Apple and Meta have mounted a public pushback against a proposed Canadian surveillance bill, warning that the legislation could force technology companies to weaken encryption protections and potentially create government access points into private user data.
The dispute marks the latest escalation in a widening global battle between governments seeking broader lawful access to encrypted communications and technology firms arguing that any weakening of encryption inevitably creates security risks for users.
The surveillance bill, dubbed Bill C-22, was introduced by Canada’s ruling Liberal government following its parliamentary majority victory last month. Canadian authorities argue the proposal is necessary to help law enforcement agencies identify national security threats faster and respond more effectively to criminal investigations.
But the bill is already drawing comparisons to highly controversial efforts in Britain and elsewhere to compel technology companies to create mechanisms allowing government access to encrypted information. The stakes are particularly high because the legislation touches on end-to-end encryption, one of the core security systems underpinning modern digital communications.
Services such as WhatsApp and iMessage rely on end-to-end encryption to ensure that only users themselves can access messages, photos, or stored information. Even the companies operating the services cannot decrypt the data.
Cybersecurity experts have long warned that creating so-called “backdoors” for governments could expose systems to abuse by hackers, hostile states, and cybercriminals. Apple issued one of its strongest public statements yet on the issue, signaling that the company sees the Canadian proposal as a direct threat to its privacy architecture.
“At a time of rising and pervasive threats from malicious actors seeking access to user information, Bill C-22, as drafted, would undermine our ability to offer the powerful privacy and security features users expect from Apple,” the company said.
“This legislation could allow the Canadian government to force companies to break encryption by inserting backdoors into their products – something Apple will never do.”
Meta echoed those concerns in testimony prepared by its Canadian public policy executives, warning that the bill’s broad wording and limited oversight mechanisms could create sweeping government surveillance powers.
Rachel Curran and Robyn Greene said the legislation’s “sweeping powers, minimal oversight, and lack of clear safeguards” could ultimately make Canadians less secure.
“As drafted, the bill could require companies like Meta to build or maintain capabilities that break, weaken, or circumvent encryption or other zero-knowledge security architectures, and force providers to install government spyware directly on their systems,” they wrote.
The Canadian government is pushing back against those claims. Tim Warmington said the legislation would not require firms to introduce “systemic vulnerabilities” into encryption systems.
“They know their systems and have a vested interest in keeping them secure,” Warmington said.
Still, the wording of the bill has alarmed privacy advocates and technology firms because similar legal frameworks elsewhere have gradually expanded government access demands. The proposed Canadian law arrives amid growing pressure from Western governments seeking greater access to encrypted communications amid rising concerns about terrorism, organized crime, cyber threats, and child exploitation investigations.
Yet the debate has become increasingly contentious because governments are attempting to balance national security demands against mounting cybersecurity risks. Technology firms argue there is no technical way to create “exceptional access” for governments without also weakening protections for everyone else.
The Canadian proposal is already being compared to Britain’s Investigatory Powers framework, which triggered a major confrontation with Apple last year. That dispute centered on a British government order seeking access to encrypted cloud data. In response, Apple withdrew a cloud encryption feature in the UK market rather than comply with requirements it believed could undermine user privacy globally. The issue later escalated into a diplomatic concern after U.S. intelligence officials reportedly warned that Britain’s request risked violating an existing cloud-data treaty between Washington and London.
The broader geopolitical dimension is becoming increasingly significant as encryption evolves into a strategic technology issue touching cybersecurity, intelligence operations, digital sovereignty, and cross-border data governance.
For companies like Apple and Meta, the concern extends beyond Canada itself. If one democratic government successfully compels technology firms to weaken encryption systems, other countries, including more authoritarian regimes, could demand similar access, creating a precedent that reshapes global privacy standards.
The debate also arrives as cyberattacks continue rising sharply worldwide, increasing corporate resistance to any measures perceived as weakening digital defenses. Financial institutions, healthcare providers, and government agencies have all become major targets of ransomware groups and state-linked hackers in recent years, making encryption one of the few reliable safeguards protecting sensitive data.
Against this backdrop, the political challenge may become increasingly difficult for Canada. Public safety agencies continue arguing that encrypted services are creating “going dark” problems that prevent investigators from accessing critical evidence. But technology companies are framing the issue not simply as a privacy debate, but as a broader national security concern in which weakening encryption could expose citizens, businesses, and governments themselves to greater cyber risk.
Like this:
Like Loading...
