Check It Out: Ask your financial institution questions
By Joan Janzen
Someone said, “I received a phone call saying I won $35,000.00. To complete the transaction, they needed my bank details. Certainly, I replied. It’s a big building on Main Street.”
That may very well be the extent of banking information that you can safely give to a third party. Meanwhile, digital technology is moving onward.
Early this year, Newfoundland and Labrador government expressed an interest in launching a digital ID pilot project later in 2023. An article by CBC News had the Digital Government Minister describe it as a huge opportunity to protect the privacy of Canadians.
Convenience was also listed as an advantage. As an example, the Minister cited showing one’s driver’s licence as proof of age. The Minister said flashing one’s digital ID would be more convenient than sharing all the details on a driver’s licence.
The Minister reassured people, stressing that it would be optional. However, very recent memories of an option becoming mandatory may leave Canadians skeptical of such promises.
A written statement by the province’s Privacy Commissioner proved to validate concerns people may have. He said, while the convenience of digital ID would be significant, if information were to be lost, improperly disclosed or misused, it could cause a great deal of harm.
Economist Tanner Hnidey addressed the topic on his online platform. He observed that if an individual loses an abundance of freedom, it’s often because he’s given up a lot of his economic freedom first. He invited Brett Oland, CEO of Bow Valley Credit Union in Alberta, as his guest to discuss the world of banking.
Brett has been in the world of banking for a couple of decades and has a BComm, CA, and CPA. He discussed changes to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) that came with the new federal budget. FINTRAC was the main tool the government used to suppress the Freedom Trucker convoy.
It was started after 9-11 as a safety measure to protect us against terrorists. He described it as a very blunt instrument that they are turning into a bit of a scalpel.
“They’re throwing a bunch of money at the FINTRAC program in this year’s budget, and these are some of the things they’re going to do. Of course, it’s always about our safety and soundness,” Brett noted. “They’re calling it modernizing the federal financial system to address emerging risks of the financial sector.”
They’re using FINTRAC to strengthen investigation and enforcement and information-sharing tools within Canada’s asset management liability system. These legislation changes will give law enforcement the ability to freeze and seize your virtual assets, allow information sharing between law enforcement, CRA and FINTRAC, introduce new offensive structures for financial transactions, trying to avoid FINTRAC and criminalize some operations.
“Probably one of the scariest things they’re doing is when they say something like establish powers for FINTRAC to disseminate strategic analysis related to financing of threats to the safety of Canada,” Brett said. “What they’re talking about is Artificial Intelligence (AI).”
He said this means they are creating AI bots right within the FINTRAC system. “I don’t think there’s been any recorded charges being laid or arrests being made as a result of FINTRAC in 23 years. But if they tie it to AI, that’s a very different tool that they have in their possession.”
They’re also giving additional powers to the Minister of Finance and the director of FINTRAC to get these security threats under control within Canada. “It’s some very scary stuff,” he observed.
But he said we can get away from this to some degree. We can talk to our local politicians and tell them we don’t want to be spied on by FINTRAC. Through the Alberta Sovereignty Act, Premier Danielle Smith is trying to create an Alberta Bank Act and revise the Alberta Credit Union Act so they can step away from the federal government on what they’re trying to do with FINTRAC.
There’s also an election in Alberta at the end of the month, and raging fires that could cause havoc with voters who may need to vote remotely. Lately, Brett said he’s had a lot of interaction with people who are being forced to sign a digital banking agreement. The bank’s terms and conditions of the agreement are available online.
He noted, “With some of the stuff, you have the ability to turn it off, such as location sharing, push notifications, and fingerprint and facial recognition. But some of the things you can’t turn off within these terms and conditions are the collection and use and disclosure of personal information. Basically, they cite it as being their information once you put it in there. And they share this information with their worldwide affiliates.”
One of those affiliates, in this particular instance, was the World Economic Forum (WEF). The evidence was there for all to see on the WEF website.
Also, in the terms and conditions, the institution could make changes to the agreement at any time regarding one’s privacy, ownership and terms without any forewarning.
Tanner observed that technology is neither immoral nor moral. It’s all dependent on the way the organization uses that technology that determines the future of society. As for the Bow Valley Credit Union, Brett said they’re not interested in sharing people’s information outside of their organization.
He went on to explain that unlike banks, Credit Unions aren’t regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFIE). That organization was established in 1987 to contribute to the safety and wellness of the Canadian financial system. The Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation is regulated by its members and the federal government has no jurisdiction other than FINTRAC.
Brett advised Canadians to conduct research on their financial institution. “Ask who their partners are. People spend more time researching what kind of TV they want to buy than they do researching their financial institution,” he observed.
Tanner said the best way to resist these infringements on our privacy is to resist it before it exists. “I think the sooner you can hop on something like this, as we are now, the more effective and the greater the opportunity the nation has of ever stopping its imposition. That seems to be a much more desirable outcome than actually having it imposed and then trying to get rid of it down the line.”