Business
Bank of Canada survey reveals 86% of Canadians opposed to creating digital ‘dollar’
From LifeSiteNews
The main findings show that Canadians place a ‘high value on holding cash that is backed by their central bank and want to maintain access to bank notes.’
An overwhelming majority, 86% of Canadians, are opposed to the creation of a national digital dollar and want the government and banks to “leave cash alone,” according to results from a recent Bank of Canada (BOC) survey concerning the creation of a “potential digital Canadian dollar.”
In a press release yesterday, the BOC published the feedback it got concerning the creation of a “potential digital Canadian dollar.” The bank says it has been collecting information since 2020 with “stakeholders in the financial sector and civil society.”
The main findings from the BOC’s survey show that Canadians place a “high value on holding cash that is backed by their central bank and want to maintain access to bank notes.”
“Canadians value their right to privacy and many expressed concerns that a digital dollar could compromise that right,” the BOC said about another main finding from its report.
The BOC noted that should a digital dollar be created, it “should be easily accessible and should neither add barriers nor worsen existing ones.”
“A digital dollar should not add to financial stability risks,” the BOC said.
The survey, which was open from May 8 to June 19, 2023, received 89,423 responses. A total of 87% of respondents said they were “aware” of talk concerning the creation of a digital dollar.
The survey results come after the BOC in August admitted that the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) is not needed as many people rely on “cash” to pay for things. The bank concluded that the introduction of a digital currency would only be feasible if consumers demanded its release.
Canadians prefer cash as the best payment method, but bank has not fully ruled out digital dollar
Some 93% of the BOC’s survey respondents said that they continue to use cash as a payment form in addition to the use of debit and credit cards. A total of 66% of respondents said that having access to a digital currency was not important.
A total of 88% of respondents said they were not interested in the creation of an additional “offline” payment method such as an offline digital dollar in addition to cash.
While 85% of respondents said they would not use a digital dollar, 12% said they would, with 3% being uncertain.
Of important note is that the BOC has not ruled out the creation of a digital dollar despite the report’s findings.
The BOC said it “aims to ensure that Canadians will continue to have the benefits of money issued by the central bank in an increasingly digitalized world.”
“Whether and when a digital dollar will become needed is uncertain. Ultimately, the decision to go ahead with a digital dollar belongs to Canadians, through their representatives in Parliament,” the BOC said.
As reported by LifeSiteNews in May, the BOC was looking for public feedback on whether such a form of digital currency, which experts have warned could mean an end to purchasing anonymity, would be viable for Canadians.
Overall, the report found that when all answers were combined, the creation of a digital dollar garnered 86% negative feedback.
According to the BOC, a CBDC would have to offer “compelling advantages to motivate these consumers – particularly the typical, well-connected consumers who account for most of the market — to adopt and use CBDC at sufficient scale to generate widespread merchant acceptance.”
Digital currencies have been touted as a way by some government officials to replace traditional cash.
As noted in a report from LifeSiteNews, experts warn that central bank digital currencies are a “control tool” of governments.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre promised that if he is elected prime minister, he would stop any implementation of a “digital currency” or a compulsory “digital ID” system.
The BOC at the time said that any final decision on when and if a digital Canadian dollar is issued would be up to the government.
Artificial Intelligence
Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data
By Ken Macon
Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.
|
When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.
Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.
Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.
The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.
It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”
The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”
Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.
Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.
The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”
This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.
There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.
They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.
The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.
Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”
In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.
The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.
The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”
The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.
Google is yet to comment on the filing.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net is reader-supported. Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
|
|
|
|
Business
Nearly One-Quarter of Consumer-Goods Firms Preparing to Exit Canada, Industry CEO Warns Parliament
Standing Committee on Industry and Technology hears stark testimony that rising costs and stalled investment are pushing companies out of the Canadian market.
There’s a number that should stop this country cold: twenty-three percent. That is the share of companies in one of Canada’s essential manufacturing and consumer-goods sectors now preparing to withdraw products from the Canadian market or exit entirely within the next two years. And this wasn’t whispered at a business luncheon or buried in a consultancy memo. It was delivered straight to Parliament, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, during its study on Canada’s underlying productivity gaps and capital outflow.
Michael Graydon, the CEO of Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada, didn’t hedge or soften the message. He told MPs, “23% of our members expect to exit products from the Canadian marketplace within the next two years, because the cost of doing business here has just become unsustainable.”
Unsustainable. That’s the word he used. And when the people who actually make things in this country start using that word, you should pay attention. These aren’t fringe players or hypothetical startups. These are firms that supply the goods Canadians buy every single day, and they’re looking at their balance sheets, their regulatory burdens, the delays in getting anything approved or built, and concluding that Canada simply doesn’t work for them anymore.
What makes this more troubling is the timing. Canada’s investment levels have been falling for years, even as the United States and other competitors race ahead. Businesses aren’t reinvesting in machinery or technology at the rate they once did. They’re not modernizing their operations here. They’re putting expansion plans on hold or shifting them to jurisdictions that move faster, cost less and offer clearer rules. That’s not ideology; it’s arithmetic. If it costs more to operate here, if it takes longer to get a permit, and if supply chains back up because ports and rail lines are jammed, investors will choose the place that doesn’t make growth a bureaucratic mountain climb.
Graydon raised another point that ought to concern anyone who cares about domestic production. Canada’s agrifood sector recorded a sixty-billion-dollar trade surplus last year, one of the brightest spots in the national economy, but according to him that potential is being “diluted by fragmented interprovincial trade and logistics bottlenecks.” The ports, the rail corridors, the entire transport network—choke points everywhere. And you can’t build a productive economy on choke points. Companies can’t scale, can’t guarantee delivery, can’t justify the costs. So they leave.
This twenty-three percent figure is the clearest evidence yet that the problem isn’t theoretical. It’s not something for think-tank panels or academic papers. It is happening at the level that matters most: the decision whether to continue doing business in Canada or move operations somewhere more predictable. And once those decisions are made, they’re very hard to reverse. Capital doesn’t boomerang back out of patriotism. It goes where it can earn a return.
For years, Canadian policymakers have talked about productivity as if it were a moral failing of workers or a mystical national characteristic. It’s neither. Productivity comes from investment—real money poured into equipment, technology, training and expansion. When investment stalls, productivity collapses. And when a quarter of firms in a major sector are already planning their exit, you are not looking at a temporary dip. You are looking at a structural rejection of the business environment itself.
The fact that executives are now openly warning Parliament that they cannot afford to stay is a moment of clarity. It is also a test. Either this country becomes a place where people can build things again—quickly, affordably, competitively—or it continues down the path that leads to empty factories, hollowed-out supply chains and consumers who wonder why the shelves look thinner every year.
Twenty-three percent is not just a statistic. It’s the sound of a warning bell ringing at full volume. The only question now is whether anyone in charge hears it.
Bondi and Patel deliver explosive “Clinton Corruption Files” to Congress
Richmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
ATA Collect $72 Million in Dues But Couldn’t Pay Striking Teachers a Dime
Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending
Federal budget: It’s not easy being green
Sluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy
A picture is worth a thousand spreadsheets
-
Agriculture2 days agoFederal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police
-
Daily Caller22 hours agoDemocrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump
-
Uncategorized2 days agoCost of bureaucracy balloons 80 per cent in 10 years: Public Accounts
-
Addictions2 days agoActivists Claim Dealers Can Fix Canada’s Drug Problem
-
Alberta1 day agoEdmonton and Red Deer to Host 2027 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship
-
Alberta1 day agoAlbertans choose new licence plate design with the “Strong and Free” motto
-
Crime10 hours ago‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer