Connect with us

Business

Trudeau gov’t appears to back down on ‘digital services tax’ plans

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘feds need to stop dreaming up new taxes and new ways to make life more expensive.’

A plan by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government to tax the advertising revenues of non-Canadian tech giants and other companies – which could spark a major trade war and make accessing the internet more expensive – seems to be off the table, at least for now.  

According to Canadian law professor Dr. Michael Geist, the Trudeau government seems to have “quietly backed down from its plans to implement a new Digital Services Tax (DST) as of January 2024.” 

In its 2019 election party platform, the Trudeau Liberals had promised to impose a three percent so-called DST, which could have brought in an estimated $7.2 billion, but at the expense of tech giants that all provide services to Canadians.  

In October, the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) Franco Terrazzano said the “feds need to stop dreaming up new taxes and new ways to make life more expensive.” 

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should be doing everything he can to make life more affordable, but this Digital Services Tax will mean higher prices for ordinary Canadians,” he noted.  

The CTF noted that when France introduced a similar tax against tech giants such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other large online sites, it caused everything to get more expensive in the country.  

“An economic impact assessment of the French digital services tax shows that about 55% of the total tax burden will be passed on to consumers, 40% to online vendors and only 5% borne by the digital companies targeted by the new tax,” noted the CTF. 

Geist said that after months of the Trudeau government insisting a DST would be incoming next year, the government has removed that “implementation deadline” in their recent Fall Economic Statement. 

When news first broke of the tax in late 2019, many U.S. Senators and Representatives signed letters asking the Canadian government to delay implementing a DST, which they warned would have created disastrous consequences.  

Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland had been insisting up until recently a DST would be coming. In the summer 2023, she said, “Two years ago, we agreed to pause the implementation of our own Digital Services Tax (DST), in order to give time and space for negotiations on Pillar One. But we were clear that Canada would need to move forward with our own DST as of January 1, 2024, if the treaty to implement Pillar One has not come into force.” 

Even earlier this month Freeland seemed “cautiously optimistic” a deal could be reached between Canada and the U.S. for a DST. 

Geist noted that it now “appears that the optimism came from a decision to simply remove the January 1, 2024 start date,” to implement the tax and move it down the road to a later date. 

As noted in the Trudeau Liberals Fall Economic Statement, “In order to protect Canada’s national economic interest, the government intends to move ahead with its longstanding plan for legislation to enact a Digital Services Tax in Canada and ensure that businesses pay their fair share of taxes and that Canada is not at a disadvantage relative to other countries.” 

“Forthcoming legislation would allow the government to determine the entry-into-force date of the new Digital Services Tax, as Canada continues conversations with its international partners.” 

Geist noted that the delay in implementing a DST means that it “buys time for a potential international agreement on implementing a global approach to the issue and should relieve some of the external pressure.” 

Putting in place DST now would create ‘significant risks’ 

As it stands now, the Trudeau Liberals have already pushed forth bills that will regulate the internet. This includes the federal government’s censorship Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which has been blasted by many as allowing the government more control of free speech through potential new draconian web regulations. 

Another Trudeau internet censorship law, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, became law in June 2023 despite warnings that it will end free speech in Canada. This new law forces social media companies to pay Canadian legacy media for news content shared on their platforms. 

Geist observed that while implanting a DST on tech giants might be more “preferable to the cross-industry subsidy model found in Bills C-11 and C-18,” pushing forth with a DST now would bring disastrous consequences and could spark a trade war.  

“Moving ahead now would have created significant risks, including the prospect of billions in retaliatory tariffs. Led by Bill C-18 and the digital services tax, the government talked tough for months about regulating big tech,” wrote Geist. 

“But with the (Fall Economic Statement) FES providing a massive bailout to compensate for the harm caused by the Online News Act and the decision to hold off on implementing the DST, it would appear that the tough talk has been replaced by much-needed realism on what amounted to deeply flawed policies and a weak political hand.” 

Geist has continually warned that the Trudeau government’s meddling with big tech by trying to regulate the internet will not stop at “Web Giants,” but will lead to the government going after “news sites” and other “online” video sites as well. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trump Tells Supreme Court He Wants To Resolve Tik-Tok Controversy

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

President-elect Donald Trump filed a brief Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block a law requiring that the social media platform TikTok either be sold or shut down by Jan. 19.

In April, President Joe Biden signed legislation allowing the ban of the Chinese-owned social media platform unless it is sold to a non-Chinese company within the year. Despite the company’s attempts to challenge the legislation as the shutdown date approaches, a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously on Dec. 6 that the ban would be upheld, citing TikTok as a potential national security risk due to the Chinese government’s involvement with the app.

In his new filing, Trump argued against the ban, seeking to resolve the issue “through political means once he takes office.”

“President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government — concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged,” the brief said.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to hear TikTok’s challenge against the ban, with oral arguments set to begin Jan. 10. In its emergency application to the high court, the social media platform argued that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which is the basis for the ban, will not only “shutter” the U.S.’s “most popular speech platform the day before a presidential inauguration,” but will also “silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern.”

Despite attempts to ban the app through executive orders, Trump publicly opposed legislation targeting TikTok, stating that the move to ban the social media platform could potentially benefit Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

“If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!” Trump posted to Truth Social in March.

In addition to his request to handle the issue once in office on Jan. 20, the brief noted Trump’s large following on TikTok, arguing that it allows him to “actively” communicate with supporters.

“President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific and influential users of social media in history,” the brief said. “Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech.”

TikTok additionally filed a brief Friday to the Supreme Court claiming the law being used to aid the ban was a violation of the First Amendment.

“The government has banned an extraordinary amount of speech; demands deference to unsubstantiated predictions a future risk will materialize; and gets facts wrong when it bothers to provide them,” the brief said.

“Congress’s unprecedented attempt to single out petitioners and bar them from operating one of the nation’s most significant speech venues is profoundly unconstitutional,” the brief continued.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta government must do more to avoid red ink

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

As Albertans look toward a new year, it’s worth reviewing the state of provincial finances. When delivering news last month of a projected $4.6 billion budget surplus for fiscal year 2024/25, the Smith government simultaneously warned Albertans that a budget deficit could be looming. Confused? A $4.6 billion budget surplus sounds like good news—but not when its on the back of historically high (and incredibly volatile) resource revenue.

In just the last 10 years, resource revenue, which includes oil and gas royalties, has ranged from a low of $3.4 billion in 2015/16 (inflation-adjusted) to a high of $26.1 billion in 2022/23. Inflation-adjusted resource revenue is projected to be relatively high in historical terms this fiscal year at $19.8 billion.

Resource revenue volatility is not in and of itself a problem. The problem is that provincial governments tend to increase spending when resource revenue is high, but do not similarly reduce spending when resource revenue declines.

Overall, in Alberta, a $1 increase in inflation-adjusted per-person resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year, but a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. Over time, this pattern has contributed to historically high levels of government spending that exceed ongoing stable levels of government revenue.

And while the Smith government has shown some restraint, spending levels remain significantly higher than reliable ongoing levels of government revenue. Put simply, unpredictable resource revenue continues to help fund Alberta’s spending—and when resource revenues inevitably fall, Alberta is at high risk of plummeting into a deficit.

Indeed, Finance Minister Nate Horner continues to emphasize that we are “living in extremely volatile times” and warning that if oil prices fall below $70.00 per barrel a budget deficit is “very likely.” According to recent forecasts, the price of oil may hit $66.00 per barrel in 2025.

To avoid this fate, the Alberta government must do more to rein in spending. Fortunately, there’s plenty of options.

For example, the government spends billions in subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select industries and businesses every year. A significant body of research shows these subsidies fail to generate widespread economic benefits. Eliminating this corporate welfare, which would generate significant savings in the budget, is a good place to start.

If the Smith government fails to rein in spending, and Alberta incurs a budget deficit, it will only mean more government debt on the backs of Albertans. And with Albertans already paying approximately $650 each in provincial government debt interest each year, that’s something Albertans simply can’t afford.

With a new year set to begin, the Smith government continues to warn of a budget deficit. But rather than simply prepare Albertans for more debt accumulation—financed by their tax dollars—the government should do more to avoid red ink. That means cutting wasteful government spending.

Tegan Hill

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X