Canada -   

1

Feds go back to drawing board on nat'l securities body

Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty speaks with the media prior to holding pre-budget consultations via video conference in Gatineau, Que. Wednesday January 18, 2012.
Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty speaks with the media prior to holding pre-budget consultations via video conference in Gatineau, Que. Wednesday January 18, 2012.

View Larger Image

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (6) Facebook   

Date: Thursday Jan. 26, 2012 5:54 PM ET

DAVOS, Switzerland — The federal government announced Thursday that it will head back to the drawing board following a courtroom verdict that scuttled its original plans for a national securities regulator.

Ottawa still hopes to create a national body, more limited in scope and in collaboration with the provinces, that would play a role in monitoring long-term risks to financial markets.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered his most elaborate public reaction since last month's critical ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision may have quashed the decade-old project, touted by successive governments, to create a one-stop shop for the country's securities regulation.

But Flaherty pointed out that there's still room for a federal role.

"It's clear in the Supreme Court of Canada judgment that the day-to-day regulation of securities will remain with the provinces," Flaherty said in an interview.

"But (the court) also said that there is an area of federal jurisdiction, including national standards and systemic risk. So I hope -- and we'll see -- I hope that we can make an arrangement with the provinces to proceed with a Canadian securities regulator."

He made the remarks in an interview in Switzerland, at the Davos economic summit.

Flaherty said that last month, when the Supreme Court ruled that securities regulation was a provincial responsibility, it also agreed that the feds could participate in the oversight of general and systemic risks.

"It's very difficult to deal with any significant financial issue in Canada without the involvement of the Government of Canada," he said, "because so much of the financial world applies to many provinces and territories, not just one."

To play that role, Flaherty said the federal government would need to create a new organization.

He said the task could not simply be handed to the existing Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. That agency, he said, oversees banks and insurance companies and the additional role could create a conflict of interest.

Flaherty said he has already discussed his plan with some provincial counterparts. He said the idea has been well received.

"The reception has been fairly good (from the provinces)," he said. "There's a recognition that the decision by the court found that there is some federal jurisdiction and certainly some provincial jurisdiction -- not 100 per cent one way or the other -- so we need to talk to each other."

However, he said he has not yet discussed it with Quebec's finance minister, Raymond Bachand, who was among the more ardent critics of the securities-regulator plan.

Flaherty expressed hope for a fruitful discussion.

"I think Quebec should be willing to talk because there's one part of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that talked about derivatives and seemed to indicate that derivatives might be a federal responsibility -- which I know would concern Quebec because of the derivatives market in Montreal," he said.

"So there's a lot of room for discussion."

Comments are now closed for this story

Bob,Calgary,Alberta
said

This is not a positive thing. A national securities regulator is a fact of life in all advanced Western countries but, good old Canada, with the small minded men (and women) of confederation clinging to their perceived power just will not let it happen. It is interesting how the premiers scream and moan when it appears that the Federal government is simply leaving them alone to do their job on healthcare but go into shock at the prospect of a national securities regulator. Canada, unfortunately, still lacks good,solid leadership on the provincial scene with a gang of nincompoops in most provinces, including my own. Imagine the fuss if the Feds try aggressively to break down interprovincial trade barriers.


Protect Us
said

Is this Jim, because only a Federal government has the sophisticated economic expertise to oversee the financial life of day to day Canadians? I lose on my investments or the experts lose on my investments. Do we need protection? Or does the increasing depth of governments around the world simply move us to the One World Order? Why don't we in addition to national banks set up Rothschilds banks in every province? You know, just to make sure our money is protected?


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Of course, the anti-Conservatives know that the SCC formally snuffed an effort that would have benefitted Canada, because our provinces (who weren't entirely crazy about the idea, for selfish reasons) hold legal jurisdiction over an important national/international industry that doesn't actually adhere to provincial boundaries in its trade practices. (Not having a federal securities regulator, therefore, is a farce. Our banks are bound by national charter and federal regulation.) Alas, however, the anti-Conservatives will still concoct goofy blame and heap it upon their nemesis, Flaherty. It's politically therapeutic.


Jim in Ottawa
said

Mr. Flaherty never quite convinced me that we needed a national regulator. I have to agree with courts that a national regulator would be an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and frankly I think the provinces have been doing a fine enough job hanlding securities regulation as is.


Niagara George
said

Way to go Jimbo. Some things never change. Whenever the slugging gets tough, we know you will run for cover. What this probably shows is your lack of negotiation skills. Anyone who has seen you in action and heard someone disagree with anything you said, will know you find it impossible to discuss anything in a rational manner. Canada needs a Finance minister who can work agreements, nationally and internationally... not someone who can do nothing but relentlessly spout the party line. The truly sad part of this is that the regulations in the provinces are very similar already. There would be little to change to develop a national agreement, which would bring Canada in line with the way regulations are established in every other developed nation. So again, we end up with 10 provinces that are open for business, instead of one strong country. Shame!


DL in Kingston
said

At the same time, Flaherty should announce the closure of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board CEIFB, part of MP Diane Finley's Services Canada department, introduced by Flaherty in 2008. Spending millions of our tax dollars, while doing zero!


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Canada Stories

Anne-Catherine Powers, Shakti Ramsurrun, Gatineau, Quebec

Estranged husband charged in Gatineau, Que., murders

More  2 Video(s) 2

Most Talked about Stories

I feel that if certain organs were in demand, less effort would be made to revive people. Am I being silly? Not really. I had a bad experience in hospital when my heart stopped, the doctors tried to revive me and failed. They stopped and said I was gone. I came around on my own when the nurse was giving a final BP reading of 'zero'. I heard her declare me dead! It was all I could do to shake my head but they never caught on til I was able to open my eyes. You should have seen them scramble then! I thought the nurse was going to faint. The thing is, I think we may write people off too soon when there is something of value to be gained from them.

me

Should all Canadians be automatically considered organ donors?