30.11.2014 Views

downloading the PDF - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

downloading the PDF - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

downloading the PDF - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

FEATURE<br />

JP: Does <strong>the</strong> Court’s decision prohibit <strong>the</strong> federal<br />

government from becoming more involved in<br />

securities regulation?<br />

DM: Absolutely not. The opinion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Court simply<br />

indicates that <strong>the</strong> federal government cannot act<br />

unilaterally in this area and take over what has been<br />

<strong>the</strong> domain <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provinces. But this is not <strong>the</strong> end<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> story. There is such a thing as “collaborative”<br />

or “cooperative” federalism. There is no reason that<br />

<strong>the</strong> federal government cannot work alongside <strong>the</strong><br />

provinces to ensure that securities markets work<br />

properly and efficiently. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />

taking something away from <strong>the</strong> provinces, if <strong>the</strong><br />

federal government wants a say in <strong>the</strong> regulation <strong>of</strong><br />

securities, <strong>the</strong> federal government will have to play<br />

nicely with its provincial and territorial counterparts.<br />

JP: Is <strong>the</strong>re a practical reason to have more<br />

than one regulator?<br />

DM: There many practical advantages to having<br />

more than one regulator. The dominant regulator<br />

in <strong>the</strong> United States (<strong>the</strong> Securities and Exchange<br />

Commission) did not stop a number <strong>of</strong> market<br />

problems in <strong>the</strong> last decade. In my view, anything that<br />

involves people is fallible. Since this is true, multiple<br />

sets <strong>of</strong> eyes looking at potential securities <strong>of</strong>ferings<br />

is a good idea. One set <strong>of</strong> eyes can miss things. The<br />

more regulators that look at <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering, <strong>the</strong> less likely<br />

it is that major errors will be made. This will avoid<br />

complacency by all regulators when <strong>the</strong>y know that<br />

o<strong>the</strong>r regulators will also be reviewing <strong>the</strong> documents.<br />

Some will say that efficiency will be lost. Any<br />

regulation at all will slow <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering from getting<br />

to market. But <strong>the</strong> point <strong>of</strong> regulation is to protect<br />

<strong>the</strong> public. Just because a number <strong>of</strong> regulators are<br />

examining <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering does not necessarily mean<br />

that speed will be sacrificed. Different regulators<br />

can review <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering at <strong>the</strong> same time. In <strong>the</strong><br />

end, <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> advantages to<br />

multiple regulators.<br />

For a more detailed discussion<br />

Check out Darcy MacPherson’s article on <strong>the</strong> Manitoba<br />

<strong>Law</strong> Journal blog at robsonhall.ca/mlj/<br />

77 ROBSON HALL ALUMNI REPORT

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!