2 ms·

As a non-lawyer, I skimmed up through section 95 of https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-

by neilv 3y ago

As a non-lawyer, I skimmed up through section 95 of https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-r... , and my initial suspicion is that I probably wouldn't want to operate an affected startup in Canada. 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.

tremon 3y ago
consciously capped to protect our larger competitors No -- is says whichever is greater, not smaller. So it's capped at $10M unless your GGR is more than $166M, then the cap is higher.
- neilv 3y ago
  > No -- is says whichever is greater, not smaller. So it's capped at $10M unless your GGR is more than $166M, then the cap is higher. I don't understand the correction. Here's my groggy Monday morning thinking... If they only said the cap was 6%, without the $10M part, then a small startup could probably survive that. But by making it the greater of 6% or $10M, that can kill small startups, but remain capped to protect large companies. Unless small startups are exempt?
  - tremon 3y ago
    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.
    - neilv 3y ago
      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.

by neilv 3y ago

tremon 3y ago

consciously capped to protect our larger competitors No -- is says whichever is greater, not smaller. So it's capped at $10M unless your GGR is more than $166M, then the cap is higher.

neilv 3y ago
> No -- is says whichever is greater, not smaller. So it's capped at $10M unless your GGR is more than $166M, then the cap is higher. I don't understand the correction. Here's my groggy Monday morning thinking... If they only said the cap was 6%, without the $10M part, then a small startup could probably survive that. But by making it the greater of 6% or $10M, that can kill small startups, but remain capped to protect large companies. Unless small startups are exempt?
- tremon 3y ago
  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.
  - neilv 3y ago
    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.