Hacker News Reader

Comment by zetanor | Hacker News Reader

> If the Governor in Council believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation [...]

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re...

Anyone familiar enough with Canadian law to know how much bearing this condition might have in practice?

View on HN

Will depend heavily on how it is interpreted and exercised by Cabinet, it's ex-ante accountability - required parliamentary reporting after the fact.

Personal opinion as a Canadian, and may not be popular...but I like it's done this way to a degree, I actually have more faith in the Governor in Council than how the courts might interperate this, there is a lot of political risk to using this, and I do believe that the crown will in fact enforce parliamentary accountability. If this truly is a national security tool, these powers are less alarming than, say, those granted directly to an independent agency or to security services acting without crown/ministerial oversight.

I would agree with you if this clause was amended to remove the part after the coma:

  (6) Any order made under subsection (1) must be published in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the Governor in Council directs otherwise in the order.

This is a law enforcement action. If the government is going to give itself the ability to strip the ability of a citizen or resident to access services that are their right to access, and an increasing number of those services are online access, it should be done within the confines and oversight of the law.

This is a disgusting power grab. 'Because I said so, trust me' is not a justification.

This area of Canadian law is almost entirely dependent on concepts of "reasonability" so there is nothing unusual here. Our equivalent of the Bill of Rights is bookended by a section of "reasonable limits" (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Char...) and a "notwithstanding clause" that allows for a "temporary override" of several other sections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...). It's as vague and unpredictable as ever.

Governor in Council effectively refers to the cabinet, i.e. the senior members of the party that has formed the government. I.e. it remains a political decision by elected members of parliament to do that, but it's a subset instead of the whole thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com