The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text.
Your links don't support the the claim in the title of the national post article. The CCLA is complaining that it would enable the government to make telecoms install backdoors, and otherwise violate privacy rules, not that the government could "strip internet access from specified individuals". I haven't read the bill closely enough to know if I agree with them on that, but a bill having a different issue doesn't justify the false headline by the national post that everyone is discussing here.
(I have not read the contents of the national post article, as it is paywalled. So I can't comment on any other consequences actually described in the article).
> The consequences described by the title are clearly not supported by a plain reading of the legal text by anyone who is remotely familiar with how to read legal text.
Many people ITT have already explained, including in direct replies to you, how they are.
Your links don't support the the claim in the title of the national post article. The CCLA is complaining that it would enable the government to make telecoms install backdoors, and otherwise violate privacy rules, not that the government could "strip internet access from specified individuals". I haven't read the bill closely enough to know if I agree with them on that, but a bill having a different issue doesn't justify the false headline by the national post that everyone is discussing here.
(I have not read the contents of the national post article, as it is paywalled. So I can't comment on any other consequences actually described in the article).