Ray Protti, head of the Canadian Bankers Association, added his voice to the chorus calling for securities regulation reform in Canada.

In speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce on Monday, Protti assailed the current system for being over-regulated and inefficient.

“We simply have too many regulatory bodies applying too many different sets of rules and regulations. The barrier to progress simply has too many layers,” he said.

Protti asserted that Canadians pay $10.83 in regulatory expenditures per $1,000 of finance and insurance, compared to just $6.85 in Australia, and $4.26 in the U.K. “By my calculations, if Canada could match Australia’s regulatory efficiency, consumers would save approximately $180 million per year, and if our regulatory efficiency matched that of the UK, the savings would be even greater at $297 million per year.”

Against the argument for a uniform securities law, rather than a national commission, Protti said, “Streamlining regulations within individual jurisdictions would certainly be welcome, but the most significant benefits of reform will only be fully realized if undertaken on a consistent basis, across the country. The broth doesn’t just spoil itself — part of the problem is the number of cooks. Reforms by governments acting independently will not solve the problem of the costs, inefficiencies, and complexities of an over-built regulatory infrastructure — a legacy system of an earlier economy.”

Protti said that building a sensible, national system of financial services regulation “is our next great policy challenge”. He didn’t specify whether a federal or pan-Canadian model would be preferred, just that the goal should be, “A truly national approach to regulation where all governments responsible for regulating financial services cooperate within a unified system.”

“There would be no losers if Canada’s needlessly overlapping and costly regulatory framework for financial services were fixed,” he said. “Consumers of financial services would be winners. There would be no cracks through which they might fall between different layers and levels of government, and they would know where to go to get their questions answered and their grievances heard. Individuals and companies seeking capital would be winners. A single set of rules would create greater certainty, and the cost of raising capital would fall. Governments would also be winners. They could meet sound public policy objectives by knocking down barriers to innovation, improving our living standards, and pursuing competitiveness while the public interest in protecting consumers was still being met.”

He called on the government to exercise leadership and statesmanship to work on the issue. “Ministers in governments across the country need to take ownership of this critical matter, and commit to enter into focused discussions to find solutions. For our part, the financial sector must provide both strong encouragement and constructive ideas. And members of the Chamber of Commerce and other community leaders can make important contributions.”