The Shotgun Blog
« Maybe Anthony Marshall should run the U.S. economy | Main | Iran sanctions are precursor to war: Ron Paul »
Monday, December 21, 2009
Alberta Chambers of Commerce backs province on its court challenge of national securities regulator
The Alberta Chambers of Commerce (ACC) supports the Alberta government’s decision to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s proposal to create a single national securities regulator.
In May 2009, ACC’s federation of 124 chambers of commerce, which represents 22,000 businesses, adopted a policy that urges the provincial government’s continued movement towards creating a nationwide passport system.
ACC believes a completely harmonized passport model, which all provinces and territories except Ontario have implemented, is a better alternative to a national securities regulator because a well-monitored, coordinated regulatory system will best serve and reflect the diversity of Canada’s regions.
“The passport system will allow us to retain a measure of control over our own regional economic issues,” says Ken Kobly, ACC’s president and CEO. “There are some different needs in this province that we don’t think would be accommodated through a one-size-fits-all national securities regulator.
“Regulators located in Alberta know the distinctive issues businesses face when trying to raise capital here,” adds Kobly. “I don’t think the business community is served well by retrenching and regrouping the control over securities and centralizing it in Eastern Canada.”
Kobly also notes the passport system aligns with Alberta’s progress towards trade agreements, such as the Alberta-B.C. Trade, Investment, Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which is establishing an efficient, streamlined regulatory environment between the two provinces.
ACC hopes the concept of TILMA will spread across Canada, and the passport model for securities regulation fits into Alberta’s plan of eliminating all interprovincial trade barriers.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on December 21, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
...is a better alternative to a national securities regulator because a well-monitored, coordinated regulatory system will best serve and reflect the diversity of Canada’s regions.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
There's only one stock exchange in this country that matters and it's the TSX. Alberta doesn't even have a stock exchange after it merged with the Vancouver exchange. Face the facts, every country has one financial centre that dominates the whole country. In the US it's NY, in the UK it's London, in Canada it's Toronto. Whine all you want it's not going to change.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-12-21 4:27:39 PM
Stig, lots of money is raised for private businesses, and this is a regulated market.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-12-21 5:04:34 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Alena
http://smallbusinessgrant.info
Posted by: Alena | 2009-12-21 9:15:28 PM
Stig, lots of money is raised for private businesses, and this is a regulated market.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-12-21 5:04:34 PM
Ever heard of money laundering?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-12-21 9:21:59 PM
Securities regulation should be broken down into two basic areas, capital formation and transaction supervision. The capital formation area needs to be aware of the regionalism of the county and the idiosyncrasies associated with each region when it comes to raising capital. This has to be balanced with the country’s need to access international capital markets, all the while respecting the constitutional assignment of responsibilities in this area to the provinces. It really is a balancing act but it is something that benefits the entire country if this initiative is done right.
The regulation of the transaction does not have anywhere near the complexity of the capital formation piece. It has to ensure that there is a level playing field when it comes to disclosure, conflicts and associated risk assessment. The current mechanism where everybody, except Quebec, has delegated authority to either the IIROC (formerly IDA) or the MFDA does not work all that well. IMO, it is designed to protect the interests of the institutions as opposed to the investor and/or consumer. The intermediary (salesperson) is a non entity, with supervisory responsibility assigned to a dealer most likely owned by a large financial institution. These intermediaries have no obligation to secure insurance to protect customers from errors or omissions, they have no regulatory requirement to secure specialized or advanced education through approved designations, and they have no obligation to have any continuing education ensuring that they are current with today’s financial environment. Conflict guidelines are so loose you could drive a truck through them. Suitability (KYC) methodology is laughable; purely there to protect to the dealer not the investor.
I was at a regulatory conference in December where one of the speakers was Larry Richie, the person responsible for crafting the legislation to be presented to parliament that creates the framework for a national regulator. The government’s strategy is to pass the legislation and then attempt to sell it to the provinces. Pigs will fly before the big three, Alberta, BC and Quebec buy into this process. Even though there are advantages to a national regulator/regulatory framework, this thing is DOA because of the process.
Posted by: B | 2009-12-22 12:07:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.