downloading the PDF - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
downloading the PDF - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
downloading the PDF - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
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