NEWS HEADLINES: Bill C-2 UPROAR — What’s Canada REALLY Up To?

Canada’s new Bill C-2 would criminalize cash transactions over $10,000, triggering a fierce constitutional challenge from pro-freedom advocates who warn that financial surveillance represents a dangerous step toward government control.

Key Takeaways

• Bill C-2, introduced as the “Strong Borders Act,” contains provisions that would prohibit cash payments over $10,000 and restrict third-party cash deposits
• The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has launched a petition against the bill, arguing it infringes on Canadians’ privacy rights and personal freedoms
• The bill imposes severe penalties for non-compliance, with civil penalties up to $4 million for individuals and $20 million for entities
• Critics argue the legislation represents a concerning step toward a surveillance state where every financial transaction is monitored
• The Conservative Party of Canada has voiced opposition, claiming the bill conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Financial Freedom Under Threat

Bill C-2, deceptively named the “Strong Borders Act,” extends far beyond immigration concerns to fundamentally alter Canadians’ financial privacy. The legislation, first read on June 3, 2025, proposes sweeping amendments to Canada’s Anti-Money Laundering regime that would criminalize cash transactions exceeding $10,000. While the Trudeau government frames these measures as necessary to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, critics see a more sinister agenda at work – the systematic elimination of financial privacy and the creation of a digital surveillance infrastructure.

The bill’s most concerning provisions include prohibiting cash payments over $10,000, restricting third-party cash deposits, and banning anonymous accounts. These restrictions would fundamentally alter how Canadians conduct business, make charitable donations, and maintain financial privacy from government oversight. The legislation would require all businesses regulated for anti-money laundering purposes to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), effectively creating a comprehensive database of financial activities across the country.

Constitutional Challenge Emerges

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has launched a petition against Bill C-2, mobilizing Canadians concerned about government overreach. The JCCF argues that cash transactions represent one of the last bastions of privacy in an increasingly surveilled society. Their petition emphasizes that physical currency allows citizens to conduct legitimate business without constant monitoring by financial institutions, credit card companies, or government agencies – a fundamental aspect of liberty in a free society.

“Cash is under attack in Canada. When cash is criminalized, governments, banks, and law enforcement can track and interfere with legitimate purchases and donations,” states the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).

The Conservative Party has joined the opposition, highlighting that the bill appears to conflict with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. President Trump’s successful defense of cash and opposition to central bank digital currencies stands in stark contrast to the Canadian government’s apparent push toward a cashless society where every transaction can be monitored, approved, or denied by authorities. This ideological divide reflects broader differences in how conservatives and progressives view the relationship between citizens and government.

Severe Penalties and Expanded Powers

Bill C-2 doesn’t merely restrict cash – it creates a punitive enforcement mechanism with civil penalties up to $4 million for individuals and $20 million for entities found in violation. The legislation would dramatically expand FINTRAC’s authority, elevating its director to membership in the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee and enhancing information sharing across institutions. Critics argue these powers, combined with amendments to personal information protection laws, create a comprehensive surveillance apparatus under the guise of fighting money laundering.

“Cash means freedom from surveillance: by government, by banks, by credit card companies, and by other businesses,” states the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).

The bill’s scope extends beyond financial transactions to include amendments to the Customs Act, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Criminal Code, Canada Post Corporation Act, and numerous other statutes. This omnibus approach has raised concerns about inadequate legislative scrutiny, with critics suggesting the financial provisions are being hidden within a broader “border security” narrative to minimize public opposition. In particular, Part 16 of the bill would allow certain entities to collect and use personal information without consent for detecting money laundering.

Growing Opposition Movement

As awareness of Bill C-2’s implications spreads, opposition is growing beyond traditional conservative circles. The JCCF’s petition has gained traction among Canadians concerned about privacy and personal liberty, regardless of political affiliation. The fundamental question at stake is whether citizens have the right to conduct legitimate business without constant government surveillance – a principle that transcends partisan divides and speaks to core Canadian values of freedom and personal autonomy.

“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny,” said JCCF president John Carpay.

The bill’s sweeping provisions have also raised questions about its true purpose. While proponents claim it targets money laundering and terrorist financing, critics point out that the legislation’s restrictions on anonymous donations could have profound implications for political opposition groups and charitable organizations. By controlling the flow of cash, the government gains unprecedented power to monitor – and potentially restrict – funding for causes it may find objectionable, representing a fundamental threat to democratic principles.