Big banks boast strong first quarter: Fitch
Broad-based growth powers gains in revenue, earnings
By James Langton |March 2, 2026
2 min read
Advisor.ca Logo
News and resources for Canada's top financial advisors
 |
(June 24, 2003) It’s time to take a closer, and critical, look at several promising proposals to reform securities regulation in Canada, says Joe Oliver, president of the IDA. In a speech yesterday morning at the IDA’s annual conference in St. Andrew’s by-the-Sea, New Brunswick, Oliver urged industry participants to push for improvements to create the best possible regulatory system.
There are three reform proposals currently on the table, Oliver said — a federal commission, a pan-Canadian commission run by the provinces and the current structure, augmented by harmonized rules and regulations. “I don’t know who’s on first, but it looks like the bases are loaded, which is promising.”
All three models offer the prospect for improving the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian capital markets, while maintaining investor protection, Oliver said, adding that the ideal model must include regional representation, cost efficiency and uniformity of rules and regulations.
A federal commission is being met with resistance from some of the provinces, Oliver noted, due to concerns about regional representation and the dismemberment of the existing provincial system.
Similarly, there’s opposition to a pan-Canadian commission due to the perception that such a system would be dominated by Ontario, by far the largest player in the Canadian market. “Control by Toronto is viewed as even less attractive than control by Ottawa,” Oliver noted.
The current structure, including the Canadian Securities Administrators’ uniform securities legislation project, needs to be more comprehensive, Oliver stated. “Furthermore, without ongoing coordination in policy making, harmonization will start to unravel, even before it starts.”
So while each proposal has its merits, the deficiencies need to be addressed before a final model can be chosen, Oliver said. “We are looking for dramatic improvement, not tinkering.”
One reform project that has made recent progress is the passport system, which would allow primary jurisdictions to supervise market access across the country, including registration. “We may get a passport system some time in the next few years,” Oliver said. “That would be a real improvement, but we can do better.”
Ultimately, the final decision on regulatory reform is political, Oliver said. “That means the private sector must maintain the pressure for reform. Don’t let decision makers off the hook. Keep pushing for the best possible model.”
In a speech earlier in the day, outgoing IDA chair Terry Salman defended the association’s self-regulatory model, which has been a subject of debate within the financial services industry. “The argument being that because self-regulatory organizations have an inherent conflict of interest, they cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the public,” he said.
While there’s no question the dual role of regulator and trade association creates a built-in conflict, critics often miss the fact that the IDA is mandated to place the interests of the public first, Salman said.
“Consider for a moment the consequences if we did not,” he said. “How long do you think it would take for the public, government regulators and the media to react if we were only to act in the interest if out membership? A nanosecond might be long.”
• • •
Filed by Doug Watt, Advisor.ca, dwatt@advisor.ca
(06/24/03)
|
(June 24, 2003) It’s time to take a closer, and critical, look at several promising proposals to reform securities regulation in Canada, says Joe Oliver, president of the IDA. In a speech yesterday morning at the IDA’s annual conference in St. Andrew’s by-the-Sea, New Brunswick, Oliver urged industry participants to push for improvements to create the best possible regulatory system.
There are three reform proposals currently on the table, Oliver said — a federal commission, a pan-Canadian commission run by the provinces and the current structure, augmented by harmonized rules and regulations. “I don’t know who’s on first, but it looks like the bases are loaded, which is promising.”
All three models offer the prospect for improving the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian capital markets, while maintaining investor protection, Oliver said, adding that the ideal model must include regional representation, cost efficiency and uniformity of rules and regulations.
A federal commission is being met with resistance from some of the provinces, Oliver noted, due to concerns about regional representation and the dismemberment of the existing provincial system.
Similarly, there’s opposition to a pan-Canadian commission due to the perception that such a system would be dominated by Ontario, by far the largest player in the Canadian market. “Control by Toronto is viewed as even less attractive than control by Ottawa,” Oliver noted.
The current structure, including the Canadian Securities Administrators’ uniform securities legislation project, needs to be more comprehensive, Oliver stated. “Furthermore, without ongoing coordination in policy making, harmonization will start to unravel, even before it starts.”
So while each proposal has its merits, the deficiencies need to be addressed before a final model can be chosen, Oliver said. “We are looking for dramatic improvement, not tinkering.”
One reform project that has made recent progress is the passport system, which would allow primary jurisdictions to supervise market access across the country, including registration. “We may get a passport system some time in the next few years,” Oliver said. “That would be a real improvement, but we can do better.”
Ultimately, the final decision on regulatory reform is political, Oliver said. “That means the private sector must maintain the pressure for reform. Don’t let decision makers off the hook. Keep pushing for the best possible model.”
In a speech earlier in the day, outgoing IDA chair Terry Salman defended the association’s self-regulatory model, which has been a subject of debate within the financial services industry. “The argument being that because self-regulatory organizations have an inherent conflict of interest, they cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the public,” he said.
While there’s no question the dual role of regulator and trade association creates a built-in conflict, critics often miss the fact that the IDA is mandated to place the interests of the public first, Salman said.
“Consider for a moment the consequences if we did not,” he said. “How long do you think it would take for the public, government regulators and the media to react if we were only to act in the interest if out membership? A nanosecond might be long.”
• • •
Filed by Doug Watt, Advisor.ca, dwatt@advisor.ca
(06/24/03)
|
(June 24, 2003) It’s time to take a closer, and critical, look at several promising proposals to reform securities regulation in Canada, says Joe Oliver, president of the IDA. In a speech yesterday morning at the IDA’s annual conference in St. Andrew’s by-the-Sea, New Brunswick, Oliver urged industry participants to push for improvements to create the best possible regulatory system.
There are three reform proposals currently on the table, Oliver said — a federal commission, a pan-Canadian commission run by the provinces and the current structure, augmented by harmonized rules and regulations. “I don’t know who’s on first, but it looks like the bases are loaded, which is promising.”
All three models offer the prospect for improving the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian capital markets, while maintaining investor protection, Oliver said, adding that the ideal model must include regional representation, cost efficiency and uniformity of rules and regulations.
A federal commission is being met with resistance from some of the provinces, Oliver noted, due to concerns about regional representation and the dismemberment of the existing provincial system.
Similarly, there’s opposition to a pan-Canadian commission due to the perception that such a system would be dominated by Ontario, by far the largest player in the Canadian market. “Control by Toronto is viewed as even less attractive than control by Ottawa,” Oliver noted.
The current structure, including the Canadian Securities Administrators’ uniform securities legislation project, needs to be more comprehensive, Oliver stated. “Furthermore, without ongoing coordination in policy making, harmonization will start to unravel, even before it starts.”
So while each proposal has its merits, the deficiencies need to be addressed before a final model can be chosen, Oliver said. “We are looking for dramatic improvement, not tinkering.”
One reform project that has made recent progress is the passport system, which would allow primary jurisdictions to supervise market access across the country, including registration. “We may get a passport system some time in the next few years,” Oliver said. “That would be a real improvement, but we can do better.”
Ultimately, the final decision on regulatory reform is political, Oliver said. “That means the private sector must maintain the pressure for reform. Don’t let decision makers off the hook. Keep pushing for the best possible model.”
In a speech earlier in the day, outgoing IDA chair Terry Salman defended the association’s self-regulatory model, which has been a subject of debate within the financial services industry. “The argument being that because self-regulatory organizations have an inherent conflict of interest, they cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the public,” he said.
While there’s no question the dual role of regulator and trade association creates a built-in conflict, critics often miss the fact that the IDA is mandated to place the interests of the public first, Salman said.
“Consider for a moment the consequences if we did not,” he said. “How long do you think it would take for the public, government regulators and the media to react if we were only to act in the interest if out membership? A nanosecond might be long.”
• • •
Filed by Doug Watt, Advisor.ca, dwatt@advisor.ca
(06/24/03)
