John Carpay: Public safety is important but we shouldn’t surrender our privacy

Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Tech Style & Beauty Kitchen & Dining Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeNP CommentJohn Carpay: Public safety is important but we shouldn't surrender our privacyBill C-22 would expand the federal government’s surveillance powers, likely including our AI interactionsLast updated 5 minutes ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Expanded state access to AI interactions, as would likely be permitted by the federal government's proposed Bill C-22, would erode anonymity, chill intellectual exploration, encourage self-censorship, and open the door to a new kind of tyranny, warns John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Photo by UnsplashThe horrific February 2026 mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., has sparked fresh debate about public safety and the role of artificial intelligence. Some call for greater government regulation or even nationalization of AI companies. While the desire to prevent future tragedies is laudable, such measures risk seriously damaging Canadians’ privacy, autonomy and freedom of expression.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERSEnjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLESEnjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountWhy do Canadians cherish privacy in the first place? If a person has nothing to hide, why should they care if the authorities can read their emails, texts, or AI conversations? Why does Section 8 of the Charter expressly protect Canadians against unreasonable search and seizure?This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againEven completely innocent people who have nothing to hide rightfully cherish their ability to think, speak, explore ideas and meet with others without the state silently observing their every move. If we are not comfortable with a nosy neighbour or even a close friend knowing everything about us, why should we accept the state having that power?Beyond the intrinsic value of privacy, there is also a practical reason to oppose expanding government surveillance: human nature is a mixture of good and evil. Governments are made up of people, and people in power can do great harm. More citizens were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century than the number of soldiers who died on the battlefields. From Stalin and Mao to Hitler and Pol Pot, state surveillance was a key tool used to enforce obedience, crush dissent, maintain power and perpetrate genocides. Privacy is the shield of a free people.In free societies, therefore, police must go to court to obtain a warrant before conducting ongoing surveillance of a person’s communications. This system allows authorities to target genuine threats while protecting the privacy and property rights of the vast majority of citizens who pose no danger to others. For centuries, Canada’s warrant-based approach has struck the right balance.Nevertheless, tragedies like the Tumbler Ridge shooting have renewed calls for placing Canadians’ private AI interactions under greater state surveillance and control. Eight months before the attack, the shooter had used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to explore ideas involving gun violence. OpenAI banned the user but did not contact police, as it saw no imminent danger. Even the police, who had earlier seized and then returned firearms to the home, did not view the shooter as an immediate threat.Rather than responding with broad new surveillance powers for government, we should instead seek to address the deeper cultural and societal problems that contribute to such violence: family breakdown, loneliness, declining mental health, and a loss of respect for human life. Mass surveillance of AI conversations does not solve these root causes.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.While nationalization or government regulation of AI is framed as a public safety measure, such steps would normalize routine government access to private thoughts and queries.This brings us to Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, now before Parliament. Under the pretext of “public safety,” Bill C-22 would expand the federal government’s surveillance powers, and likely capture AI companies like OpenAI under its broad definition of “electronic service provider.” This could require these AI companies, along with other “core providers” like Rogers, Bell, Google and WhatsApp, to name only a few, to retain metadata for up to one year and build systems for rapid data handover when law enforcement presents a valid authorization.To this end, Bill C-22 also lowers the threshold for obtaining judicial approval for law enforcement to demand users’ subscriber information (name, address, email, IP address, account details, etc.) from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect.”Professor Michael Geist posits that mandatory metadata retention for internet service providers is one of the most privacy-invasive tools available, creating backdoor surveillance capabilities extending beyond the government’s stated anti-crime goals.Expanded state access to AI interactions would erode anonymity, chill intellectual exploration, encourage self-censorship, and open the door to a new kind of tyranny.No matter how important public safety or technological progress may be, we would be foolish to surrender our fundamental freedoms, starting with the essential right to privacy.John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.