Making the Case for New Securities Regulations

The Financial Post published the following article which illustrtates the futility of trying to get Canada a national securities regulator. As long as the investment industry regulator complex is fat and happy nothing will change.

In 2003 the "Wise Persons Committee" published their report "It's Time". But obviously it wasn't. Now we have the Canadian Securities Transition Office. But will there be a transition? I am waiting with baited breath.

Making the case for new securities regulations


The terminology differs-- single, common, Canadian, national or federal -- but the conclusion of virtually every study has been the same: There would be significant benefits for Canadians from a new approach to securities regulation to replace the current system of 13 local jurisdictions, each with its own set of regulations enforceable only in its own province or territory.
 - 1935 The Report of the Royal Commission on Price Spreads calls for a national securities presence.

- 1964 The Porter Commission recommends uniform securities regulation either through a national agency with federal legislation, or through a uniform statute creating a single agency.

- 1967 The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) proposes that the federal and provincial governments jointly delegate their authority to a federally created Canadian Securities Commission.

- 1979 Proposals for a Securities Market Law for Canada, commissioned by the federal government, recommends establishment of a Canadian securities commission and prepares a draft federal statute which provides for federal legislative jurisdiction excluding intra-provincial matters.

- 1994 Federal government proposes to create a Canadian Securities Commission pursuant to federal legislation, excluding intra-provincial matters and provinces not opting in.

- 2003 The Wise Persons Committee recommends a Canadian Securities Commission, preferably in a collaborative federal-provincial scheme.

- 2006 The Task Force to Modernize Securities Regulation (the Allen Committee) recommends management of enforcement on a national basis in either a unified or harmonized approach to regulation.

- 2006 The Crawford Panel recommends a common securities regulator administering a common securities act on behalf of participating Canadian governments.

- 2009 The Expert Panel on Securities Regulation recommends a Canadian Securities Commission to administer a single securities act for Canada.

- 2009 The federal government establishes the Canadian Securities Transition office to lead the transition to a single national regulator within three years.


I hear that the "single national regulator" will be introduced by a flock of flying pigs.

Where on Earth is Harry Snoek

Where on Earth is Harry Snoek reads the Toronto Star headline on Saturday, March 27, 2010. thsi is also what as many as 200 investors would like to know. The Star reports "The latest tally of those who have come forward to the Star and who are trying in Ontario courts to recoup their losses, Snoek has absconded with more than 34 million."

Another made in Canada Ponzi scheme. It seems almost every day another Ponzi scheme is revealed. The financial market meltdown raised investor concern as the media flooded the country with the latest news of financial failure and the plunging market values. The news made investors wary of making any investments and caused many others to cash in investments to avoid further loss.

Ponzi schemes can not survive when more people want to cash in their investments than new money can pay. No fraudster will tolerate negative cash flow. As long as the cash flow remains positive he can continue to operate. In many of the cases now being revealed the fraudsters operated for decades.

Snoek trade on his father's name as well as church affinity and the faith of his countrymen. The Snoeks came from the Netherlands and attended the Christian Reformed Church. Who wouldn't trust a church going fellow countryman? Many seniors did and lost all their savings.

Harry took over his father's business more than a decade ago and operated as Harry Snoek Limited Partnership. He was involved in real estate development and convinced investors to give him their money for a promissory note that promised to pay them back with modest interest. When the interest payments stopped, questions were asked and excuses provided. More promises made, but not kept. Some investors are trying to get their money back through the Ontario Courts.

Now the victims realize their money is gone and wonder where on earth is Harry Snoek.