AFAICT from quick skim, the burdens on startup are onerous, the investigatory powers are invasive (and rife for abuse), and Commission orders seem to carry weight of the courts without being bound by the usual process of the courts.
Implicitly, I'm imagining complying in good faith, so the above initial impression was formed before I got to the penalties. Which penalties, AFAICT, seem to be an existential threat for startups, yet consciously capped to protect our larger competitors:
> 101 The maximum penalty for a violation is not more than 6% of the gross global revenue of the person that is believed to have committed the violation or $10 million, whichever is greater.
Ah, I see your point. Can't comment on the sanity of the Canadian judicial system, but do keep in mind that they're talking about maximum fines, not minimum. There's nothing to suggest that small startups would receive a company-ending fine here.
Disregarding the 6% cap, there's nothing to suggest that a large company would receive a company-ending fine here, yet they still get a cap codified in law.
This doesn't seem to fit my layperson's understanding of the spirit of (US) equal protection.
An absolute legal abomination. Even before considering its insane punishments, it's at odds with the liberal-democratic foundational principle that you cannot legislate retroactively.
Our government just changed capital gains inclusions affecting assets purchased in the past on the basis of financial projections which certainly included tax expectations. Moreover they made the inclusion rate different if it is held in a corporations or out of a corporation, so even the structure is now retroactively being affected.
Canada might as well change its name to The People's Republic of Trudeaunia the way they're going down the path of adopting PRC-inspired policies. Justin Trudeau is known for admiring the power offered by a Chinese-style dictatorship [1] and seems to be intent on pointing Canada in the same direction. I hope that Trudeau's successor - Pierre Poilievre seems to be a likely candidate - not only puts the brakes on these developments but actually turns them around but time will tell if this is the case. Politicians like power and Poliviere is a politician just like all the others.
[1] There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime…having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-under-fire-for-expre...
I thought this was some out of context quote, but I checked the article and it's not that much better
> Speaking to a sold-out crowd of women, Trudeau was responding to a question about which nation’s administration he most admired.
> The Liberal leader said: “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green … we need to start investing in solar.’”
His explanation also seems... kinda bad
> Trudeau took to social media Friday to explain himself.
>“I pointed out that globally, Canada is up against big countries (China, for one) that can address some major issues quickly,” he wrote on Twitter.
>“It’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest that I of all people would trade our rights and freedoms for any other system of (government).”
The original question was "which nation’s administration he most admired". Unless there was a detour that the ctvnews.ca article and himself omitted, it'd be weird to use that as a tangent to talk about how "Canada is up against big countries [...]".
I suspect that people introducing and supporting such bills secretly attend education classes in China and Russia. And it is all of course to "save the children (TM)"
AFAICT from quick skim, the burdens on startup are onerous, the investigatory powers are invasive (and rife for abuse), and Commission orders seem to carry weight of the courts without being bound by the usual process of the courts.
Implicitly, I'm imagining complying in good faith, so the above initial impression was formed before I got to the penalties. Which penalties, AFAICT, seem to be an existential threat for startups, yet consciously capped to protect our larger competitors:
> 101 The maximum penalty for a violation is not more than 6% of the gross global revenue of the person that is believed to have committed the violation or $10 million, whichever is greater.