Digital policy did not play a major role in the recent federal election, but the new Mark Carney Liberal government is quickly going to face a wide range of digital-related policy questions. This week’s Law Bytes podcast examines the short, medium and longer term issues including the future of the digital services tax, Canadian digital sovereignty, and the fate of legislation that did not make it past the finish line in the last Parliament.
Articles by: Michael Geist
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards
As the 2025 federal election passes the midway point, it is increasingly apparent that the federal political parties are not only battling for votes, but also for data. Canadians may not see it but political parties are data machines anxious to collect and use as much data about potential supporters as possible. Sara Bannerman is the Canada Research Chair in Communications Policy and Governance at McMaster University. She has been examining the privacy concerns with Canadian political parties for years, highlighting the disconnect between the expectations of Canadians and the reality on the ground. She joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss Canadian political party privacy – or lack thereof – and explains the role that data plays in the modern political party machinery.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation
The 2025 federal election is now in its second week and the battle for attention and ultimately votes is taking place both online and offline. The enormous influence of online sites such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and a handful of others raises real issues about how information spreads, its reliability, and risks of misinformation and disinformation. Aengus Bridgman is the Director of the Media Ecosystem Observatory and an Assistant Professor (Research) at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. A contributor to studies on information issues in multiple federal and provincial elections, he is one of Canada’s leading experts on misinformation, digital activism, and the politics of digital media. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the state of the major platforms in Canada in 2025, how our information ecosystem is vulnerable to misinformation, and what we should be doing about it.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 229: My Digital Access Day Keynote – Assessing the Canadian Digital Policy Record
With a federal election just called and the campaign now underway, the focus will turn – at least in very small part – to party policies. It is certainly possible that digital issues such as AI regulation, online harms, and the fate of Internet laws will merit a mention. I’m hoping to cover those issues in the weeks ahead, but this week, I offer one last look back. Last month, I delivered the keynote opening address at Digital Access Day, an annual forum on digital policy run by the Canadian Internet Society. I recorded the talk – which focused on the end of some bills and the potential start of something new. While things have changing rapidly over the past month, I think it still provides a useful review and it is included in its entirety in this week’s Law Bytes podcast.
Queen’s University Trustees Reject Divestment Efforts Emphasizing the Importance of Institutional Neutrality
The Queen’s University Board of Trustees last week rejected efforts to require divestment of the university’s endowment and investment funds from companies conducting business with or in the State of Israel and declined to implement a negative screening process for future investments. The decision, which adopted a review committee’s assessment, stands as one of the more detailed analysis of the issue at a Canadian university. Some universities have declined to even consider the possibility and others have held open hearings on the issue. But Queen’s agreed to full committee review, sparking consultations and numerous submissions.
The review committee’s report identifies several reasons to reject the divestment proposals including fiduciary obligations that require that the University’s investments be managed prudently with a view to maximizing financial returns, the lack of consensus on the political issues, and the acknowledged ineffectiveness of divestment policies. The report also notably relies on the importance of institutional neutrality in reaching its decision.