Apple and Google are urging Canada to revise Bill C-22, warning the proposed online safety law could allow secret orders that weaken encryption and user privacy.
 |
| Canada’s Bill C-22 has sparked backlash from Apple, Google, and Meta, with tech companies warning the legislation may open the door to secret encryption demands. Image: CH |
Ottawa, Canada — May 27, 2026:
Apple and Google are pushing back against Canada’s proposed online safety bill, arguing the legislation could quietly give authorities too much power over encrypted user data.
The debate unfolded during discussions around Bill C-22 in Canada’s House of Commons. The bill is designed to strengthen online safety measures and help law enforcement respond faster to security threats. But major technology companies say the wording leaves dangerous room for interpretation.
The biggest concern is encryption.
End-to-end encryption protects messages, files, and cloud data by ensuring only users can access them. Even the companies running the services cannot unlock the information without the user’s key.
Apple, Google, and Meta argue the proposed law could still allow secret government orders forcing companies to weaken those protections. According to the firms, the legislation does not clearly prevent authorities from demanding hidden access tools, often described as “backdoors.”
Google’s Canadian government affairs director, Jeanette Patell, warned lawmakers that secret orders would undermine transparency and damage public trust.
The companies are not only opposing the bill itself. They are also demanding stronger judicial oversight. Their position is that any request involving encrypted systems should require clear court supervision instead of confidential directives issued behind closed doors.
That argument reflects a growing global fight over digital privacy.
Governments in countries including the United Kingdom and Australia have already introduced laws aimed at increasing law enforcement access to encrypted communications. Security agencies argue criminals and extremist groups often exploit encrypted platforms to avoid detection.
Technology firms see the issue differently.
They argue encryption cannot be weakened “just a little.” Once a system contains a backdoor, the risk expands beyond governments. Hackers, cybercriminals, and hostile foreign actors could potentially exploit the same weakness.
Apple pointed to its recent experience in the United Kingdom, where it reportedly received a secret order related to encrypted cloud backups. The company later removed some encrypted backup features from the UK market, a move widely viewed as a warning sign for other countries considering similar laws.
The tension became more visible during Tuesday’s parliamentary hearing when Conservative MP Frank Caputo asked Apple executive Erik Neuenschwander whether the company would leave Canada if forced to build backdoors into its devices.
Neuenschwander avoided making direct threats.
Instead, he emphasized that Apple hopes lawmakers will amend the bill through continued discussions. His careful response showed how sensitive the issue has become for global tech companies operating across multiple legal systems.
For Canada’s Liberal government, the challenge is balancing security with privacy rights.
Officials supporting Bill C-22 argue faster access to digital information could help authorities prevent threats and respond more effectively to serious crimes. But critics warn vague powers combined with secrecy could reshape the relationship between governments, technology firms, and citizens.
The outcome of this debate may reach far beyond Canada.
If democratic governments continue expanding authority over encrypted systems, pressure on technology companies will intensify worldwide. At the same time, refusing all government access requests could deepen political clashes between Silicon Valley and national security agencies.
What makes this fight especially important is that there may be no perfect compromise.
Cybersecurity experts have long argued that a secure backdoor simply does not exist. Any intentional weakness created for law enforcement could eventually become vulnerable to abuse.
That reality is why the battle over Bill C-22 is attracting global attention. It is no longer just about one country’s online safety law. It is about who ultimately controls access to private digital information in the modern world.