Which provinces, stakeholders, or advocacy groups support or oppose Bill C-2 and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Bill C-2 — branded by the government as the Strong Borders Act — is backed publicly by the federal Liberal government as a pillar of its border-security agenda and by law‑enforcement groups arguing it will speed investigations, while a broad coalition of civil society, refugee‑rights, privacy and academic critics oppose it for undermining asylum protections and expanding surveillance powers [1] [2] [3] [4]. Provincial positions are not well documented in the supplied reporting, so this analysis confines claims to the stakeholders and advocacy groups explicitly named in the available sources (reporting limitation: no provincial endorsements or rejections in the provided material).
1. Pro‑government federal actors: Liberals and Public Safety officials framing it as security first
The Liberal federal government formally introduced Bill C-2 and has defended it as responding to voter concerns about border security and to strengthen national security and public safety; government summaries and parliamentary material present it as omnibus legislation to expand enforcement powers and operational support for agencies like the CBSA [5] [1] [2]. Public Safety officials have argued the bill fills gaps in lawful access to information and modernizes tools to deal with transnational criminal networks, a rationale the government uses to justify warrant‑lite authorities and expanded duties for agencies [2] [3].
2. Law enforcement and police leadership: practical gains and faster investigations
Canada’s police chiefs and other policing officials are publicly supportive of some provisions, framing the bill’s authorizations to obtain quick, “bare‑minimum” information from service providers as operationally useful in time‑sensitive investigations and a way to prevent harms such as trafficking and fentanyl distribution [3] [1]. Police advocates emphasize exigent‑circumstance analogues and argue the measures will help early stages of investigations that would otherwise stall under slower warrant processes [3].
3. Civil society and refugee‑rights coalitions: unified, large‑scale opposition
More than 300 organizations — grouped into coalitions representing refugee rights, civil liberties, gender justice and migrant advocacy — have publicly demanded complete withdrawal of the bill, warning it would strip due process from asylum seekers, impose dangerous time limits on survivors of gender‑based violence, and create structural barriers to protection [4]. The Canadian Council for Refugees and allied groups held joint briefings denouncing the bill as an assault on human rights and arguing it would bureaucratically exclude vulnerable people from needed legal avenues [4].
4. Privacy and digital‑rights experts: surveillance, data‑sharing, and cross‑border concerns
Privacy advocates and research centres including the Citizen Lab and OpenMedia have warned that Bill C-2 opens the door to unprecedented surveillance and potential international data‑sharing obligations — notably with the United States — and could enable warrantless access to personal data held by hospitals, banks and other service providers [6] [7] [3]. These organizations argue the legislation’s language is vague enough to enable broad interpretation and that the government has not fully explained potential treaty or CLOUD Act‑style implications [6].
5. Political opponents and academic critics: divided parliamentary response and tactical splits
Opposition parties and some opposition MPs have raised constitutional and civil‑liberties objections, with reporting indicating both Conservatives and New Democrats criticized warrantless access and refugee‑related measures, prompting the government to carve parts of the original bill into other legislative vehicles like C-12 to try to find narrower consensus [8] [9] [10]. Media reporting shows the Commons debate has been partisan and tactical, with the government accusing opponents of delaying public safety measures and critics accusing the government of fast‑tracking controversial “snooping” powers [8] [10] [3].
6. Hidden agendas and competing frames: security, politics, and international leverage
Critics assert the bill serves political goals — shoring up the government’s standing on border control and possibly placating U.S. negotiating partners — while proponents frame it as necessary modernization of lawful access and border enforcement [5] [6] [7]. The Citizen Lab specifically flags an undeclared risk that the legislation prepares Canada for closer data‑sharing deals with the U.S., a geopolitical implication the government’s public summaries have not fully addressed [6]. Where alternative viewpoints exist, reporting shows law enforcement stress operational necessity and civil society stress rights erosion; both frames are present in the public record [3] [4].