Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Maxime Bernier Chessmaster Watch

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:25pm - 11 Comments

The maverick backbencher manages the neat trick of stating his opposition to the government’s plans for a national securities regulator, while preemptively blaming the Quebec government if such a thing is allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court.

It was thus with full knowledge of the facts that they gave provinces jurisdiction over that sector. Nothing has changed fundamentally since then that would justify transferring this jurisdiction to the federal government.

In its arguments to the Court of appeal, Quebec’s attorney general offers no reply to his federal counterpart on any of these points. He provides none of the arguments that would be necessary to win this cause, and so risks losing it.

If that were to happen, nobody will be able to say this time that Quebec’s powers were weakened by another illegal assault from Ottawa, since our government did everything it could to follow constitutional due process. It will entirely be Quebec’s fault.

Tags: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Well last time he lost his briefs, this time he could lose his shirt.

    We're either one country or we aren't.

  • tobyornotoby

    This is Tea Party material. Just because some people believe something is "in the Constitution" doesn't mean we can never collectively decide to do something differently.

    Provincial governance of securities might have made sense when letter post and telegraph were the tools for communicating and investigating trading, but not when there is near instantaneous global trading by institutions and individuals of stocks, derivatives, and mutual funds.

    If there is some special provincial character that needs preserving in a security regulator, then create an opt in that makes sense for provinces, including Quebec and have at it.

    Maxime Bernier doesn't have a real concern, he's just reluctant to give up a political wedge to the Bloc.

    • Mike T.

      I doubt the FoC gave very much specific thought to security exchanges. But the Feds ALSO have jurisdiction to create a single body – they just don't have the authority to create the ONLY authortiy, which worsens rather than solves the problem!

    • Orson Bean

      Well, the other news flash for Bernier et al. is that "securities" , "securities regulation" and "financial regulation" do no appear anywhere in the BNA Act and/or our current constitution. Provinces are given jurisdiction over "property and civil rights" and the feds have this thing called the trade and commerce power. Those are the provisions that most constitutional experts figure will loom large in the upcoming Supreme Court cases. Like so much constitutional law involving division of powers, it's always a very speculative exercise to try to discern what the drafters of our constitution would have had to say about securities regulation. We didn't even really have securities regulation in the modern sense of the word in North America until the 1930s, roughly 70 years after the BNA Act was drafted.

      • Jenn_

        I thought our Constitution had a provision that if it isn't specifically given to the Feds, it's a provincial thing?

        • Mike T.

          Only when it's clearly not either. The issue here is that it likely can be both. It is possible to have instances where both the provincial and federal government can make laws pursuant to different heads of powers. Both can be valid unless compliance with both is contradictory, in which case the Federal law would be valid.

        • Orson Bean

          Actually, it's the opposite. The so-called "residual power" is given over to the feds. You might be thinking of the US constitution, in which residual matters are presumed to be governed by the states.

          From one of many source books: "In Canada, the residuary powers were allocated to the federal government. The Fathers of Confederation wanted to avoid the "weaknesses" of the American constitution which had left all residual powers in the hands of the constituting states. The conditions prevalent in British North America, at the time of Confederation seemed to dictate the creation of a strong federal government endowed with sufficiently large powers to withstand American pressures and create a strong national economy. Residuary powers would assure, in the future, the continued strength of the Dominion government. "

          • Jenn_

            Actually, while I was writing that I had in the back of my mind a passage from Dixie and the Dominion, where it talks about how they specifically arranged things so as to avoid Civil War–and I wondered how giving everything to the provinces would prevent them from arguing about it as they do in the States. Thanks for clearing up the problem in my mind!

    • madeyoulook

      Just because some people believe something is "in the Constitution" doesn't mean we can never collectively decide to do something differently.

      Fine. If it means that much to us, we have an amending formula.

  • Steve M

    "Nothing has changed fundamentally since then…"

    Really??

  • Jenn_

    I haven't really been following this securities regulation thingy and since my own opinion is to ban any such thing world-wide, I have no idea whether I agree with Maxime's position or not.

    What does strike me is that maybe he's decided to move to Alberta, and needs a reason to "abandon" Quebec, like "they abandoned him first".

Previous

Next

From Macleans