If federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty hopes to be the one who finally rationalizes the securities regulatory system, he’s going to have to do better than striking yet another so-called “expert panel” to puzzle over the problem.

With all due respect to the members of the latest group that has been charged with reviewing securities regulation, it’s hard to see what they are going to bring to the issue that hasn’t been covered before by the Wise Persons’ Committee, the Allen Task Force, the Crawford Committee — or even the Porter Commission, for that matter.

The only source of hope in this latest panel is the presence of two former employees of Britain’s Financial Services Authority as special advisors. Their value is not their expertise in regulatory policy, or even their insight into principles-based regulation, which appears to have captivated the finance minister lately.

Rather, what they may be able to bring to this latest exercise is some much-needed perspective on the level of political commitment that’s required to carry out significant structural reforms in a sensitive area such as securities regulation.

The reason Britain was able to consolidate numerous regulators into one body was the powerful mandate for change that the newly elected Labour government had when it brought about the creation of the FSA.

As impressive as that achievement was, however, that government didn’t have to contend with a large group of provincial governments with a historic claim on jurisdiction.

Flaherty must realize that the provinces aren’t going to be cajoled into compliance, or won over with yet another round of arguments on the merits of a common regulator. Rather, their co-operation is either going to have to be bought with political favours, or forced upon them by a federal government that’s willing to claim jurisdiction.

Without decisive structural reform, a move to principles-based regulation is pure folly — just ask the B.C. Securities Commission, which has already tried within the current system.

Perhaps if the next election brings about a strong majority government, it will decide to put an end to this debate once and for all. Until that happens though, another panel probably signifies nothing more than another round of futile navel gazing.