Law Bytes

The battle over a digital services tax has been the subject of Law Bytes podcast episodes for several years as the Canadian government signalled its intent to move ahead with one even as US officials warned of risks of trade retaliation if they did so outside of an international framework. With the DST now in effect, what does trade law have to say and how might the US respond? Meredith Lilly is a full Professor and Simon Reisman Chair in International Economic Policy at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. She joins me on the podcast to discuss the current digital trade policy tensions, what our agreements say about complaints and retaliation, as well as explain why a U.S. response on at least the DST seems likely.

It isn’t news that the Canadian news sector is broken: the Online News Act has caused more harm the good, the dependence on government funding and regulation has grown dramatically and undermined public trust, and implementing Bill C-18 has become mired in controversy. Peter Menzies spent three decades as a working journalist and newspaper executive, most notably with the Calgary Herald where he served as its editorial page editor, editor in chief and, finally, publisher. He then spent another 10 years at the CRTC, including four as Vice Chair of Telecommunications. Peter been one of the most prominent voices on the state of the news sector in Canada and he joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss recent developments alongside proposed reforms that might do a better job of addressing mounting concerns over the independence of the press.

The recent CRTC Bill C-11 decision mandating that streaming services pay 5 percent of their revenues has left seemingly everyone unhappy and sparked multiple legal challenges. While much of the focus has been on video streaming, music was a core part of Bill C-11 and the implications for music streaming services may be the most pronounced. Will Page is the perfect person to unpack these issues. He is the author of the critically acclaimed book Tarzan Economics, the former Chief Economist of Spotify and PRS for Music, the co-host the Bubble Trouble podcast and a regular contributor to BBC, Financial Times, and The Economist. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to provide new data on what the CRTC’s numbers mean and why the decision could ultimately move the Canadian market backwards rather than forward.

Parliament adjourned for the summer last week, meaning both the House of Commons and Senate are largely on hold until mid-September. The Law Bytes podcast focuses intensively on Canadian legislative and digital policy developments and with another Parliamentary year in the books, this week’s episode takes a look back and take stock of where things stand. It features discussion on the implementation of the Internet streaming and news bills (C-11 and C-18) as well as an analysis of the current state of privacy, AI, online harms, and digital tax as found in Bills C-27, C-63, C-69, S-210 and C-27.

The question of copyright and digital locks – technically referred to as anti-circumvention legislation – dates back more than 25 years with creation of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Internet Treaties and later in Canada with the enactment of the Copyright Modernization Act. The full scope and application of those digital lock rules has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly over how fair dealing fits into the equation. The Federal Court of Canada recently issued a landmark decision on the issue which concludes that digital locks should not trump fair dealing. CIPPIC, the University of Ottawa’s public interest technology law clinic, raised the key arguments on the issue in an intervention in the case led by James Plotkin, a partner with the law firm Gowlings, and David Fewer, CIPPIC’s Director and General Counsel. They join the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the ruling and to clear up some of the misinformation that has been circulating since its release.

Last week, the CRTC released its much-anticipated Bill C-11 ruling on the initial mandated contributions from Internet streaming services. While the government focused on the requirement to contribute 5% of Canadian revenues, a closer look revealed the CRTC largely ignored industry data and the actual contributions from Internet streaming services and seemed entirely unconcerned by the effects on competition and consumer costs. Len St-Aubin is the former Director General of Telecommunications Policy at Industry Canada and played a role in the development of both the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act. He provided consulting services to Netflix until 2020 and has since been an active participant in the debate on Internet policy. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the CRTC ruling, the state of TV and film production in Canada, and what may lie ahead for the streamers, creators, and consumers.

Bill S-210, the mandated age verification bill for pornography sites that in reality targets everything from Google Search to Netflix, was expected to be the subject of extensive hearings by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. But after a Conservative filibuster, it appears that there will be only one hearing and that the bill will be reported back to the House unamended. Before that vote, this week’s Law Bytes podcast offers up a “what could have been” hearing on the bill. It features my mock opening statement alongside responses to some of the actual questions raised by MPs on issues such as privacy, website blocking, and poorly defined terms in the bill.

Bill C-27, Canada’s proposed privacy reform and AI regulation bill, continues to slowly work its way through the committee process at the House of Commons with the clause-by-clause review of the AI portion of the bill still weeks or even months away. Recently a group of nearly 60 leading civil society organizations, corporations, experts and academics released an open letter calling on the government to separate the bill into two. Andrew Clement has been an important voice in that group as he tracked not only the committee hearings but also dug into the consultation process surrounding the bill. Clement is a Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto, where he coordinates the Information Policy Research Program and co-founded the Identity Privacy and Security Institute (IPSI). He joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about AI regulation in Canada, concerns with the bill, and offers insights into the legislative and consultative process.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently claimed that “we’ve cut the cost of cell phone plans in half since 2019 - in part by increasing competition.” Is that true? What is the real state of Canadian wireless competition and how does pricing compare with other countries? To help answer those questions, this week David Soberman, a Professor of Marketing at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and the Canadian National Chair of Strategic Marketing joins the Law Bytes podcast. Professor Soberman’s research is focused on understanding how the operation of markets is affected by the exchange of information between organizations and customers, relationships within the distribution channel and the introduction of innovations to markets.

Concerns about the impact of social media on youth have been brewing for a long time, but in recent months a new battleground has emerged: the courts, who are home to lawsuits launched by school boards seeking billions in compensation and demands that the social media giants change their products to better protect kids. Those lawsuits have now come to Canada with four Ontario school boards recently filing claims. Robert Diab is a professor of law at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia. He writes about constitutional and human rights, as well as topics in law and technology. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to provide a comparison between the Canadian and US developments, a deep dive into alleged harms and legal arguments behind the claims, and an assessment of the likelihood of success.

A little over five years ago, I launched the Law Bytes podcast with an episode featuring Elizabeth Denham, then the UK’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, who provided her perspective on Canadian privacy law. I must admit that I didn’t know what the future would hold for the podcast, but I certainly did not envision reaching 200 episodes. I think it’s been a fun, entertaining, and educational ride. I’m grateful to the incredible array of guests, to Gerardo Lebron Laboy, who has been there to help produce every episode, and to the listeners who regularly provide great feedback. The podcast this week goes back to where it started with a look at Canadian privacy through the eyes of Europe. It flew under the radar screen for many, but earlier this year the EU concluded that Canada’s privacy law still provides an adequate level of protection for personal information. The decision comes as a bit of surprise to many given that Bill C-27 is currently at clause-by-clause review and there has been years of criticism that the law is outdated. To help understand the importance of the EU adequacy finding and its application to Canada, Colin Bennett, one of the world’s leading authorities on privacy and privacy governance, joins the podcast.

The Online Harms Act – otherwise known as Bill C-63 – is really at least three bills in one. The Law Bytes podcast tackled the Internet platform portion of the bill last month in an episode with Vivek Krishnamurthy and then last week Professor Richard Moon joined to talk about the return of Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act. Part three may the most controversial: the inclusion of Criminal Code changes that have left even supporters of the bill uncomfortable. Boris Bytensky of the firm Bytensky Shikhman has been a leading Canadian criminal law lawyer for decades and currently serves as President of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. He joins the podcast to discuss the bill’s Criminal Code reforms as he identifies some of the practical implications that have thus far been largely overlooked in the public debate.

The public debate surrounding Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has focused primarily on Human Rights Act and Criminal Code reforms. The Human Rights Act changes include the return of Section 13 on hate speech, which was repealed by the Harper government after criticisms that it unduly chilled freedom of expression. To help understand the history of Section 13 and its latest iteration, this week Professor Richard Moon, Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law at the University of Windsor joins the Law Bytes podcast. The Canadian Human Rights Commission asked Professor Moon to conduct a study on Section 13 in 2008 and his report is the leading source on its history and application. In this episode, we discuss that history and consider the benefits and risks of inserting it into Bill C-63.

New legislation making its way through the U.S. Congress has placed a TikTok ban back on the public agenda. The bill – which would lead to either a divestiture or ban – has passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. On the Canadian front, TikTok is already prohibited on government devices at the federal level alongside some provinces, the government has quietly conducted a national security review, and there are new calls to ban it altogether from the Canadian market. Anupam Chander is a law professor at Georgetown University and leading expert on the global regulation of new technologies. He joined the Law Bytes podcast several years ago when a TikTok ban was raised by the Trump Administration and he returns this week to discuss the latest developments and their broader implications.

The federal government has struggled to update Canadian privacy laws over the past decade, leaving the Supreme Court as perhaps the leading source of privacy protection. In 2014, the court issued the Spencer decision, which affirmed a reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber information and earlier this month it released the Bykovets decision, which extends the reasonable expectation of privacy to IP addresses. Vibert Jack is the litigation director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, which successfully intervened in the case. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to examine the case, including the evolution of Canadian law, the court's analysis, and the implications of Bykovets for Internet privacy in Canada.

The Online Harms Act is the culmination of years of public debate over whether – or how – the government should establish a regulatory framework for Internet platforms in dealing with online harms. Bill C-63 is already attracting considerable controversy, particularly over proposed changes to the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act. To help unpack the bill, Vivek Krishnamurthy, an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School, joins this week’s Law Bytes podcast. Vivek is a former colleague and Director of the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic and he served as a Commissioner on the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression and was a member of the government’s Expert Panel on Online Harms.

Twenty years ago today the Supreme Court of Canada released CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada, a decision that stands as perhaps the most consequential in Canadian copyright law history as it would firmly establish fair dealing as a users right and serve as the foundation for copyright law in Canada for decades to come. Leading off the hearing several months earlier for the Law Society was Scott Jolliffe, an IP litigator with the law firm Gowlings. Jolliffe was charged with arguing the fair dealing aspects of the case, but it was only at last moment that users right entered the picture. To mark its 20th anniversary, Jolliffe joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the CCH case, his strategy and insights from the hearing, and his thoughts on its impact many years later.

The government plans to introduce the Online Harms Act later today, bringing forward long-delayed legislation that will include new responsibilities and liabilities for Internet platforms alongside an extensive complaints and enforcement governance structure. What is likely to be Bill C-63 will focus on protecting children online and will be the most contentious of the government’s Internet regulation bills given the challenge of balancing safeguards with freedom of expression. This week’s Law Bytes podcast features a combined backgrounder and preview of the bill as I walk through the years of failed consultations, expert panels, changing ministers, and challenges in bringing it forward, highlight the key issues at stake, and contrast the online harms bill with Bill S-210, which seems destined to share the spotlight.

Bill C-26, alternately described as a cyber-security, critical infrastructure or telecom bill, remains largely below the radar screen despite its serious implications for privacy, expression, and affordable network access. The bill is currently being studied at a House of Commons committee that seems more interested in partisan political gamesmanship rather than substantive hearings. Kate Robertson is lawyer and senior research associate at the Citizen Lab in the Munk School at the University of Toronto who is a former criminal counsel and the co-author of one of the most extensive Bill C-26 committee submissions. She appeared last week at the committee studying the bill, but with limited opportunity to engage on the issues, she joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the bill, the concerns it raises, and some of the potential fixes.

European countries reached agreement late last week on a landmark legislative package to regulate artificial intelligence. AI regulation has emerged as a key issue over the past year as the explosive growth of ChatGPT and other generative AI services have sparked legislation, lawsuits and national consultations. The EU AI Act is heralded as the first of its kind and as a model for Canadian AI rules. Luca Bertuzzi is a Brussels-based tech journalist who was widely regarded as the leading source of information and analysis about the unfolding negotiations involving the EU AI Act. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to explain the EU process, the ongoing opposition by some countries, and the future steps for AI regulation in Europe.