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

‘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.

Related Topics:#AnthonyMurdoch #DigitalServicesTax #LifeSiteNews

Up Next

Redman got it right on COVID response

Don't Miss

Both ‘unspecified’ and COVID deaths skyrocketed in Canada after mass vaccination

Todayville

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

BREAKING: CDC quietly rewrites its vaccine–autism guidance

Crime / 3 hours ago

Cocaine, Manhunts, and Murder: Canadian Cartel Kingpin Prosecuted In US

Health / 5 hours ago

CDC’s Autism Reversal: Inside the Collapse of a 25‑Year Public Health Narrative

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on November 23, 2025

Todayville

By Ken Macon

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.

Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.

Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.

The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.

It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”

The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”

Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.

Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.

The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”

This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.

There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.

They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.

The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.

Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”

In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.

The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.

The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”

The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.

Google is yet to comment on the filing.