Close Menu
    Politik

    Gesetzentwurf C-15 würde es Unternehmen ermöglichen, von den meisten kanadischen Gesetzen – CCPA – ausgenommen zu werden

    View 8 Comments

    8 Kommentare

    1. MightyHydrar on

      It’s called a regulatory sandbox and is a pretty standard thing to have. 

      Here’s the full text as written in the bill 

      (3) A minister may make an order under subsection (1) only if the minister is of the opinion that (a) the exemption is in the public interest;

      (b) the exemption would enable the testing of, among other things, a product, service, process, procedure or regulatory measure with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of a regulatory regime to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth;

      (c) the benefits associated with the exemption outweigh the risks;

      (d) sufficient resources exist, and appropriate measures will be taken, to maintain oversight of the testing, manage any risks associated with the exemption and protect public health and safety and the environment; and

      (e) a feasible implementation plan has been developed.

      It’s not a blanket exemption for everything ever. It’s for situations when someone wants to test a new product / service that isn’t covered under existing regulations. 

    2. BeaverBoyBaxter on

      Great article, and the table comparing lobbying meetings between the Carney and Trudeau governments during the first nine months is very illuminating. I wish they had more data going back to Harper and maybe even Martin or Chretien.

    3. OmissionsOmen on

      >So, why is Prime Minister Carney’s government trying to push through such a policy in an omnibus bill? It is worth noting the direct financial interest he holds in the corporate sector’s profitability, through the shares he holds in 567 ([mostly American](https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/other/mark-carney-has-investments-in-567-organizations-only-three-are-canadian/ar-AA1IMJSd)) corporations, as revealed by his [ethics disclosure](https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/Lists/Declarations/Attachments/43657/Appendix%20Summary%20Statement%20-%20Annexe%20Declaration%20Sommaire.pdf). At the end of 2024, **he** [**owned about $9 million**](https://financialpost.com/news/carney-brookfield-options-quitting-political-run) **in Brookfield Asset Management stock options alone**.

      For those unfamiliar…

      >Brookfield’s presence in Ottawa is anchored by its ownership of significant office space in the financial and **government sectors** [Source](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537063/000114420412018405/v307856_ex99-1.htm)

      Carney’s stocks were transferred into a blind trust before he got into politics and are now managed by a trustee. However, it isn’t a stretch of the imagination to understand why a Prime Minister who once held 9 million in a corporate landlord’s stock options might want to force Public Servants into the office five days a week.

    4. Saidear on

      The government that snuck in a privacy-violating clause into C-2? The same government that introduced a bill with the same kind of glaring loophole in C-5? The government that went behind the backs of Canadians to negotiate a memorandum of understanding that basically ignored their input entirely? *That* government?

      This is my shocked face that a government with a history of erosion of our rights, finding ways to exempt corporations from the rule of law, and sneaky doubledealing, is pushing a bill that does just that. Oh, wait. I’m not shocked because Carney’s government has a history of introducing such clauses and powers into legislation. This should be concerning to anyone who wants solid checks on executive power and equality before the law.

    5. DaOffensiveChicken on

      still crazy to me we have so much regulation on everything that we need to mimic china is the 80s and create special economic zones

      the govenrment giving itself power to pick and choose which parts of the economy should be favoured is gonna be a disaster

    7. 902s on

      Used properly, this fits better with:
      Mixed-economy models (common in the EU)
      Mission-oriented policy
      State-guided innovation
      Post-neoliberal governance tools

      It assumes:
      markets don’t self-correct perfectly
      regulation needs to evolve with technology
      the state has an active role, not just a referee’s whistle

      The tool itself is neutral.

    8. operatorfoxtrot on

      Can’t wait for my ‚deregulate the government‘ friends to tell me why this is evil.

      I agree with the amendment but some clarification on ‚public interest‘ and ‚innovation‘ would be nice. Some guardrails or mechanisms for reversal if necessary.

      It’s a temporary exemption for 6 years, I can only imagine this being used for green projects to fast track them. You couldn’t use this amendment to push pipelines, or such.

    Leave A Reply