hasnt this already been done in Canada? Without this bill? Without the secrecy?

The nature of the bill is that a minister can remove services from specified person without any interaction with due process. They can also make this directive secret indefinitely. Is such power required? Could it be abused?

[gpm]

No. The government has tried to get telecoms to remove Huawei equipment. They have successfully resisted. This bill appears to exist in large part to change that, specifically.

This bill does not allow the minister to remove services from any specified person. It allows the minister to order telecoms stop receiving services from specified persons (i.e. huawei). It allows the minister to put conditions on, but not remove, services the telecoms provide to a person.

I agree I wish there were more limits on the secrecy portion.

[petermcneeley]

I dont think Canadians are worried about sections in the bill targeting foreign actors or even equipment. I think Canadians are worried about the sections that suggests individuals (citizens) can be denied access to telecommunications by a secret order of their government stemming from the decision of a single minister.

Every law is always wrapped in a package of anti-terrorism, cyber security, or protect the kids. This is a given. Let us not pretend not to know whats going on here.