By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi & Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
7 October 2026
Encrypted messaging service Signal says amendments proposed by the Canadian government to its controversial lawful-access legislation have not addressed the company’s fundamental concerns and will not persuade it to remain in Canada if the legislation becomes law.
Signal Vice-President of Strategy and Global Affairs Udbhav Tiwari reiterated the company’s position during discussions with Canadian senators and lawmakers, saying the nonprofit messaging service remains prepared to shut down its Canadian operations rather than comply with requirements it believes could compromise its security architecture.
The dispute centres on Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, 2026, which is currently before the Senate after passing the House of Commons earlier this year. Signal argues that parts of the legislation could create obligations that conflict with the way its encrypted messaging system operates.
Signal Says Three Issues Remain
Tiwari identified three major areas of concern for Signal: encryption, metadata collection and technical access requirements.
Signal’s principal concern is that the legislation could allow the government to require changes to how encrypted services operate.
The company has built its service around end-to-end encryption, meaning the content of messages is designed to be accessible only to the communicating users. Signal has long maintained that it does not have a conventional mechanism that would allow it to simply decrypt users’ conversations and hand the contents to authorities.
Tiwari told lawmakers that Signal’s concerns extend beyond simply obtaining message content. The company is also worried about potential requirements to retain additional information about users and to make targeted technical changes to its platform.
What Bill C-22 Would Do
The federal government says Bill C-22 is intended to modernize Canada’s lawful-access framework.
Under the proposed legislation, law-enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would be able to obtain information from electronic service providers using existing legal authorities.
The Department of Justice says the bill itself would not create new powers to access information. Instead, Part 2 of the legislation would establish a regulatory framework designed to ensure electronic service providers have the technical capabilities necessary to comply with existing lawful-access authorities.
The distinction is important because Ottawa maintains that the legislation is about making existing warrants and other legal authorities effective in the digital environment rather than giving investigators unrestricted access to private communications.
Ottawa Has Tried to Address Encryption Concerns
The federal government has acknowledged concerns surrounding encryption and metadata.
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree previously said the legislation would be amended to clarify protections for encrypted data and establish clearer limits around the types of metadata that could be retained and accessed by law enforcement.
The government has also rejected claims that Bill C-22 is designed to force companies to install surveillance backdoors.
Officials have argued that strong encryption is important to cybersecurity and the protection of Canadians’ personal information.
Signal, however, remains unconvinced.
For the company, the issue is not simply whether authorities would need legal authorization before requesting information. It is also whether the government could require the service itself to change the way it is technically designed to store or provide information.
Privacy Commissioner Has Raised Concerns
Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, has also examined Bill C-22.
Dufresne told Parliament that the bill contains some improvements compared with earlier proposals, including a narrower approach to certain confirmation-of-service demands and consideration of privacy and cybersecurity impacts when regulations and orders are developed.
However, the Privacy Commissioner has also called for further safeguards to ensure that the legislation does not unnecessarily expand access to sensitive personal information or create cybersecurity risks.
His concerns add another dimension to the debate, which now involves the federal government, privacy regulators, technology companies and civil-liberties organizations.
Signal Is Not the Only Technology Company Raising Concerns
Signal’s opposition comes amid broader resistance from privacy-focused technology companies.
Other companies, including VPN providers and major technology firms, have expressed concerns about potential encryption and data-retention requirements.
Psiphon, a Toronto-based privacy and anti-censorship service, has also said it is considering moving its operations outside Canada because of Bill C-22. The company says the legislation could create obligations that conflict with the privacy and security protections relied upon by its users.
Signal’s position is particularly notable because its service is designed specifically around privacy and secure communications.
The company has previously indicated that it would rather leave a market than weaken its encryption system.
Why Encryption Is at the Centre of the Dispute
Encryption is increasingly central to the disagreement between governments and technology companies around the world.
Law-enforcement agencies argue that criminals can use encrypted communications to conceal evidence and coordinate activities, making investigations more difficult even when authorities obtain judicial authorization.
Technology companies and privacy advocates counter that creating a mechanism to give governments access to encrypted communications can weaken the security of the system more broadly.
The concern is that a technical vulnerability created for authorized access could potentially be exploited by criminals, foreign governments or other malicious actors.
This is why Signal considers encryption to be a core security feature rather than simply a privacy preference.
Government Says Lawful Access Is Needed
Ottawa’s position is that law enforcement and national-security agencies must be able to use existing legal powers effectively even when communications move through modern digital services.
The Justice Department says Bill C-22 would support lawful access activities conducted under existing authorities in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
The government therefore argues that the legislation is intended to close a technological gap between what Canadian law already permits investigators to obtain and what service providers are technically capable of providing.
Critics, however, argue that the technical requirements themselves could have consequences that extend beyond individual investigations.
Signal’s Canadian Future Remains Uncertain
For Signal, the latest amendments have not removed the possibility of leaving Canada.
The company says it cannot agree to technical requirements that would compromise its ability to provide secure communications.
Tiwari’s latest comments therefore suggest that Signal’s previous warning remains in place: if Canadian law requires the company to alter its security model in a way it considers unacceptable, it is prepared to stop operating in the Canadian market rather than comply.
That would potentially affect Canadians who rely on Signal for private communications, while also raising broader questions about whether privacy-focused technology companies can continue operating from Canada under the proposed regulatory framework.
Bill C-22 Heads Into a Broader Privacy Debate
The disagreement over Signal is part of a larger Canadian debate about how governments should balance public safety, national security, privacy and digital security.
Supporters of Bill C-22 argue that investigators need modern tools to respond to crimes and security threats involving digital communications.
Opponents remain concerned about the scope of ministerial powers, metadata retention and the possibility that technical requirements could weaken encryption or create new cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
The Privacy Commissioner’s parliamentary testimony suggests that some changes have improved the legislation, while also indicating that questions about privacy protections remain.
As the Senate considers Bill C-22, Signal’s position puts a clear choice before policymakers: how to provide law enforcement with effective lawful access while preserving the encryption and security architecture that technology companies say is essential to protecting users.
For now, Signal says the government’s proposed changes have not provided enough reassurance for it to change course.
The company remains prepared to leave Canada rather than alter the security principles on which its messaging service is built.
