- Google warns the bill creates a “surveillance infrastructure” that risks foreign interference.
- The legislation could force companies to keep their metadata for up to a year.
- Tech giants say the bill’s wording on encryption and backdoors is dangerously vague.
Canada’s government wants to give police more surveillance powers. Bit tech firms, Google, Meta, and Apple, have kicked against this move, saying it’s risky for cybersecurity.
The proposed law, Bill C-22, will force technology companies to change their systems in a way that’ll enable government surveillance. That might weaken security for everyone.
A Surveillance Infrastructure in the Making
Google just submitted a warning to Parliament. It says Bill C-22 would create a risky “surveillance infrastructure.” This could actually help foreign hackers, not just catch criminals.
The company supports law enforcement. It wants to help stop crime and terrorism. But Google draws a hard line at breaking its own security.
Google said they’ve never built a backdoor before. “If we say a product is end-to-end encrypted, it is end-to-end encrypted,” the company stated.
The bill gives the public safety minister huge powers. He could issue secret orders to almost any electronic service provider in Canada. Google calls these “Secret Ministerial Orders.” They would stop companies from talking openly with users.
What the Bill Actually Demands
Bill C-22 would force providers to keep your metadata for up to a year. That includes phone numbers you call and locations you visit. It does not include your emails or browsing history.
But experts say metadata reveals a ton about your life. Michael Geist from the University of Ottawa calls it “a massive haystack of data.” The government hopes to find a needle once in a while. But building that haystack creates huge privacy risks for everyone.
The RCMP wants this data for investigations. Imagine a kidnapping case. Transmission data and cell tower signals could link a suspect to crime scenes. That makes sense on paper.
But storing all that metadata creates a juicy target. Hackers love big databases. The Canadian Telecommunications Association warned that “no system is immune from compromise.” Its members include Bell, Rogers, and SaskTel.
A Dangerously Narrow Definition
Google’s biggest worry is wording around ‘systemic vulnerability.’ The bill says companies don’t have to comply if an order would create one. But the definition is ‘unduly narrow,’ according to Google.
Without stronger protections, the law could force backdoors. That would break end-to-end encryption. It would weaken global user privacy. And it could facilitate foreign interference.
The bill also lacks explicit protection for encryption. Google argues this undermines best-practice security. That affects not just consumers but also governments and critical infrastructure.
Signal already warned it would leave Canada entirely. VPN operators say the same. Meta called the bill a plan to turn tech companies into a surveillance arm of the government.
Encryption is a double-edged sword. It protects users but also shields criminals. A Slovak man helped a darknet market trade in drugs and stolen data, operations that rely heavily on encryption and anonymity.
What Happens Next?
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree says he’s open to amendments. Senior officials told The Globe and Mail he will accept changes. Shannon Hiegel from Public Safety Canada said the minister is open to receiving new ideas.
But time is going. Already, the United States has its own lawful-access law, though much narrower than Bill C-22. It applies only to telecoms, not all electronic services. And it doesn’t demand year-long metadata storage.
Privacy experts like Robert Diab from Thompson Rivers University note courts have long recognized that metadata reveals “quite a lot about a person’s life.” It connects you to people, places, and times. From that, you can draw many inferences.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce also warned that the bill weakens cyber defenses. Storing more data for too long is risky. It could expand the attack surface, potentially inviting hackers in.
For now, the Commons Public Safety Committee is reviewing the bill. Google, Meta, Apple, and Signal are all pushing back. The question isn’t whether Canada needs lawful access. It’s whether the price, weaker security for millions of people, is worth paying.
