
Canada cancelled its digital services tax. What was it and why did the US hate it?
The announcement from Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne came late Sunday evening, following a phone call between Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump.
That call concluded a flurry of discussion between the two countries since Trump suddenly announced on Friday afternoon that he was ending all trade talks with Canada and threatened new tariffs.
But the standoff had really been building for years.
Here's a brief look at what the tax was about and why Trump made such a drastic move to try and kill it.
What is the digital services tax?
The tax was announced in 2020, but the legislation to enact it didn't pass until last year. While it has been in effect for a year, the first payment, retroactive to 2022, was to be submitted on June 30.
Canada cancelled its digital services tax. What was it and why did the US hate it?
The government intended it to overcome what Canada saw as a tax loophole, with big tech companies operating in Canada digitally, making money off Canadian users and data, but not paying tax on it in Canada.
The tax was to apply to companies that operate online marketplaces, online advertising services and social media platforms, and those that earn revenue from some sales of user data.
It meant companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb, would pay a three-per-cent levy on revenue from Canadian users.
The tax was only to cover large companies, those that have worldwide annual revenues greater than 750 million euros per year and Canadian digital services revenue greater than $20 million per year. The parliamentary budget officer had estimated it would bring in $7.2 billion over five years.
Because the first payment was retroactive to cover three years, the expectation was the companies collectively could be on the hook for an initial payment of around US$2 billion.
Why did Canada impose it?
Work has been underway for years at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to set up a multilateral tax approach meant to replace digital service taxes imposed by individual countries.
But after that work stalled, Canada went ahead with its own tax. Other countries, including France and the United Kingdom, also have digital taxes.
The Liberals had long maintained Canada would go ahead on its own if the OECD deal fell through. In a 2024 release, the government said while "Canada's priority and preference has always been a multilateral agreement," many of Canada's allies have digital services taxes in place.
"Canada has been at a disadvantage relative to these countries which have continued collecting revenue under their pre-existing digital services taxes," it said.
Why do some oppose it?
Critics of the tax took issue with Canada's refusal to wait for a global deal. They also opposed the retroactive application of the tax, which means companies will have to pay several years' worth of taxes at once.
US businesses and politicians argued the tax targets US companies. The tax applied to all large tech companies no matter where they were based, but because so many of those companies are American, US firms would have paid the bulk of the money.
In a letter earlier this month, 21 members of Congress said US companies will pay 90 per cent of the revenue Canada will collect from the tax, and that first payment will cost US companies US$2 billion.
That opposition isn't new. The Biden administration also pushed back against the tax, and the stance isn't isolated to Canada, with the US also opposing digital service taxes imposed by other countries.
Before the tax was rescinded on Sunday, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Canada said its "members have been warning for years that this tax would become a flashpoint in the Canada-US relationship. That moment has arrived."
The tax is "retroactive, one-sided, and deeply damaging to cross-border trade," Rick Tachuk said in an emailed statement, which encouraged Canada to cancel its tax.
Michael Geist, Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, wrote in a blog post Saturday the current conflict shouldn't come as a surprise.
"Canada pushed ahead despite efforts at an international agreement on the issue and later dismissed the increasing friction over the issue with the US, which has been signalling its opposition to the DST for many years," he said.
Geist said once Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne confirmed on June 19 Canada would be going ahead with the tax, the government "virtually guaranteed the US would respond as it did."
Where does Trump come in?
While opposition to the tax has been brewing south of the border for years, Trump escalated it abruptly Friday afternoon with an online post.
He wrote he was "terminating all discussions on trade with Canada" because of the tax and called it a "direct and blatant attack on our country." He also complained about Canada's dairy-sector protections that include high tariffs on imports of American milk and cheese.
Canada and the US have been in a trade war for months, triggered by Trump's imposition of tariffs. At the G7 summit in Alberta earlier this month, Carney and Trump agreed to work on reaching a deal by mid-July — work that Trump said was halted Friday.
Friday afternoon, shortly after Trump's post went live, Carney told reporters he hadn't spoken to Trump that day but that "we'll continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians."
So what happened on Sunday?
A flurry of activity followed Trump's post on Friday, culminating Sunday night in the call between Trump and Carney.
The decision opened the door for trade talks to restart, and Carney said in a statement, the overall results of those talks were paramount.
'In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses," he said.
"Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Cision Canada
42 minutes ago
- Cision Canada
Readout - Prime Minister Carney meets with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association Français
OTTAWA, ON, July 2, 2025 /CNW/ - Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, met with the leadership of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and member CEOs. Prime Minister Carney and the leaders discussed ongoing negotiations with the United States, and the work to pursue a deal by July 21, 2025. They discussed the impacts on the sector and the need to build up a made-in-Canada supply chain as well as diversify our trading partners. The Prime Minister underscored the federal measures to safeguard Canadian auto workers and businesses from unjust tariffs, and the adjustment of counter-tariffs on July 21 based on the state of negotiations. Prime Minister Carney affirmed that the government's focus remains on securing the best deal for Canadian workers and industries. The leaders also discussed opportunities to make Canada's auto sector more sustainable and competitive in the face of shifting trade relationships, market conditions, and supply chains. This document is also available at


Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump says deal for ceasefire in Gaza is closer after Israel agrees on terms
CAIRO (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump says Israel has agreed on terms for a new 60-day ceasefire with Hamas and that Washington would work with both sides during that time to try to end more than 20 months of war in Gaza. Neither side has accepted the proposal announced Tuesday by Trump, who has admonished Hamas that if the militant group does not buy into the offer, its prospects will get worse. It's not clear what conditions Israel agreed to. The efforts to reach a truce are unfolding in the wake of powerful Israeli and American strikes on nuclear sites in Iran, which has long supported Hamas, and just days before Trump is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. Here's a look at the situation and the challenges it might present. Details are murky Details of the proposed ceasefire are just beginning to emerge. But rather than being completely new, the potential deal seems to be a somewhat modified version of a framework proposed earlier this year by Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff. Trump said Tuesday in a social media post that Qatar and Egypt have been working on the details and would deliver a final proposal to Hamas. An Egyptian official involved in the ceasefire talks told The Associated Press that the proposal calls for Hamas to release 10 more hostages during the two-month period — eight on the first day and two on the final day. During that period, Israel would withdraw troops from some parts of Gaza and allow badly needed aid into the territory. The war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking roughly 250 hostages. The group is believed to still have some 50 hostages, with fewer than half of them thought to be alive. The Egyptian official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, said a sticking point over how aid would be distributed had been resolved with Israel. He said both sides have agreed that the United Nations and the Palestinian Red Crescent would lead aid operations and that the Israeli- and U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund would also continue to operate. Hamas has been weakened The unraveling of Iran's regional network of proxies, capped by the blow inflicted on Iran during the recent 12-day war with Israel, has left Hamas weaker and more isolated in the region. Iran was a key backer of the militant group, but its influence has waned, and it's now preoccupied with its own problems. At the same time, Trump has made it clear to Israel that he wants to see the Israel-Hamas war end soon. While he has been supportive of Netanyahu, Trump had tough words for Israel in the opening hours of last week's ceasefire with Iran, when he pressured Israel to scale back its response to an Iranian missile attack. That could help persuade Hamas to embrace a deal. A diplomat briefed on the talks said there is now a 'big opportunity' to reach an agreement. 'The indications we're getting are people are ready.' He said Trump's harsh talk toward Israel has 'given a bit of confidence to Hamas' that the U.S. will guarantee any future deal and prevent a return to fighting. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing behind-the-scenes diplomatic contacts. Israeli military positions and future talks pose obstacles The Egyptian official said Israel has not yet agreed to a proposal to withdraw its forces to positions held in early March after a previous ceasefire officially expired. Since then, the Israeli army has seized large swaths of Gaza to put pressure on Hamas, and it's not clear whether Israel is ready to return to those same positions. An Israeli official characterized the agreement as a 60-day deal that would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a surge in humanitarian aid to the territory. The mediators and the U.S. would provide assurances about talks on ending the war, but Israel is not committing to that as part of the latest proposal, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the details of the deal with the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. The Egyptian official said Hamas will have to review the proposal with other factions before submitting an official response. One point that does seem to have been ironed out is the question of who will administer Gaza. Israel has said Hamas cannot run the territory, and the Egyptian official said the proposal would instead put Gaza under a group of Palestinians without political affiliations known as the Community Support Committee once a ceasefire is reached. Potentially complicating the effort, Netanyahu reiterated his hard-line position Wednesday, vowing that 'there will be no Hamas' following the 60-day ceasefire plan. Previous ceasefire did not last A previous ceasefire agreed to in January established three phases, but the two sides never made it past phase one. During that time, however, there were multiple exchanges of Hamas-held hostages for prisoners held by Israel, and critical humanitarian aid was able to reach Gaza. When phase one expired on March 1, Israel sought to extend it while Hamas argued that phase two should go ahead as planned. The second phase would have compelled Hamas to release all the remaining living hostages in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners, a lasting ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. That was always seen as difficult, because it would have forced Israel to choose between its two main war goals — the safe return of the hostages and the annihilation of Hamas. On March 18, Israel broke the ceasefire with new airstrikes and resumed hostilities. In Gaza, residents expressed hope that this time, a ceasefire will bring an end to the war. 'We are seriously tired,' said Asmaa al-Gendy, who has been living in a tent camp in Deir al Balah with her two children. The family has been displaced and starved and endured 'every form of torture in the world.' ___ Rising reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writers Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Wafaa Shurafa in Deir al Balah, Gaza Strip, contributed to this report.


Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
Why is Lululemon suing Costco? A closer look at the lawsuit about ‘dupes'
Vancouver-based athleisure apparel brand Lululemon is suing Costco over multiple claims that the big-box wholesale retailer is selling knock-off or 'dupe' versions of its yoga pants, tops and more. Lululemon filed a lawsuit in the state of California on June 27 alleging that Costco has been infringing on its intellectual property rights, patents and trademark laws, which protect ownership of its apparel and others designs. This means it is illegal for any other company to design, manufacture, import, distribute or sell products that infringe upon those protections. 'As an innovation-led company that invests significantly in the research, development, and design of our products, we take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary,' Lululemon said in an emailed response to Global News. Story continues below advertisement Both big-name brands are ones many Canadians and consumers across North America know. So what exactly do we know about the lawsuit, and what is being alleged? What does the lawsuit allege? Lululemon filed the lawsuit in the central district of California, listing both its Canadian and U.S. companies as plaintiffs. Lululemon's claims focus on what it argues are 'dupes' of its patented apparel lines by Costco. Those Lululemon products include the SCUBA hoodies and sweatshirts, Define jackets, and ABC pants. In addition, Lululemon alleges that Costco and some of its subsidiary brands have been using trademarked marketing terms and other brands to describe colours and styles. The company claims Costco has been selling these alleged 'dupes' under its own Kirkland brand and others in what Lululemon calls an attempt 'to confuse consumers at the point-of-sale and/or observers post-sale into believing that the 'dupes' are Plaintiffs' authentic products when they are not.' Story continues below advertisement In the filing, Lululemon cited two separate articles published by The New York Times and The Washington Post, which outline what the authors described as similarities between the apparel items. In the case of The New York Times, the lawsuit quotes how the writer of the article stated '[w]hen I held these two pairs of pants and inspected their construction, they looked almost identical.' Many consumers have commented on social media and online websites about what they describe as the similarities and quality or value of the products, including on websites like 'Lululemon Dupes' Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy One of the products Lululemon sells are signature pants known as the 'ABC Pant,' which the lawsuit highlights compared to Costco's Kirkland branded pants. View image in full screen A graphic from Lululemon's lawsuit against Costco shows its men's ABC pants compared to a version by Costco's Kirkland branded pants (Credit: Lululemon court filings). What counts as copying vs. competing? Although companies are able to legally compete with Lululemon and other companies with protected material by offering products which may seem somewhat similar, the lawsuit distinguishes between this activity and 'duping' those products. Story continues below advertisement Some examples of specific garments in the filing from competitors to Lululemon include those from H&M, Aeropostale, Outerknown and Tommy Hilfiger, which it says have similar products that do not infringe upon the laws and protections it accuses Costco of violating. 'Lululemon files this action as part of its intellectual property enforcement efforts directed to retailers who have chosen to copy rather than compete,' the lawsuit outlines. 'Costco has unlawfully traded upon Plaintiffs' (Lululemon's) reputation, goodwill and sweat equity by selling unauthorized and unlicensed apparel.' The lawsuit also features several examples of garments Costco sells, which Lululemon argues are infringements not only on its specific designs, but trademarked colour names like 'TIDEWATER TEAL,' which the company alleges Costco used to market its own versions. 'The TIDEWATER TEAL™ mark is an important component of lululemon's business and recognized as symbolizing lululemon's high quality products,' the lawsuit says. View image in full screen A comparative graphic shows Lululemon's SCUBA product next to Costco's Danskin brand version from Lululemon's lawsuit filed against Costco alleging infringement of its designs and marketing terms (Credit: Lululemon court filings). Another section of the lawsuit features a screenshot from the Costco website appearing to show a men's full-zip sweatshirt called 'Hi-Tec Men's Scuba Full-Zip,' and Lululemon states that its own 'SCUBA' line of apparel is protected under U.S. Patent and Trademark law. Story continues below advertisement View image in full screen An image from Lululemon's lawsuit against Costco features a screenshot from the company's website with an example of what it alleges is design and copyright infringement of it's 'SCUBA' line. (Credit: Lululemon court filings). A jacket with the 'Spyder' label that Costco sells under its Kirkland banner, which Lululemon alleges the design is 'An exemplar of which…(embodies) Plaintiffs' DEFINE Trade Dress:' View image in full screen A graphic from Lululemon's lawsuit alleging Costco has been selling products which infringe on the company's patented designs and trademarks. (Credit: Lululemon court filings). A request from Global News to Costco Canada has yet to receive a response, including whether this may impact business operations outside of the U.S. Story continues below advertisement It has yet to file a response to Lululemon's lawsuit. In the meantime, most of the items from Costco referenced in the lawsuit appear to have been removed from Costco's website or are no longer available. –with files from The Canadian Press.