Canada lawful-access bill draws Apple and Google backlash

Apple and Google are pushing back against Canada’s Bill C-22, saying the lawful-access bill could widen police access to subscriber and service data. Their objections have turned what Ottawa bills as a crime-fighting update into a broader argument about how far democratic governments can lean on device makers and online platforms when they want digital evidence.

The proposal would let police confirm whether a provider offers a service, require some data to be preserved and seek information through a clearer legal process. Justice Canada’s explainer says investigators would have to give telecom providers at least 24 hours to respond to a confirmation-of-service demand. Providers would then have 10 business days to seek court review before handing over information. Ottawa says the measure does not force companies to build backdoors into products.

Apple told lawmakers that assurance does not settle the issue. Reuters reported that the iPhone maker warned the draft could still force companies to weaken the protections they use to keep devices and services secure.

“This legislation could allow the Canadian government to force companies to break encryption by inserting backdoors into their products – something Apple will never do.”
— Apple, via Reuters

Google made a similar argument in more technical language. Bloomberg reported that the company said Bill C-22 would create “sweeping powers to issue secret orders mandating providers to create or maintain the technical capacity to facilitate data interception and retrieval”. In plain terms, the objection goes past basic subscriber checks and reaches the systems that store, route and protect data across phones, cloud services and messaging platforms.

The bill is still moving through Parliament. Parliament of Canada says Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is part of a broader effort to modernise investigative powers for the digital era. Financial Post reported that it has already passed two of three House of Commons readings. Canadian coverage has also tracked resistance from privacy advocates, telecom groups and large technology companies as the bill has advanced.

CBC reported that Apple told MPs the proposal could put users’ personal data at risk. That has helped shift the dispute out of a narrow telecom-compliance debate and into a mainstream privacy fight around consumer devices and online services.

Ottawa says the bill is a targeted update rather than a rewrite of encryption policy. Officials say the new powers are meant to help police “prevent, investigate and respond” to crime, Bloomberg reported. Justice Canada’s summary also says companies can challenge demands in court and that judicial authorisation remains in place for more intrusive steps.

The clash matters outside Canada because Apple and Google are treating C-22 as a precedent, not just a domestic bill. If Ottawa can require extra technical assistance without calling it a backdoor, other democracies may try to draw the same line. The policy test is whether governments can expand digital-evidence powers without forcing platforms to rework the security features they sell to users.