When Canada finally joins the grown-up countries by establishing a national securities regulator, we’ll be able to thank Conrad Black, various departed executives from Nortel Networks Corp., Kenneth Lay, the boys at Bre-X Minerals Ltd. and, most recently, subprime lenders.

There isn’t much point rehashing the case for a national regulator. The case has been made again and again by many governments and experts ever since the Royal Commission on Price Spreads called for some sort of national securities regulator in 1935. But there has never been the political will to finish the mission. And, until recently, Bay Street has been fearful of joining the debate.

There was the Porter Commission in 1964 and the Ontario Securities Commission’s 1967 proposal to replace itself with a national commission. This was followed by securities lawyer Phil Anisman’s prototype national securities act, which the Trudeau government tabled with a thud along with 14 studies on the question in Parliament in 1979.

Then, there was the Chrétien government’s overture for such a commission in 1994, and then again in 1996. Indeed, in June 1996, the feds convinced all the provinces except Quebec and British Columbia of the need.

Two successive Ontario governments have pushed for one. And, aside from the Bloc Québécois and the former Alliance/Reform parties, all parties on Parliament Hill have endorsed a national regulator in principle. And on it goes, most recently with a campaign by federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

But there has always been a tiny minority in a position to say “No” in this country. And, until recently, the average taxpayer has regarded the issue as a turf war in the financial services community and not important to the average Canadian.

As a result, the issue has been like a groundhog that surfaces from time to time and crawls back into its hole, leaving us another 10 to 15 years of embarrassment over our 13 impotent commissions.

But these days, the groundhog is hanging around on the surface.

Canadians may wonder why the sponsorship scandal dominated Parliament with such intensity while Nortel received no attention at all — even though millions more dollars were involved and thousands more Canadians directly affected.

Maybe it was the sight of Conrad Black being prosecuted in a Chicago court for a style of business that originated at 10 Toronto St. There is, of course, a widespread belief on both sides of the border that the U.S. prosecutes stock fraud and other white-collar crimes while Canada doesn’t.

True or not, perception is reality in politics. And it should be clear why Flaherty now feels comfortable blaming holdout provinces for the collapse of the asset-backed commercial-paper market or publicly quarreling with his Quebec counterpart, Monique Jérôme-Forget, over the need for a national commission.

Indeed, both the federal Conservatives and the Liberals appear to be competing for ownership of this issue.

One could wonder why the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was unable to prevent the ABCP subprime lender crisis. But political issues, unlike policy issues, are driven by emotion. As the advertising and public relations industries would say: one argument has mind share; the other doesn’t.

In his book, The Tipping Point: How little things can make a big difference, author Malcolm Gladwell says ideas spread like a virus through the population once they hit critical mass in people’s minds.

Although there won’t be a federal/provincial agreement overnight, the establishment of a national securities regulator will remain on Ottawa’s agenda until a deal is struck. IE