In response to the news that a new federal panel has been tasked to study ways to improve securities regulation, Quebec’s Minister of Finance, Monique Jérôme-Forget, insists that Quebec will not accept a single regulator.

Jérôme-Forget was reacting to the formation of a panel, by federal Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, charged with making suggestions and recommendations concerning securities regulation.

“The existing regulatory system, for which the provinces and territories are responsible, is widely acknowledged as one of the best in the world. The securities passport system, which we are in the process of implementing, eliminates any duplication and is supported by the provinces and territories, with the exception of Ontario. I am perplexed by Minister Flaherty’s repeated refusal to recognize the advantages of such a system,” Jérôme-Forget said in a news release.

“The systematic refusal to acknowledge the advantages of such a system leads me to wonder whether all this effort is truly aimed at improving protection for the investing public,” she said in a letter to Flaherty that was also released.

Jérôme-Forget also questioned whether it was worthwhile setting up such a panel. “Instead, the federal government should concentrate on its own fields of jurisdiction and work to combat economic crime more effectively, since results in this sector have not met expectations,” she added.

“Given the mixed, to the say the least, results it has achieved in combating economic crime, in spite of the money spent, it seems to me that the federal government is not doing enough to assume its responsibilities, in particular regarding criminal law,” she noted in the letter.

“Had the federal government been serious, it would have invested more effort in convincing Ontario to join the passport system. I have noted this latest initiative and reaffirm my determination to oppose any model for a common or single securities regulatory organization,” she stated.

“Believe me when I say that I am sorry to see you invest your effort and good will, which I in no way doubt, in such an ill-advised initiative when your energies could be applied much more productively,” her letter concluded.