Canada’s digital policy has seemingly long proceeded on the assumption that tech companies would draw from an unlimited budget to write bigger cheques to meet government regulation establishing new mandated payments. Despite repeated warnings on Bills C-11 (Internet streaming), C-18 (online news), and a new digital services tax that tech companies – like anyone else – were more likely to respond by adjusting their Canadian budgets or simply passing along new costs to consumers, the government and the bill’s supporters repeatedly dismissed the risks that the plans could backfire. Yet today the bill from those digital policy choices is coming due: legal and trade challenges, blocked news links amid decreasing trust in the media, cancellation of sponsorship deals worth millions of dollars that will be devastating to creators, and a new Google digital advertising surcharge that kicks in next week to offset the costs of the digital services tax.
Blog
New Academic Year Requires New Approach to Combat Campus Antisemitism
The days leading up to a new academic year at a university are typically filled with a mix of excitement and anticipation for both faculty and students alike. My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that this year, it brought trepidation and even fear for many in the Jewish community. At my own university, faculty attended training sessions on coping with potential classroom intruders, including tips for de-escalation strategies and detailed security procedures. Students normally thinking about orientation programming were instead forced to ask themselves difficult questions about whether to conceal their religious or political beliefs, for fear of risking backlash or ostracization from fellow students and even faculty.
Abandoning Institutional Neutrality: Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreements Constrain Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression
The University of Windsor’s agreements with encampment protesters and a student group have rightly raised concerns about antisemitism given their double standard treatment of Israeli institutions and impact on academic freedoms. While much of the initial emphasis has focused on the ill-advised decision to effectively establish a ban on agreements with Israeli institutions and establish conditions not required for any other country, there is another aspect that deserves attention since it undermines the university’s position as a neutral forum for discussion, debate and learning. In light of the diversity of views on campus and the desire for mutually respectful dialogue and engagement, many universities have tried to remain neutral on matters of sensitive politics post-October 7th. But by committing to engage in political advocacy, including issuing a political letter to the governments, lobbying other universities, and releasing a highly charged public statement, Windsor has abandoned the widely accepted fundamental principle of institutional neutrality, thereby constraining academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus.
Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreement Violates Antisemitism and Academic Freedom Standards
The University of Windsor this week reached agreement with protesters in a campus encampment that raises serious concerns of antisemitism and infringement on academic freedom. While most universities across Canada were relying on the University of Toronto court ruling that the encampments were unlawful trespass to clear their encampments, the University of Windsor instead reached agreement that has sparked alarm among many groups. Indeed, given evidence at the House of Common Justice committee of harassment, antisemitism, and hate speech on the Windsor campus, it is astonishing that the university has ignored those threats and instead concluded a discriminatory agreement that fuels fears that Jews are no longer welcome on campus.
Know When to Fold Em: The Big Risk Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax Bet
The Globe and Mail runs my opinion piece on Canada’s digital services tax today. I open by noting that the Canadian government’s efforts to regulate big tech companies sometimes feels like a series of high-stakes poker matches in which the government foolishly bets that readily apparent risks can be ignored. That approach has proven costly: the plan to regulate internet streaming services is now mired in multiple legal challenges in court, while news links on Facebook and Instagram have been blocked in Canada for nearly a year in response to the Online News Act.
The latest high-risk strategy involves the implementation of a digital services tax, which could lead to billions in tariff retaliation targeting some of Canada’s most important economic sectors.
Recent Posts
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4 
Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Tactics Combine Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy 
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects 
“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers
