San Francisco, 27 May 2026 – Apple and Google are urging Canadian lawmakers to amend a proposed online safety bill, warning that the legislation could open the door to secret government orders requiring technology companies to weaken encryption protections across their devices, software and digital services.
The debate centres on Canada’s Bill C-22, also known as the Lawful Access Act, which is being reviewed in the House of Commons. The proposed law is intended to give authorities stronger tools to respond to security threats and access digital evidence more quickly, but major technology companies and privacy advocates have raised concerns over its potential impact on encryption, user privacy and corporate transparency.
In testimony before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, representatives from Apple and Google called for clearer protections for encryption and stronger judicial oversight. Their concern is that, even though the bill does not explicitly require companies to break encryption, its provisions could allow government orders to be issued in secret, limiting public accountability and restricting companies from informing users.
End-to-end encryption is designed so that only the sender and recipient can access the content of a message or stored data. This means even the platform provider cannot unlock the information without the user’s key. Technology companies argue that forcing access into such systems could create vulnerabilities that may be exploited not only by law enforcement, but also by cybercriminals, hostile actors or foreign surveillance operations.
Apple, Google and Meta Platforms have all voiced opposition to the Canadian proposal, reflecting a wider global conflict between governments seeking greater lawful access to digital data and technology firms defending encryption as a core security feature. Similar debates have taken place in Britain and Australia, where authorities have pushed for expanded powers to access encrypted communications in investigations.
The technology companies are not arguing against law enforcement access altogether, but are pushing for safeguards that would require independent review before any technical assistance orders are issued. Google’s Canadian government affairs director Jeanette Patell reportedly said the possibility of secret orders without adequate oversight would be inconsistent with democratic norms. Apple has also pointed to its experience in the United Kingdom, where it withdrew an encrypted cloud feature after facing similar data-access pressure.
Canadian authorities have defended the proposed legislation, saying it would help investigators act earlier and more effectively against security threats. Public Safety Canada has also said the bill would not require technology firms to introduce “systemic vulnerabilities” into encryption systems. Still, critics argue that the wording and implementation of the law could matter more than its stated intent, especially if companies are compelled to maintain access capabilities that undermine secure product design.
The issue has broader implications beyond Canada. For global technology platforms, encryption rules in one major market can affect product architecture, compliance obligations and user trust across borders. If governments increasingly require private access channels into encrypted systems, companies may face difficult choices between maintaining security standards, withdrawing certain features or challenging legal orders.
For Apple and Google, the Canadian bill adds another front to the regulatory pressure facing the global technology sector. The companies are already navigating antitrust scrutiny, data protection rules, online safety requirements and artificial intelligence regulation across multiple jurisdictions. Encryption now sits at the centre of a growing policy divide: how to balance public safety needs with the cybersecurity protections that consumers and businesses increasingly depend on.
The Ledger Asia Insights
Canada’s online safety debate is becoming a global technology governance test case. The concern for investors and digital economy stakeholders is not only whether Apple, Google and Meta can protect encryption, but whether governments are moving toward a model where secure systems must include state-access mechanisms. For Asian markets, the outcome matters because many regional governments are also tightening online safety, cybersecurity and platform accountability rules. A Canadian precedent that weakens encryption could influence future regulation elsewhere, while stronger judicial oversight could become a template for balancing law enforcement powers with digital trust.
