Dead voters aren't the only thing Newfoundland doesn't have

According to a CBC story, for at least the last five years, Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador has not had to fine anyone for securities law violations.  Despite the fact that this sounds great, I can't help but think it also sounds too good to be true.

Because the CBC piece doesn't really address the issues in Newfoundland (because they, like PEI, haven't fined anyone recently so there are no unpaid fines to collect) I decided that I should probably try to find the name of the entity responsible for enforcing securities regulations in Newfoundland.

A quick search lead me to a Newfoundland Government page that kind of suggested that the name of the relevant entity is the Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador (and that this entity falls under the aegis of Service NL).

Of course, because this first website included very little of the information I was looking for (like the names of members of the Securities Commission) I decided a little more digging was needed.  It only took me a few more seconds to find the page of the Canadian Securities Administrators, which includes names and bios of provincial representatives.

The bio for the Newfoundland representative was quite a read.  Not only does the short write-up include a few biographical details about the representative, but it also mentions that this individual

is the Director of the Financial Services Regulation Division and was appointed Superintendent of Securities in December 2009. He is also the Superintendent of Insurance, Superintendent of Real Estate and Registrar of Mortgage Brokers and has responsibility for the regulation of Prepaid Funeral Contract Sellers.

But maybe more important than the fact that the Superintendent of Securities wears quite a number of hats simultaneously, is the fact that this bio also mentions that Securities Commission was eliminated in 2005.

Funny that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's website doesn't mention this.  Actually, there are still quite a number of references to the old securities commission scattered throughout the areas of the site that deal with securities regulation.

And because I found all of this a little curious I decided to quickly skim through the old versions of the law to see how the Securities Commission was constituted.  Apparently it had at least one member, but additional commissioners could be appointed. The other aspect of the law that immediately jumped out to me is that related to the investigatory powers of the Securities Commission.  The old version of the Securities Act included the following section:

3.4  In carrying out its duties under this Act, the commission has all the powers that are or may be conferred on a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act .

The current version of the act doesn't seem to  provide the Superintendent with quite the same range of investigatory powers and requires that investigators empowered through the act, at least in some cases, to go to judges to seek prior approval for searches (this might be something of an improvement, if it investigations are actually initiated).

I've been trying to find out a little bit more about the Superintendent's office, but as of yet I haven't found much.  This, of course, contrasts with the Nova Scotia Securities Commission, a organization that provides easy access to their organizational chart and overall goals (as far as I can tell the name of the position of Superintendent of Securities, and that they are the chief securities regulator isn't even listed in an obvious and clear way on the main portion of the Newfoundland website).

Oh, one last thing about the 'securities' section of the Service NL website.  If you follow the link titled Public Orders all you find is the following text:

Copies of orders, rulings and decisions relating to discretionary relief can be obtained by calling (709) 729-4189.

Am I the only one that finds some of this a little strange?

Where did this idea come from?

I was just listening to an interview on CBC about financial shenanigans in a small Nova Scotia town. At some point in the interview the interviewee, a small business owner, suggested that it was clear that the town's finances now needed to be managed more along the lines of how a business would be run.

What I want to know if when businesses came to be seen as as models of financial propriety?

Is it not the case that there are frequently businesses that are involved in various financial skulduggery? My recollection is that the questionable use of business managed funds lead to the big economic downturn in 2008. And is it not also the case that Olympus is currently being investigated for the questionable financial management practices?

So in the face of countless examples of business/corporate mismanagement/questionable management of funds why are they seen as the examples that public sector should follow?

Can't say that I am too sad

Thanks to the Planet Money blog I just learned that Hummer is going to be wrapped up rather than be sold to a Chinese company. The GM press release suggests that the warranties will be honoured and replacement parts provided.

While I guess I should take GM's word on these matters (as I have no reason not to), I imagine that continuing to provide replacement parts (particularly those specific to Hummers) will be a commitment that might be hard to honour. It seems that it will likely be quite expense for GM to maintain an entire line of replacement parts and appropriately trained mechanics in the face of ever diminishing numbers of Hummers and Hummer owners. I would be curious to know if I am alone in thinking that such a commitment may be hard to live up to, or if others are thinking similar thoughts. As a follow-up, I wonder if Hummers (both new and used) have taken or will take a serious price hit as a result of this announcement?


Blog-off Score

Neil: 0
Cameron: 41

A Few Quick Notes 289

-Today was incredibly beautiful. While Environment Canada was reporting a temperature of 5 degrees, I am pretty sure that it was actually warmer than that in town. Of course, the sun was also out, which really helped things.

-As some of you may have noticed, I have removed the web-call button from the side-bar. This wasn't getting much (read 'any') use. And since moving from GrandCentral to Google Voice it had begun to take up much more space. I guess if you really need to contact either of us and you don't have our contact information the best approach might be to use the comment section associated with each post (not that this is a problem that comes up all that frequently).

-Today while reading the Globe and Mail I came across a few stories of note.

Firstly, it seems that G.W. Bush has now given his first post-presidential for-hire speech. The strange part of the story is not that he has decided to do paid speeches, but that the speech was given in Calgary instead of somewhere in the United States.

Secondly, apparently both Stephen Harper and Danny Williams will be attending this evening's memorial service for those lost in the recent off-shore helicopter crash. Hopefully everyone will have enough tact to behave appropriately for a memorial service. (A related note is that my sister will be performing as part of the mass choir assembled for the event). Also, CBC should be streaming the service here for those of you who are interested.

Thirdly, I read that AIG will have $165 million, equal to the sum the company recently paid in bonuses, deducted from its $180 billion of bail-out money. I found two things particularly strange about this story. Firstly, how could a company that needs bailout money justify bonuses, the company clearly isn't doing all that well. I guess those handing out the bail-out money felt the same way. Secondly, and more importantly, if the bail-out money is based on need, how can $165 million just be cut from the package. This would suggest that the sum allocated to the company isn't really based on much at all and that a few hundred million here or there might not make all that much difference. For some reason I find this very troubling. Also, according to the story, the US government "now holds about an "80-per-cent stake" in the company. I really wonder how all of this is going to play out in the long run.

-Last night Neil and I made our way to Your Father's Moustache for their St. Patrick's day event. We made the trip because one of my classmates was one of the fiddlers performing. Overall I think we had a pretty good time.

The only bummer all evening was the twenty minutes that we had to blow trying to send a package at the postal outlet across the street. The employee was very unhelpful and slow. We both suspect that it likely cost us more than was necessary for us to send the package, though as we were provided with very little information it is hard for us to be certain about this.

-Earlier today I mentioned doing some spring cleaning. I forgot to mention that I also did a few loads of laundry.

-In a few minutes dinner should be ready. We will be having pot roast. I can't wait.