Which specific Canadian provinces, if any, have issued formal statements for or against Bill C-2?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A review of the supplied reporting finds no evidence that any Canadian provincial government has issued a formal public statement either for or against Bill C-2; instead the documented public interventions about the bill come from the federal government and from civil-society groups and legal experts, including several provincial organizations based in British Columbia (BC) that have publicly opposed the measure [1] [2] [3] [4]. The federal government has published explanatory material and framed the measure as strengthening border security, while national coalitions and privacy groups have mobilized formal joint letters calling for withdrawal [1] [2] [3].
1. What the official federal record says about Bill C-2
The Government of Canada and federal departments have produced explanatory pages and Charter material describing Bill C-2 as the “Strong Borders Act,” outlining powers for law enforcement and CSIS to obtain information and to facilitate disclosures between federal and provincial entities, and asserting that privacy and Charter protections are considered in the drafting [1] [5] [6]. Parliamentary legislative records and legislative summaries are available through LEGISinfo and Parliament’s Bill pages, but those federal sources do not catalogue any formal statements issued by provincial governments about the bill [7].
2. No provincial government statements found in the reporting provided
Across the supplied sources — which include government pages, Parliament records, legal commentary and civil society releases — there is no citation or excerpt showing a provincial cabinet, premier, or provincial ministry issuing a formal public statement in support of or in opposition to Bill C-2; the available official materials are federal [7] [6] [1]. Because the dataset reviewed contains no provincial government press releases or quoted provincial ministers on this bill, the reporting supports the conclusion that, based on these sources, provinces have not been recorded as taking formal, public positions [7].
3. Provincial civil-society actors and provincial associations that have spoken out
Although provincial governments don’t appear in the dataset, provincial civil-society and expert organizations have been prominent in opposition: British Columbia organizations — explicitly the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association — are signatories or authors in coalition letters and critical analyses that call for withdrawal or warn of privacy harms, and B.C.-based groups are named among over 300 organizations united to demand withdrawal of Bill C-2 [2] [4]. These are formal statements from provincial organizations but not from provincial governments; the reporting distinguishes civic and academic letters from official provincial government positions [2] [3].
4. Federal framing and the national opposition coalition
The federal public-facing framing of Bill C-2 as strengthening border security and enabling authorized access to information is explicit in federal departamental materials (Public Safety and Justice) and parliamentary texts [1] [6]. At the same time, national advocacy groups and legal experts have produced coordinated, formal demands for withdrawal and public critiques — including a joint letter signed by dozens of civil liberties groups and 122 legal experts — which argue the bill expands surveillance powers and raises Charter concerns [2] [3].
5. Limits of the evidence and what remains unknown
This analysis is constrained to the supplied reporting: because none of the provided sources contain a provincial-government press release, official statement, or quoted provincial minister on Bill C-2, it is not possible from these materials to assert that a province has formally supported or opposed the bill; absence in this dataset is not proof provinces have taken no position, only that no such positions are documented here [7] [1]. To confirm definitively whether any province later issued a formal statement, one would need to search provincial government press-release archives or media coverage beyond the sources provided.
Conclusion
Based on the supplied sources, formal public positions about Bill C-2 are visible from the federal government (explanatory materials and legislative text) and from national and provincial civil-society organizations (notably several B.C.-based groups) opposing the bill, but no provincial government has been documented in these sources as issuing a formal statement for or against Bill C-2 [1] [6] [2] [4]. The reporting therefore supports the clear, narrowly scoped conclusion: no provincial government statements are present in the provided material, while provincial NGOs — especially in British Columbia — have publicly opposed the bill.