Law Bytes

Lawful access is back. The decades-long battle has entered a new phase with the introduction of Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act. This bill follows last spring’s attempt to bury lawful access provisions in Bill C-2, a border measures bill. The latest bill covers the two main aspects of lawful access: law enforcement access to personal information held by communication service providers such as ISPs and wireless providers, and the development of surveillance and monitoring capabilities within Canadian networks. To discuss the latest iteration of lawful access, I’m joined on the Law Bytes podcast by David Fraser and Robert Diab for a roundtable discussion of the key elements of the proposed legislation. David is one of Canada’s leading privacy lawyers and a partner with McInness Cooper in Halifax, and Robert is a law professor at Thompson Rivers University in BC and the co-author of a book on search and seizure law.

What are the limits of using AI to help run a legal practice? There is much discussion about what an AI future might look like, but with the rapid development of AI tools, the future may be now. The hot AI service of the moment is Claude AI, which targets various verticals, including software development and legal services. Zack Shapiro is a New York lawyer and the founder of the Rains law firm. He is a Yale Law School grad who clerked in the U.S. federal courts and practiced at Davis Polk in New York. In a trio of recent articles, he draws on his own experience to argue that the general-purpose AI service is already sufficiently powerful to have a transformative effect on legal practice. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss how he did it and what it might mean for the future of legal services. This episode is part of a series of Law Bytes episodes accredited by the Law Society of Ontario for continuing legal education Professionalism Hours. The program contains 45 minutes of Professionalism Content.

Age verification, estimation or inference is seemingly all the rage right now. Vendors are promoting it as the solution to thorny challenges to limit access to certain sites and services and politicians are eager to legislate in that direction, including in Canada with Bill S-209. Hundreds of scientists and technology experts from around the world have taken note of the trend and come together to issue a public letter warning about the privacy, safety and discrimination risks associated with these technologies. Ian Goldberg, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Privacy Enhancing Technologies at the University of Waterloo, was one of the signatories. Ian has long been engaged at the intersection between technology and privacy and joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the age assurance technologies, how privacy enhancing technologies could address some of the concerns, and the risks with current legislative approaches.

Last spring, the government quietly inserted provisions that exempt political parties from the application of privacy protections in Bill C-4, an “affordability measures” bill. The government barely acknowledged the provision in its the study of the bill at the House of Commons and refused to even hear witnesses on the issue. The Senate didn’t play along however. It conducted hearings on the privacy rules and the Senators didn’t like what they heard, amending the bill by including a sunset clause on the privacy provisions that gives that the government three years to come up with something better. The bill heads back to the House of Commons, where the government can either accept the change and have the bill pass or reject the change and send it back again to the Senate. This Law Bytes podcast episode tells the story of what the Senate heard on Bill C-4. It is what the government did not want Canadians to hear and would prefer to ignore altogether. There were witnesses from advocacy groups, but the episode focuses on testimony from privacy commissioners (current and former) along with Elections Canada leadership.

Over the past ten days, Canada has witnessed one of the fastest-moving technology policy debates in recent memory. What began as reporting about a tragic act of violence – the shootings in Tumbler Ridge, BC - quickly evolved into questions about AI safety, corporate responsibility, police reporting obligations, and now potential AI regulation. This week’s Law Bytes podcast is a bit different from the norm. Building off my Globe and Mail op-ed, I walk through what has happened thus far, examine the potential policy responses, and explain why both the Online Harms Act and current AI legislative models are poorly suited to this problem, and argue that Canada instead needs to start thinking seriously instead about an AI Transparency Act.

The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 258: Jaxson Khan With an Insider Perspective on AI Policy Development in Canada Earlier this month, the government quietly released a “what we heard” report this discussing the response to its 30-day sprint AI consultation from last October. The consultation was promoted as giving Canadians – including a 28 person expert advisory board – the chance to provide their views on AI as the AI Minister Evan Solomon works toward a national AI strategy. The consultation garnered some criticism for its speed and missing perspectives on the expert panel. More recently on the use of AI to assess the results have sparked further doubts about it. Jaxson Khan is the CEO and Founder of Aperature AI and a Senior Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. But before that, he served as Senior Policy Advisor the Minister of Innovation Science and Industry, where AI was one of his lead responsibilities. Jaxson joins the Law Bytes podcast to provide an insider perspective on AI policy development along with his thoughts on the AI consultation and its results.

Social media bans for younger users have begun to take hold in various countries, particularly in Europe. In Canada, Bill S-209 may ostensibly be about underage access to pornography sites, but the bill’s proponents seem positively giddy at the prospect of a broader application to social media. This trend started in Australia, which passed a social media ban for those under 16 in late 2024 with the law taking effect just a couple of months ago. Lisa Given is the Distinguished Professor of Information Sciences at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology or RMIT in Melbourne, Australia. She has been closely tracking and commenting on the Australian legislation and she joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss its origins, how the law functions, the concerns it has raised, and what lessons Canada might draw from the experience to date.

Concerns about the dominance of big tech companies has been steadily mounting for years, leading to an increased emphasis on the role that competition law might play. The government recently expanded the tool set within the Competition Act by expanding the private right of access that enables individuals to launch their own claims. That led quickly to a case against Google, which the Competition Tribunal addressed in a recent ruling. To help unpack the state of the law, the Tribunal’s decision and what it means for future actions, my colleague Professor Jennifer Quaid joins the Law Bytes podcast. Professor Quaid is an internationally recognized leading legal expert and scholar in the fields of organizational criminal liability, corporate accountability, competition and business regulation as well as a Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).

The Law Bytes podcast is back, starting with an episode on the limits of Canadian law in addressing the concerns associated with Grok AI, the AI chatbot that garnered global attention over the widespread creation and distribution of AI-generated sexualized deep fakes. Weaving together online harms, privacy, AI regulation, and platform regulation into a single issue, there have been service bans in some countries but Canada has thus far struggled to respond. To help understand what has taken place and Canada’s law and policy options, Professor Heidi Tworek returns to the Law Bytes podcast. Professor Tworek is the Canada Research Chair and Professor of History and Public Policy at the University of British Columbia, where she also directs the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Her work explores how new communications technologies affect democracy in the past and present and she served on the government’s online harms advisory board.

Canadian digital law and policy in 2025 was marked by the unpredictable with changes in leadership in Canada and the U.S. driving a shift in policy approach. Over the past year, that included a reversal on the digital services tax, the re-introduction of lawful access legislation, and the end of several government digital policy bills including online harms, privacy, and AI regulation. For this final Law Bytes podcast of 2025, I go solo without a guest to talk about the most significant developments in Canadian digital policy from the past year.

The creation of an Artists' Resale Right has been adopted in many countries to at best mixed reviews. They’re unsurprisingly widely supported by potential beneficiaries, but the data on who actually benefits raises real questions about the wisdom of the policy. Canada may be headed in the same policy direction as the government recently announced in its budget plans to introduce the measure. Professor Guy Rub is the Vincent J. Marella Professor of Law at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and an expert in the intersection between intellectual property law, commercial law, the arts, and economic theory. Professor Rub has written critically about the Artists' Resale Right including as part of a submission to a House of Commons committee that studied the issue several years ago. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the policy measure and its drawbacks, including his view that it primarily benefits artists who are wealthy, old, or dead.

The CRTC recently released its much anticipated decision on Canadian content rules, the first of two decisions that could reshape broadcasting and film/TV production in Canada. The Commission promoted its Cancon approach as offering new flexibility into the system but the fine print matters as some changes may be more restrictive than they appear at first glance. To help make sense of the decision, Len St-Aubin, the former Director General of Telecommunications Policy at Industry Canada, joins the Law Bytes podcast. Len provided consulting services to Netflix until 2020 and has since been an active participant in the debate on Internet policy as part of the Canadian Internet Society.

Digital sovereignty is hot the digital policy phrase of the moment driving discussion on Canadian digital policy involving AI, digital infrastructure, privacy, and cultural policy among others. Yet despite its widespread use, its meaning remains opaque as it often used to frame – or reframe – longstanding policy positions. The government has begun to flesh out the issue with Treasury Board recently releasing a white paper on digital sovereignty that provides a useful starting point for discussion. Jennifer Pybus, the Canada Research Chair in Data, Democracy and AI at York University joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the white paper and Canada’s digital sovereignty debate.

I’m not quite sure how this happened, but somehow this is the 250th episode of the Law Bytes podcast. To mark this milestone, I’m joined by Jan Gerlach, Wikimedia’s Director of Public Policy, who leads its EU advocacy work, including efforts on UK Online Safety Act. This is particularly relevant in a Canadian context since this work has touched on issues such as user identification, platform regulation, and rules surrounding AI. Our conversation features a wide ranging discussion on these issues, providing insight into some of the risks and challenges associated with digital policy reform.

The government’s AI consultation concluded at the end of October with expectations that a strategy will emerge before the end of the year. I participated in the consultation with a brief submission and in an appearance as a witness before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its study on the effectiveness of technological advances in artificial intelligence on the creative sector. That study touched on many of the same issues as the AI consult with robust discussion on transparency, regulation, and navigating potentially conflicting policy objectives. This week’s Law Bytes podcast offer up a taste of both with the key issues raised in the submission and clips from the committee appearance including my opening statement and exchanges with multiple MPs.

AI Minister Evan Solomon’s AI public consultation – framed as a 30 day sprint – wrapped up last week with expectations that the government will unveil a new AI strategy by the end of the year. Much of the emphasis to date has focused on how Canada can ensure that it is an AI leader with Solomon previously warning about how the government may have “over-indexed” on AI regulation. Mark Surman, the President of Mozilla, has been a leading global voice on digital policy for many years. He has been increasingly vocal about the benefits of public AI as a counter to the big tech leadership. He joins the Law Bytes podcast for a wide ranging discussion on digital policy, the role of open source, and benefits of a public AI model.

Bill S-209, the legislative effort to establish age verification requirements for sites and services that are said to facilitate access to pornography, is back. The bill has some modest improvements from the earlier S-210, but the core concerns – overbroad scope that lumps in social media companies, Internet providers, and AI services with pornography sites, the privacy and equity implications of mandated age verification, and the use of nationwide website blocking – remain. Last week, I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs where I identified many of the concerns with the bill and engaged in a detailed discussion with multiple senators. This week’s Law Bytes podcast goes inside the hearing room for my opening statement and the Q&A with Senators that followed.

Stablecoins have increasingly begun to enter the mainstream with previously reticent policy makers, regulators, and financial institutions now shifting toward regulatory frameworks that seem more supportive of their development. The U.S. has been the most aggressive with the recent passage of the GENIUS Act, but Canadian officials have taken notice and begun to speak openly about the issue. Mohamed Zohiri is a Legal Counsel and Fintech Advisor at the Alberta Securities Commission who has focused on stablecoins and their regulation for many years both during his graduate legal work and at the ASC. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to provide an introduction to stablecoins, examines the new U.S. legislation that may spark increased investment, and outlines where Canada currently stands on the issue.

Bill C-2, the government’s proposed lawful access legislation, has been the subject of several prior episodes covering warrantless disclosure of information as part of the new information demand power in Part 14 of the bill as well as some of the surveillance technology capabilities found in Part 15. Those remain major issues, but there is another element of the bill that deserves greater attention, particularly at this moment when the Canada – US relationship is increasingly fraught. That issue involves mandated data sharing with implications for Canada’s international treaty obligations under the “Second Additional Protocol” to the Budapest Convention as well as the US Cloud Act. Kate Robertson, a lawyer and senior research associate at the Citizen Lab in the Munk School at the University of Toronto, wrote an extensive brief on these issues soon after the bill was introduced. She joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about a critical Bill C-2 issue that has thus far attracted limited attention.

The “right to be forgotten” – perhaps better characterized as a right to de-index - has been a hotly debated privacy issue for well over a decade now, pitting those that argue that the harms that may come from the amplification of outdated but accurate content outweighs the benefits of maintaining such content in search indexes. The issue gets its start in Europe, but the Canadian experience has featured privacy commissioner findings and investigations alongside court rulings and provincial reforms. Kris Klein is one of Canada’s leading legal experts on privacy, access to information and information security issues. He is the founder and managing partner of nNovation LLP, a leading boutique firm specializing in data protection, the Managing Director of IAPP Canada, and teaches the Privacy Law course at my faculty at the University of Ottawa. He joins me on the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the background behind the right to be forgotten, the recent OPC finding, and what may lie ahead on the issue.

The return of the Law Bytes podcast series this week coincides with the return of Parliament from its summer break. Digital policy may not be at the very top of the legislative agenda, but there are no shortage of issues that could attract attention. This includes lawful access legislation introduced last June, the prospect of online harms safeguards, and ongoing concerns regarding privacy and artificial intelligence regulation. This week’s episode looks ahead to the coming Parliamentary session, assessing the government’s likely digital policy plans.

The pressure to adopt new legal technologies, notably including AI, continues to increase as lawyers, law firms and their clients look for new efficiencies and tools to improve the practice of law. But these tools aren’t always easy to adopt – pilot programs, costs, fear of new technology, and security concerns are part of the package. Sukesh Kamra leads Tory’s Knowledge and Innovation team having spent two decades at the intersection between knowledge management, AI, and legal technology. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the opportunities and challenges of adopting new technologies for legal services. This episode is part of a series of Law Bytes episodes that have been accredited by the Law Society of Ontario for continuing legal education Professionalism Hours. The program contains 45 minutes of Professionalism Content.

TikTok’s decision to pull support for multiple Canadian cultural organizations and events in light of the federal government’s decision to ban the company from operating in the country has sparked increasing concern. Putting the spotlight on TikTok makes sense, but it risks missing the bigger picture which involves a steady stream of funding cancellations in response to Canadian digital cultural policy. Netflix, Meta, Spotify and others have all had their own announcements with millions lost due largely to Canadian policy. Has Canada killed the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg on cultural support? Scott Benzie is the executive director of Digital First Canada and CEO of the Buffer Festival. He’s seen the impact first hand and he returns to the Law Bytes podcast to discuss what has been happening, identify why, and sort through the impact.

Canada’s outdated and discouragingly ineffective access to information system has languished for years to the frustration of many transparency advocates. One potential fix – or at least improvement – would be for government departments and agencies to make the full text of the records from access requests available to the public by default online. Yet the biggest barrier to that approach has been Canada’s language laws and a recent decision from Commissioner for Official Languages may have killed the possibility altogether for the moment. Dean Beeby, an investigative journalist and freedom of information specialist recently wrote about the case on his Substack. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss both the case and how technology may provide a solution, if the government is open to some legislative reforms.

Two days after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to suspend all trade negotiations with Canada unless it rescinded the digital services tax, Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced that the government was rescinding the tax. The rise and fall of the Canadian DST was marked by repeated warnings of potential U.S. retaliation, the Canadian government’s dismissal of the risks, and no shortage of confusion about the tax itself. There have been multiple Law Bytes podcast episodes on the DST over the years, but this episode takes stock of its rise and fall. The episode examines what the DST is, what just happened, and what it means for the future of digital policy in Canada.

The Bill C-2 lawful access focus has thus far primarily centred on the creation of a new warrantless information demand power and the expansion of production orders to access information. Those provisions are found in Part 14 of the bill, but there is also a Part 15 that requires closer scrutiny. It grants law enforcement access to electronic service provider networks, including inspection, oversight, and demands regarding the equipment on their networks. At issue is everything from the use of end-to-end encryption to notifications of network vulnerabilities. David Fraser is one of Canada’s leading privacy lawyers and he’s been sounding the alarm on the implications of those provisions. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the implications of Part 15 – aka the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act – and what it means for network providers and the safety, security, and privacy of Canadians.

The government’s unexpected privacy reform agenda includes both lawful access in Bill C-2 and the evisceration of political party privacy in Bill C-4. While Bill C-4 is framed as implementing affordability measures, it also exempts political parties from the application of privacy protections on a retroactive basis dating back to 2000. To examine the importance of political party privacy and the implications of Bill C-4, I’ve teamed up this week with the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association for a joint podcast. Together with Executive Director Jason Woywada we recorded a conversation that touches on data and political parties, the BC litigation that seems to have sparked federal action, and the Bill C-4 provisions. The conversation can be found on both of our podcasts: this Law Bytes episode and BC FIPA Access and Privacy Online podcast.

Lawful access is back. Bill C-2, the government’s border bill, includes a new information demand power that would result in warrantless disclosure of information about a subscriber, a new international production order, and requirements for providers to assist law enforcement in working with their networks. There will no doubt be multiple podcast episodes devoted to this bill in the coming months. To get started, Robert Diab, a law professor at Thompson Rivers University and the co-author of a recent text on Search and Seizure joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the historical context of lawful access and the key provisions in this bill.

The privacy concerns with Clearview AI sparked investigations and court cases around the world. The issues date back many years, but recently an Alberta court weighed in on the application of provincial privacy law in a decision that has big implications not only for that company but for the intersection between privacy and generative AI. To help unpack the ruling, I’m joined this week on the Law Bytes podcast by my colleague, Professor Teresa Scassa. The Canada Research Chair in Information Law at the University of Ottawa, Professor Scassa is one of Canada’s leading authorities on Canadian privacy and she joins the podcast to discuss the case and what it means for generative AI and privacy reform more broadly.

The CRTC recently wrapped up a two-week hearing on the Online Streaming Act that featured most of the usual suspects, though notably not the large streaming services. The Commission grappled with foundational issues such as modernizing the definition of Canadian content, instituting IP requirements, and introducing new discoverability rules into Canada’s broadcasting regulatory framework. Mark Musselman is a former entertainment lawyer, longtime Canadian movie producer, current PhD student focused on cultural and legal policy, and the author of the White Paper Black Coffee substack. Having appeared many times before the CRTC, he joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the recent Cancon hearing, breaking down the major issues of debate and identifying what was missing from the discussion.

The discussion on the intersection between AI and the law, especially with respect to legal services continues to grow. From lawyers that mistakenly rely on AI generated cases to AI support for due diligence and comment review, the role of AI within legal practice has emerged as a critical issue. Professor Abdi Aidid is a law professor at the University of Toronto, where he has focused on these issues for many years, well before the public’s attention was captured by generative AI services like Chat GPT. Professor Aidid is currently a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at Yale Law School, he was a VP with BlueJ Legal, an early AI legal startup, and is the co-author of the The Legal Singularity: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Law Radically Better. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss all things AI and the law, including what these technologies may mean for legal practice. THIS PROGRAM CONTAINS ONE PROFESSIONALISM HOUR ACCREDITED BY LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

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.

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 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.

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.

The craziness of the Trump administration relationship with Canada was on full display this past week as seemingly every day involved some form of policy change on tariffs – first on, then slightly delayed for some goods, then slightly delayed for more goods and by week’s end threats of new tariffs. Given the uncertainty, I recently co-wrote an op-ed in the Globe and Mail together with Dr. Kumanan Wilson that sought to put the spotlight on another issue that could come to the fore if the economic battle moves beyond tariffs to other issues. In this case – privacy, data localization and health data. Dr. Wilson is a specialist in General Internal Medicine at The Ottawa Hospital, Chief Executive Officer/Chief Scientific Officer, Bruyère Research Institute, a Professor and Faculty of Medicine Clinical Research Chair in Digital Health Innovation at the University of Ottawa and member of the University of Ottawa’s Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss why we should be paying attention to health privacy, AI and the location of our data.

Debates over the role and future of the CBC are seemingly about as old as the CBC itself. Those debates have become increasingly fractious in recent years as some see the public broadcaster as essential to Canadian culture and to address concerns about misinformation, while other insist it is hopelessly biased, outdated, and a threat to marketplace competition. Tara Henley is a Canadian writer, journalist and podcaster who spent years at the CBC. Several years ago, she quit the CBC in very public fashion and has since developed an important presence online through her podcasts and Substack. She’s recently wrote an important piece on how to save the CBC and she joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss.

The trade battle between Canada and the U.S. took a brief break last week as hours before the Trump tariffs were scheduled to take effect, President Trump agreed to a 30 day delay in return for various border measures. That brought a sigh of relief but no real sense that the issue is over. Indeed, quite the opposite – as future battles over tariffs and other measures appear very likely. Professor Richard Gold of McGill University’s Faculty of Law specializes in intellectual property. On last week’s Law Bytes episode, I referenced his proposal to consider suspending patents in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals and AI as a mechanism to counter US pressure. He joins me on the Law Bytes podcast to expand on his idea, explaining why there would be benefits for Canadian firms and frustration on U.S. firms that could spark domestic support to counter potential measures targeting Canada.

Canada now finds itself in economic war with the United States as President Donald Trump has levied a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods (10% for energy), which are scheduled to start on Tuesday. In response, Canada will levy retaliatory tariffs valued at $155 billion with $30 billion coming this week and another $125 billion in several weeks time. It is seemingly impossible to make sense of this deliberate targeting of an ally and claims this is linked to fentanyl that crosses the Canadian border into the U.S. doesn’t add up. Should this escalate further, the prospect of additional measures seem possible and that is where digital policy may come in. This week’s Law Bytes podcast examines the potential role of digital policy in support of retaliation against the Trump tariffs, including both defensive and offensive measures.

A lot has happened over the past six weeks since the last Law Bytes episode that provided a year-end review. TikTok briefly went offline in the U.S., Meta changed its content moderation policies in a major shift designed to curry favour with Donald Trump, Amazon announced it is laying off all of its Quebec-based employees, and Bell obtained an expansive court blocking order covering copycat sites to name just a few developments. Future episodes will dive into these issues but for the moment, the biggest story for a podcast devoted to digital policy from a Canadian perspective is government’s decision on January 6th to prorogue Parliament and the inauguration of Donald Trump two weeks later on January 20th. Those two events effectively mark the end of the past five years of Canadian digital policy: the bills are dead due to prorogation and many of the laws seem likely to die due to Donald Trump. This week’s Law Bytes podcast takes a closer look at what just happened and will consider what lies ahead in next week’s episode. The podcast can be downloaded here, accessed on YouTube, and is embedded below. Subscribe to the podcast via Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify or the RSS feed. Updates on the podcast on Twitter at @Lawbytespod. Credits: City News, Justin Trudeau’s Resignation as Prime Minister, January 6, 2025 Detroit Free Press, Trump Suggests Canada Should be the 51st State During Hurricane Helene Briefing

Canadian digital law and policy in 2024 featured the long-delayed online harms bill, controversial implementation of streaming and online news legislation, as well as a myriad of notable copyright, AI, and privacy court cases. Government legislation stalled in the House of Commons, but with trade battles over a digital services tax, a competition case against Google, and plans to kick TikTok out of the country, there were no shortage of high profile issues. For this final Law Bytes podcast of 2024, I go solo without a guest to talk about the most significant developments in Canadian digital policy from the past year.

Canada’s largest media companies came together recently to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI, the owners of ChatGPT. I wrote about the suit, suggesting that the primary motivation behind the suit was likely the hope to kickstart settlement discussions with the hope of a licence. Robert Diab, a law professor at Thompson Rivers University, raised similar thoughts in his own piece on the lawsuit. Robert joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the case and its implications for copyright and AI in Canada.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has for the past month been conducting a study on protecting freedom of expression. The counters of the study aren’t entirely clear. In fact, after I was invited to appear, I asked for some sense of what the committee was looking to address. There wasn’t much detail, which has really left it open for witnesses to cover whatever issues they like. I chose to focus my time on two issues: the expression implications of Canadian digital policy and the chilling effect of antisemitism. The two issues have really dominated my attention in recent months. Digital policy – including Bills C-11, C-18, C-63, and S-210 for years now and the antisemitism issues an enormous concern post October 7, 2023. This week’s Law Bytes podcast takes the listener into the hearing room and the wide range of questions from Liberal, Conservative, and Bloc MPs my opening statement sparked.