Letter: Canada's Bill C-22 forces the wrong trade-off

Canadians should not have to trade digital privacy and cybersecurity for public safety.

Bill C-22, the federal government’s proposed lawful access legislation , is being presented as a tool for police investigations. I support lawful investigations. Police should be able to obtain specific evidence with proper judicial authorization.

But Bill C-22 goes much further than that. Part 2 would create a new law authorizing the government to require electronic service providers to build access capabilities, assist authorities, and retain certain types of metadata. This is not only what police can obtain in a specific investigation. It is also what companies may be required to build, store, or make accessible ahead of time.

Bill C-22 is not simply a matter of Canada catching up to its allies. It brings together several of the most controversial lawful-access powers seen elsewhere: secret technical-access orders, compelled-assistance powers, metadata retention, and access infrastructure that can become a cybersecurity target.

In the United Kingdom, secret technical-access powers reportedly led Apple to withdraw its strongest iCloud protection for new users rather than provide access to encrypted data. In the United States, the Salt Typhoon cyberattack reportedly targeted systems used by telecom companies to support lawful wiretaps. Surveillance systems built for lawful access became targets for hostile actors.

Canada faces the same danger. Major technology companies and encrypted-communications providers have warned that forced access rules could lead them to remove secure features or leave the Canadian market rather than compromise privacy protections. That would make Canadians less secure, not safer.

Metadata is not harmless. Requiring companies to retain more of it would create records of where people go, who they , when they are active, what services they use, and patterns of work, health, faith, politics, family life, and personal vulnerability. That risks creating a standing surveillance layer over people who are not suspected of wrongdoing.

Encryption is not a loophole. It protects families, businesses, journalists, hospitals, financial systems, and public institutions. The government says Bill C-22 will not require encryption backdoors. The law should say so clearly.

If this concerns you, our MP Patrick Weiler and ask him to oppose any version of Bill C-22 that weakens encryption, expands metadata surveillance, or undermines online anonymity.