Canada’s government is reportedly retreating from a major push tied to the C-22 public safety and surveillance legislation, after a late-night committee amendment changed the approach the Carney government would pursue. The breakthrough update suggests the administration will not seek encryption-breaking powers that could force technology companies to undermine or bypass encryption protections.
According to the news report, the government’s position shifted during committee discussions late at night, when amendments were introduced that moderated the most contentious element of the proposal. Instead of advancing measures that would have compelled access to encrypted communications, the government is now expected to avoid efforts aimed at breaking encryption as part of C-22.
However, the retreat does not mean the legislation is being gutted. The report emphasizes that other types of investigative capabilities would remain in place. Specifically, the amendment still leaves room for expanded location tracking and microphone access. That means authorities could continue to pursue tools that allow investigators to determine a device’s whereabouts and potentially capture audio, depending on how the final bill is written and implemented.
The change is being framed as a “backs down” moment by the government—indicating pressure from major technology companies and/or concerns about the broader public impact of encryption weakening. The wording of the report highlights that the midnight amendment was central to the shift, suggesting that the final language likely reflects negotiations or political calculations that make direct encryption disruption less likely.
The report underscores the contrast between encryption-breaking and other surveillance methods. Encryption-breaking would have been among the most controversial mechanisms, because it potentially affects the security of communications for ordinary users and could set a precedent for weakening end-to-end protections. By contrast, location tracking and microphone access are also intrusive, but they are often approached through warrants, targeted authorizations, or device-level capabilities rather than systemic weakening of cryptography.
Supporters of strong investigative tools argue that modern crimes and threats require authorities to access information quickly and effectively. From that perspective, retaining location tracking and mic access would preserve key operational capabilities while avoiding a requirement that companies directly defeat encryption.
Critics, on the other hand, typically warn that any surveillance law touching devices and communications risks expanding beyond narrow targets, creating privacy harms, or introducing legal uncertainty for technology providers. The report’s focus on “big tech” influence implies that at least some of those concerns—especially those relating to encryption—have been strong enough to alter government plans.
The C-22 debate appears to be pivoting toward a more limited but still meaningful package of powers. Rather than forcing encryption bypass, the government’s revised approach suggests it will rely on other forms of technical access and intelligence gathering. That includes tracking the physical or digital location of devices and obtaining audio input through microphone-related access, which raises additional questions about safeguards, oversight, proportionality, and how such measures are authorized and audited.
While the report does not detail every procedural step, the emphasis on committee action and a specific amendment suggests that the legislative process is still evolving. What matters most in this update is the direction of travel: the government is reportedly no longer seeking encryption-breaking, but it is not abandoning surveillance expansion altogether.
This development is likely to intensify public and political debate. Encryption is often treated as foundational to secure communications; removing encryption-breaking efforts could be seen as a compromise designed to reduce broad security risks and public backlash. Yet keeping microphone access and location tracking ensures that privacy concerns will remain prominent, since these features can enable continuous or repeated monitoring.
The report also signals a broader theme in technology policy: how governments negotiate with major platform providers over what is feasible, enforceable, and acceptable. By adjusting the proposal at the last minute, the administration is portrayed as responding to industry pressure and/or recognizing the practical and constitutional challenges involved in undermining encryption.
In summary, the Carney government’s C-22 position has reportedly changed after a midnight committee amendment. The government will not pursue encryption-breaking measures, but will continue to support provisions that allow location tracking and microphone access. The update highlights a partial retreat from the most controversial aspect of the bill while preserving other surveillance capabilities. Source: Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸
Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸: ‼️BREAKING‼️ Carney government BACKS DOWN to big tech in midnight committee amendment will NOT seek encryption breaking in C-22 however, location tracking and microphone access remain. #breaking
— @Tablesalt13 May 1, 2026