Do you have any idea whether the legislators ever reached out to some target companies to help them design realistic, practical provisions for this law?
Great question. There were consultations on the supervisory guidance, but I don’t know whether the Bureau consulted directly with target companies to give them actionable compliance advice. None of the firms I work with had those kinds of conversations as far as I know.
In my experience, Canadian regulators generally avoid saying anything beyond what’s already in legislation, regulation, or official guidance. When firms ask how to comply with vague requirements, the answer is often: “You tell us how your approach meets the standard, and we’ll tell you later if we agree.” This ambiguity is often seen as a feature, not a bug. It gives the regulator discretion to handle uncontemplated cases.
That kind of flexibility can be valuable for firms, especially with regulators who aren’t adversarial in their DNA. But with more adversarial regulators, it can have a chilling effect. Firms may simply avoid certain conduct or speech if they can’t clearly map the compliance path in advance.
Do you have any idea whether the legislators ever reached out to some target companies to help them design realistic, practical provisions for this law?
Great question. There were consultations on the supervisory guidance, but I don’t know whether the Bureau consulted directly with target companies to give them actionable compliance advice. None of the firms I work with had those kinds of conversations as far as I know.
In my experience, Canadian regulators generally avoid saying anything beyond what’s already in legislation, regulation, or official guidance. When firms ask how to comply with vague requirements, the answer is often: “You tell us how your approach meets the standard, and we’ll tell you later if we agree.” This ambiguity is often seen as a feature, not a bug. It gives the regulator discretion to handle uncontemplated cases.
That kind of flexibility can be valuable for firms, especially with regulators who aren’t adversarial in their DNA. But with more adversarial regulators, it can have a chilling effect. Firms may simply avoid certain conduct or speech if they can’t clearly map the compliance path in advance.