RSS FeedFederal Securities Regulation: The Saga Continues
The concept of Federal Securities Regulation in Canada is perennial. It keeps on coming back, most recently via a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Pundits will talk, industry insiders will cross their fingers and hope for a favourable ruling, yet I doubt very much the story will end here.
It seems likely that securities regulation is permissible under various head of power in the Constitution. However federal regulation makes no sense if all of the provincial regulators remain in place. There is nothing to be gained gain by adding yet one more layer of regulation. The entire point of the exercise is to unify nationally so as to simplify. The real issue is whether the federal government can succeed in accomplishing this (whether through the Courts or through other channels).
Given the historical absence of federal legislation and the obvious connections with property and civil rights, it seems unlikely (in my opinion) that the SCC would declare, at the request of parliament, that suddenly all that was once provincial is now exclusively federal. This would be a massive restructuring of the federal-provincial power balance, something that the SCC would likely be very reluctant to “ordain” from the bench. Instead, the Court would likely hold that there is significant room for overlap. I wrote a research paper called “Constitutional Complexities Involved in the Implementation of a Federal Securities Regulation Regime in Canada: The View from 2009” that explores this topic in greater detail.
If this view is correct, then the real issue is political. It would be up to the Federal Government to negotiate with the provinces to ensure that regulation becomes unified and not multiplied. This would be difficult, to say the least. Arguably, with Ontario on-side the Feds could go “go it alone” and let the other provinces face the screams of protest from their local investment communities. Meanwhile, the possibility of the London Exchange buy-out adds yet another complicating factor to the politics. This might not be a “Canadian” industry for long.
My prediction: Regardless of the outcome of the reference to the SCC, this issue is far from settled.
Stockwell Day says Sorry
Should You Go to Law School?
The decision whether you should go to law school is fraught with complicated pros and cons, including opportunities, finances, salaries, and personal goals.
Finally some anonymous law student has created a comprehensive site to help potential law students in evaluating all of these different factors.
Read more about Should you go to law school on their website here.
Retro Is In
This post is a response to this article from the Telegraph about a French female lawyer ripping off another young woman’s burqa (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7735607/France-has-first-burka-rage-incident.html).
First, what does “No one may wear in public places clothes that are aimed at hiding the face” actually translate to in real life? Is this really practical? So does this cover wearing a ski mask when you’re on vacation or your Halloween costume? What about makeup or filming a movie in a public location? What about hats, scarves, sunglasses, goggles, wigs or veils? And what constitutes ‘forcing’ a woman to wear a burqa? What if the aim is not to hide her face?
And how is a burqa an affront to the nation’s values? I thought its values were freedom, equality and brotherhood (liberté, egalité, fraternité) – France’s national motto. Where exactly does racial, ethnic and religious discrimination fit into that?
Second, should we honestly believe that this law is well-intentioned? European countries have been increasingly hostile to Muslims and “outsiders” in general over the last few years. Belgium has outlawed burqas with France close behind, the Swiss have outlawed Islamic architecture, there have been scandals including anti-semitic remarks from a British diplomat, a Polish person declaring that Auschwitz was not a death camp, Grecian attacks on synagogues and other problems in Denmark and Hungary. In spite of the French President denouncing this bill, we are actually expected to believe that not only is it NOT racism, but that this is really about women’s rights! When was the last time anyone was really that concerned about women’s rights?
Third, as I’ve pointed out, the French are going to be hard-pressed to enforce this fairly and rationally. I foresee this turning into state-sponsored persecution of Muslims and particularly, Muslim women. Clearly, professionals are courageous enough to start attacking people in public already!
Finally, how exactly is this law going to achieve the supposed ‘equality’ for minority women that proponents are hiding beneath? Muslim women won’t be able to leave the house. They will be completely cut off. If they leave the house, they will be fined. But they won’t be employed (because they can’t leave the house and won’t pass a headshot, therefore they can’t work), so how will they pay the fine? And how will their husbands feel when their wives go out and get fined (and when they subsequently get fined for “inciting” their wives to cover their faces)? And how will women be able to leave their countries for Europe at all?
Furthermore, what if women CHOOSE to be Muslim and adopt the burqa? Why should they be discriminated against for this practice? And why should their husbands be viewed with suspicion for a choice their wives freely make? Not all Muslims are like this; not all Muslims are extremists and terrorists and wifebeaters. And again – I don’t see any sort of sexual assault or domestic assault law reform going on here. Nor do I see policy that will have the result of a fairer, more civil and more inclusive society.
People can hide in all sorts of ways – the burqa is just one way. Terrorists and other criminals will find other methods to hide. And airports shouldn’t have much difficulty accommodating women – all they need is a separate room with a female guard to show their faces. Therefore, it seems that this is really just codifying xenophobia, fuelling the fire of hatred and setting people up for battle. And with the French climate the way it’s been for the past few years (think Paris on fire), things may erupt sooner rather than later. Do they think this will solve the country’s problems? The last time I checked, systematic public persecution led to tension, strife, terrorism, violence, civil war and genocide.
The pendulum seems to have reached its limit. We’re in for a bumpy ride backwards. Captivité, disparité, et inimitié?
LOTR on Queen’s Pro Bono Radio
This was inspired by lawiscool.com’s previous post about LOTR as property law. We tried to break down different methods of possession and discussed who we thought was the true lord of the ring.
Speakers are Colin Brown, Heather Sagar and Joy Wakefield of Queen’s University. Thank you to Omar for the permission and to CFRC for the mics.
Enjoy!
