Chantal Hebert outlines the political upside for Harper in picking a brawl with the provinces over setting up a national securities regulator. I, on the other hand, see only a slappy fight amongst the four pundits who worry about such things. I see Andrew Coyne whipping out his spread-sheet, and demonstrating why people call him "the journalist guy that knows math". As for the rest of us, the indifference is palpable.
C'mon, Chantal, its cold out. Bring back Julie Couillard.
That's Chantal, BCL.
ReplyDeleteHeh. My word verification is "menses."
Why can't she have an English name like everyone else?
ReplyDeleteHébert. from a Germanic personal name composed of the elements: Heri, hari (army) + berht(bright, famous).
ReplyDeleteShe's probably more Ur-English than you are.
Missing in your analysis is the point that these fragmented security domains are expensive and wasteful, and serve no good purpose.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to invest and seek investment efficiently is important to Canada's economic well being. And it certainly should be the PM's role to make Canada behave like a country rather than a loose conglomeration of fiefdoms.
In other words, it's not just a "slappy fight".
Rabbit, you may be right but the POLITICAL payoff for Harper in this is 0. That's my point.
ReplyDeleteBesides even SEC investigation wasn't able to stop Bernie Madoff.
ReplyDeleteIf the SEC could have been roused to perform even a basic investigation, Madoff would have been uncovered years ago.
ReplyDeleteAlso, funds who invested with Madoff failed to undertake even the most basic due diligence.
If Canada had a national regulator, we'd probably end up with with lowered OSC-styled standards and investigations.
I am a strong advocate of a single regulator and Andrew Coyne. Regulation arbitrage must end.
ReplyDelete