Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
October 23, 2026 | NCFA Community Opportunities | Spain, Europe, International Expansion, Fintech, Investment

On October 29, 2026, the Madrid Investment Forum will bring Canadian founders, business leaders and investors together in Toronto to explore opportunities to establish operations in Spain and expand into European markets.
Organized by the Spanish Chamber of Commerce in Canada in collaboration with the Spain-US Chamber of Commerce and ICEX, with support from DLA Piper, the forum will feature representatives from Invest in Madrid, legal and financial institutions, and Canadian businesses with international experience.
For Canadian fintech and technology companies considering European expansion, the event offers direct access to investment representatives and practical guidance on market entry, regulatory requirements, banking relationships and local partnerships.
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2026
Time: 9:00–11:30 a.m. ET
Location: DLA Piper, 333 Bay Street, Suite 5100, Toronto
Registration: Register for the Madrid Investment Forum
Programme: View the official agenda
Companies considering establishing operations in Spain can also request individual meetings with Invest in Madrid on October 28 or following the October 29 presentations. According to the organizers, confidential support is available at no cost.
The programme runs from 9:00 to 11:30 a.m. and includes investment opportunities, Canada-Spain ties, legal, regulatory, banking and financial considerations and Canadian expansion experience:
The morning concludes with networking and business-to-business meetings, giving participants an opportunity to speak directly with investment and professional services representatives.
Canada and the EU are also pursuing closer economic ties. Following their September 16 meeting, Prime Minister Mark Carney and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen discussed deeper cooperation in artificial intelligence, digital trade, financial services and payments. As part of the broader discussions, von der Leyen has also raised the possibility of Canada becoming an associate member of the EU, although what that arrangement would involve remains undefined.
The discussions build on the broader Canada–EU strategic partnership launched in June 2025. Carney is scheduled to host von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa at the Canada–EU Summit in Montréal on October 29–30, coinciding with the Madrid forum in Toronto.
For Canadian fintech companies, closer economic alignment adds another dimension to international expansion planning. But political commitments don't automatically translate into market access. Licensing, regulatory compliance, banking relationships and local partnerships still determine how companies can operate and compete. The Madrid forum offers an opportunity to explore those practical considerations directly.
For Canadian fintech companies, entering Europe involves more than identifying customers. Licensing, regulatory compliance, banking access, local partnerships and operating costs all influence where and how a business can expand. As Canada and the EU pursue deeper economic and technology cooperation, Canadian businesses have good reason to revisit their international growth strategies. But government alignment alone doesn't establish a viable market. The commercial opportunity still needs to stand on its own.
Is your company exploring expansion into Spain or Europe? Connect with NCFA to express your interest, or register directly through the event information above to learn more about available opportunities and support.
NCFA is sharing this opportunity as a community partner to help connect interested Canadian founders, executives and investors with the organizers and relevant market contacts.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 20, 2026 | Last Updated: October 21, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Sustainable Finance And ESG, Investment And Capital Markets, Regulation And Policy

On October 20, 2026, Canada’s Taxonomy and Transition Planning Council released its final sustainable investment methodology. Canada now has a common way to assess green and transition activities after years of greenwashing disputes over financial products and bank commitments. Ottawa backs and funds the initiative, while an independent council develops and approves the standards. Adoption is voluntary, and detailed sector tests are still being written.
Canadians wanted products and investments that reflected their environmental priorities. Financial institutions saw customers, assets, lending opportunities and a stronger public story. Funds, ETFs, green bonds and huge sustainable finance commitments followed. Then investors started looking more closely at the holdings, counting rules and environmental results behind those claims.
What follows is a story of growing investor demand, billions in financial promises, and the widening gap between what institutions marketed and what they could prove.
Customers start asking for proof. Canadian environmental labelling programs such as Environmental Choice and EcoLogo bring product claims into everyday buying decisions during the 1990s. Buyers want to know what a label proves, not simply whether a package looks green. Later, investors bring similar expectations to savings and portfolios. 1
Financial firms see an opening. Responsible investing gains momentum when the UN backed Principles for Responsible Investment launch in 2006. Institutions from 16 countries representing more than US$2 trillion in assets sign on at the New York Stock Exchange. Investors are signalling that environmental, social and governance issues belong in investment decisions, and asset managers have a new market to serve.2
Canadian green bonds find buyers. EDC and Ontario give investors a named framework and intended use of proceeds before the money is committed. Named uses of proceeds give buyers more to check than a broad corporate promise. The proof still comes later. Issuers have to show where the capital went, what was completed and what the project delivered. A successful bond sale doesn't guarantee a successful environmental outcome.
Responsible investing grows beyond niche portfolios. By the end of 2017, Canada counted C$2.13 trillion in professionally managed assets using at least one responsible investment strategy. The Responsible Investment Association’s 2018 report put that at 50.6% of managed assets. The figure included screening and engagement strategies. It was not C$2.13 trillion of new green projects.
The banks raise their targets. As climate commitments become part of banks’ public image, Canada’s largest banks announce targets in the hundreds of billions. Corporate lending, underwriting, advisory work and other eligible services may all contribute under a bank’s methodology. A big cumulative number becomes a prominent measure of progress.
Investors start asking what sits behind the totals. A financing commitment can qualify under a bank’s own rules without proving that the financed activity later cut emissions. As the numbers climb, that gap becomes harder to ignore. Banks are selling sustainable finance. Their critics want to know what the money financed and what changed.Institutional investors were sending mixed signals too. In 2024, How Canadian Institutional Investors Voted on Climate 2024 found support for climate shareholder proposals varied sharply across major Canadian asset managers.
Fund marketing comes under review. The Canadian Securities Administrators issue ESG fund guidance in 2022 and revise it in 2024. Their reviews identify cases where promotional language reaches further than the investment documents support. The revised notice covers 112 prospectus reviews involving 57 managers, plus 39 continuous disclosure reviews involving 35 managers and 50 funds.6
Bank disclosures face formal complaints. By January 2024, Canadian banks face scrutiny over sustainability claims after Investors for Paris Compliance files securities complaints about RBC, TD, BMO, CIBC and Scotiabank. The group challenges how the banks support their sustainable finance claims. The allegations are not findings of wrongdoing. The original complaint sets out what the advocates asked regulators to examine.
RBC puts its counting method on paper. Its March 2024 framework says the bank uses its judgment when assessing eligible transactions. For credit, it can add authorized balances at successive fiscal year ends. The same continuing exposure may therefore contribute in more than one year. That isn't the same as reporting only unique new loans, and it says nothing by itself about the emissions a financed project later avoided.
Then the C$500 billion target disappears. In April 2025, RBC retires the commitment and cites uncertainty around measurement and Canada’s environmental claims rules. The move doesn't prove earlier transactions were misclassified. It does leave investors with a basic problem. A flagship number that once signalled leadership is gone just as scrutiny of the underlying methodology is intensifying.7
The fight moves into investment funds. In 2025, the OSC brings a case against Purpose Investments and CEO Som Seif over 19 allegedly misleading ESG communications made between 2019 and 2023. Purpose and Seif deny wrongdoing. After closing arguments in September 2026, the Tribunal reserves its decision. As of October 20, the allegations remain contested and there is no verified final merits ruling.8
The money stays, but new product launches slow. Morningstar reports C$67 billion in Canadian sustainable fund assets at the end of 2025. Only two new funds launch that year, down from 18 in 2024. The ten biggest net inflow winners attract C$4 billion while the rest lose C$2.9 billion combined. Greenwashing does not explain that result on its own. What the numbers do show is a market where assets keep growing while new money concentrates in fewer products.9
Green claims carry more legal risk. Competition Act changes in 2024 put environmental marketing under closer scrutiny. Parliament changes part of that regime in March 2026 by removing the requirement for business activity claims to follow an internationally recognized methodology. Misleading claims remain unlawful. By then, fintechs face new green claim rules under Competition Act, making documentation and evidence part of the commercial risk around environmental marketing.
The government work began years earlier. The federal Sustainable Finance Action Council receives a taxonomy mandate in 2021. Its 2022 roadmap report proposes green and transition classifications and a governance system, warning that delay could cost Canada investment opportunities. The early ambition to have a fuller framework in place by 2025 passes without one.
Ottawa funds the work but doesn't write the standard. In December 2025, Finance Canada selects the Canadian Climate Institute, working with Business Future Pathways, to support an independent taxonomy process. The federal government provides seed funding and a mandate. The independent Council owns the methodology and approval decisions.10
The 2026 consultation brings the difficult cases into the open. Canada has to decide how to treat investments that cut emissions inside steel, mining, transport and energy without pretending those industries are already green. A proposed emissions abatement category draws particular attention because a project can reduce emissions and still extend the life of a high emitting asset. Council chair Marlene Puffer connects the work directly to investment. “Ultimately, this work will underpin Canada’s ability to compete for capital with our peers around the world.”11
Because the taxonomy is voluntary, banks and fund managers now have a choice. They can align products with the common definitions or continue relying on their own frameworks unless another rule requires otherwise. Investors will be able to see which institutions use the shared standard and which do not.
That choice creates work for fintech firms that can keep the evidence attached to the financing claim. Activity screening, emissions records, approvals and audit trails all need to survive from origination through reporting. Capital is already moving into audit ready ESG software, including Novisto's USD $27 million raise. Banks, asset managers and borrowers will pay for systems that make sustainability claims easier to verify and harder to overstate.
A green label once helped a product stand out. Today, investors can ask much more of the claim behind it. Canada’s banks and fund managers have sold the promise of sustainable finance for years. Investors have answered with real money. The controversies have shown how quickly confidence frays when the language is more impressive than the evidence.
Canada's government backed, independently developed taxonomy gives the market a chance to reset that bargain. It is voluntary, and the technical tests are unfinished. No council can make an old claim true after the fact. Banks can show how a financing decision qualifies. Companies can keep the records behind the claim. Fund managers can tell investors exactly what they own.
Fintech founders have a market in the systems that keep these claims honest. Activity screening, emissions data, traceable loan records and assurance can become products that banks, issuers and investors will pay for. The firms that earn trust won't be the ones making the largest green promise. They'll be the ones that can show where the money went, what changed and who checked the evidence.
NCFA STORY
CSA Pauses Climate and Diversity Disclosure Rules
Canada paused mandatory climate disclosure rules in 2025 while material climate risks and misleading claims remained subject to securities law. Voluntary standards therefore carry more weight in the market.
NCFA INSIGHT
AI Won’t Solve SME Finance Without Better Data
Sustainable finance breaks down when businesses cannot collect and reuse reliable operating data. Better evidence infrastructure is becoming part of the financing opportunity for SMEs, lenders and fintechs.
NCFA STORY
Sustainability A Must for Fintech Growth
Fintechs face their own sustainability pressures as digital infrastructure consumes more energy and customers expect stronger environmental performance. The business opportunity and the operating risk are moving together.
NCFA VOICES
Businesses Competing on Social Values Use Fintech to Gain an Edge
Long before Canada had a taxonomy, customers were already rewarding companies that reflected their environmental and social values. Fintech gave firms new ways to turn those values into measurable participation.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 19, 2026 | Insight | Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On October 19, 2026, Global X Investments Canada and National Bank Direct Brokerage released a Canadian survey on AI and finfluencers in investing, finding that 84% of 834 surveyed self-directed investors use AI, financial influencers or both for investment research and related activities. Some 77% watch financial creators, while 56% use AI for investment research and related activities. The findings raise a new question for Canada's investment industry. Does AI help investors critically assess ideas discovered through social media, or does it reinforce the original recommendation?
The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has already tested how investors respond to financial promotions and AI investment suggestions. The new research adds evidence that investors are using these sources together. For Canadian wealthtech firms, winning investor trust increasingly means helping customers assess investment ideas, compare options and make informed decisions before they place a trade. That creates new possibilities for research products and digital advice, along with questions about the information investors rely on.
The October survey found that 68% of finfluencer viewers also use AI for investing, compared with 14% of non-viewers. Investors use AI to check their thinking, research markets, generate ideas and summarize financial information. Among finfluencer viewers, 83% reported taking some action after consuming content, including learning financial terms (26%), increasing savings (24%) and starting to invest (18%). Not every action involved buying or selling an investment, and the survey doesn't establish that financial content caused the reported behaviour.
Earlier OSC research offers stronger evidence about how promotional content can affect investment choices. In its 2025 finfluencer research, 38% of participants exposed to promotional investment content purchased the featured asset in a simulated portfolio, compared with 8% in the control group. The OSC also tested disclosures, advance warnings and prompts encouraging investors to check accuracy. Each reduced promotional influence, although none eliminated it.
The OSC separately examined AI investment recommendations in 2024. Investors were about as likely to follow investment recommendations from AI as from human financial professionals. They were most likely to follow advice that combined both, although the difference wasn't large enough to be statistically meaningful. Even before the latest survey, investors were open to taking investment advice from AI.
The research gap is what happens when these influences meet. Consider an investor who discovers a stock through a financial creator and asks AI to evaluate it. The AI response might identify risks the creator missed. It could also repeat promotional claims drawn from the same underlying sources, giving the investor more confidence without adding independent evidence. As AI use grows, testing whether it challenges or reinforces financial promotions will seemingly become a practical investor protection priority.
AI also introduces the possibility of financial content being produced and assessed by automated systems. Digital influencers can generate investment messages, while investors may use another AI service to evaluate those messages. More personalized content could make promotions increasingly relevant to individual interests, but it could also become harder to distinguish independent analysis from repeated marketing claims.
Financial creators attract investors who actively manage their portfolios. Surveyed viewers reported an average of 9.9 portfolio adjustments a year, compared with 2.3 among non-viewers. They were also more likely to identify as aggressive investors, at 14% versus 4%. Those differences suggest that many investors consuming financial content are comfortable making decisions and looking beyond their brokerage for information.
Professional judgment still has considerable influence. Some 46% of respondents manage at least part of their investments independently while also working with an advisor. Among finfluencer viewers with an advisor, 84% said creator content had changed that relationship, often by helping them ask better questions or seek confirmation. And 96% of investors combining DIY investing with professional advice said they would pause or reconsider an AI or creator sourced investment if their advisor recommended against it.
Claude-Frédéric Robert, President of National Bank Direct Brokerage, described the challenge:
"It's understanding which sources to trust, how to validate ideas and how to turn information into informed investment decisions."
For advisors, clients who arrive with their own investment research create an opportunity for better conversations. A client may already know a company's growth story, valuation or recent performance but need help assessing portfolio concentration, risk and personal financial circumstances. The advisor's value comes from challenging assumptions and connecting an investment decision to the client's broader financial plan, not simply supplying information the client can now find elsewhere.
AI could strengthen that relationship if firms use it to make research easier to understand and prepare clients for more useful advice. It could also expose weak advice models built around access to information rather than professional judgment. The October findings support interest in combining independent research and human advice, but they don't establish that any particular hybrid model produces better investment outcomes.
AI is giving investors another place to research stocks, compare ETFs and assess investment ideas before placing a trade. The brokerage that executes a trade may not be the company that influenced the decision. As more investors turn to AI for research, investment platforms risk losing some of the customer engagement that supports trading activity and other services.
AI could also influence which investments investors discover. The sources an AI tool selects and how it compares products may affect which funds, stocks or strategies receive attention. That gives fund providers another way to reach investors while creating new competition for brokerages that traditionally attract customers through their own research and investment offerings.
Canadian wealthtech firms have an opportunity to bring that research back into their platforms. Rather than adding another chatbot, they can help customers verify investment claims against company filings, compare costs and understand portfolio risks. Reliable information and useful comparisons give investors practical reasons to return.
The business model determines how far these services can go. Execution only brokerages can offer education and general investment research without providing personalized recommendations. Registered advisors can use AI to support their work while remaining responsible for meeting applicable advice and suitability requirements. Firms combining digital tools with professional advice may appeal to investors who want to manage their own portfolios but need guidance on important decisions.
Canada already has rules covering much of this activity. In December 2025, the CSA and CIRO issued guidance on finfluencers and securities law, addressing investment promotions, registration, compensation and conflicts. It also covers AI generated digital influencers. Explaining an investment is different from recommending what someone should buy based on their personal circumstances. Firms need to understand where that boundary applies to their AI products.
For fintech operators, the practical questions include where AI gets its information, how it handles misleading claims and when customers should be directed to qualified advice. These choices affect customer trust, compliance costs and the services a platform can offer.
Canada's digital investment advice review has also looked at barriers to online and hybrid advice. As AI adoption grows, investment firms could serve more customers by combining accessible research with professional guidance when needed. The opportunity is to offer something genuinely useful, not simply generate more investment recommendations.
About the survey: The Global X and National Bank Direct Brokerage survey was conducted by RKI in June 2026 among 834 qualifying Canadian DIY investors who used social media and actively sought financial information. Participants needed at least $10,000 in investable assets, or $1,000 if they were under 30. The findings apply to this surveyed group, not all Canadian investors. The earlier OSC experiments used different methods, so their results can't be used to measure changes in AI adoption over time.
AI could become a powerful second opinion on investment ideas, but a second opinion isn't necessarily an independent one. The opportunity for Canadian wealth platforms is to help investors distinguish credible research from repeated financial promotion before confidence turns into a trade.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On October 17, 2026, Finance Canada published proposed fintech investment and technology regulations for powers Parliament approved in June 2018 and never brought into force. The package reaches more than 400 federally regulated financial institutions.
Finance now says the older rules can “prevent or complicate” fintech investment, limit capital flowing into innovative sectors and impede productivity growth. Eight years after Parliament acted, the operating rules are still only proposed.
The delay wasn’t one long consultation. Finance’s own record shows six concrete problems. Officials had to draw the regulatory perimeter between finance and technology, preserve the barrier against unrelated commerce, set revenue and regulatory capital limits, stop the rules from squeezing smaller institutions, and cut reporting requirements industry said were too heavy. Then Parliament had to repair defects in the 2018 statute in 2024. Six problems turned one reform into eight years of rulemaking.
This wasn’t a ban on fintech investment. Banks and insurers could still buy businesses that fit the existing rules. The trouble started when a fintech mixed finance with commercial software or expanded after an institution had invested. Banks had already warned that some domestic technology approvals took three to four months. The 2026 proposal would finally give qualifying mixed businesses a new route when at least 60% of their activity is financial, subject to separate limits on the investor.
Finance opened the review in 2016. It held 32 meetings and received 63 written submissions, then received 300 submissions in 2017, with 25 focused on fintech. Finance later acknowledged that incumbent institutions and industry associations were better represented than independent fintechs and venture investors.
Bankers came with a practical complaint. The Canadian Bankers Association’s 2017 submission said some domestic technology approvals could take three to four months and covered only the activities named in the application. That’s a poor fit for a fintech that can add a product, market or subsidiary in the time it takes a large institution to finish an approval process.
Founders weren’t building tidy regulatory categories. Payments were moving into merchant software, identity tools could serve banks and law offices, and data companies were becoming financial infrastructure while selling into other industries. The old rules drew cleaner lines than the market did.
Investors wanted a wider lane too. Finance said collaboration could pair fintech speed with the balance sheets and customer relationships of established institutions. Portag3 Ventures, then backing Canadian companies including Wealthsimple, Borrowell and KOHO, supported broader investment flexibility and argued that bank financing and collaboration were important to the fintech ecosystem. Capital and distribution were already part of the policy problem.
Under the Bank Act route described by the CBA, a substantial investment generally had to stay inside permitted activities. If even one ancillary activity or a downstream subsidiary moved outside that list, the bank could face another approval, a different investment classification or divestment. The CBA called the restriction a “significant impediment” with the potential to restrict Canadian innovation.
Insurers ran into the same boundary from another direction. The life insurance industry’s 2017 submission said an insurer could use identity or anti money laundering technology inside finance but couldn’t freely sell the same capability to law offices, real estate firms, other businesses or government. Useful technology could have a broader market, while the ownership and commercialization rules stayed narrow.
A growing fintech can create a problem for the shareholder that helped fund it. Add inventory software, merchant analytics or a commercial subsidiary because customers want them, and the business may no longer fit the permission that supported the original bank investment. The CBA warned that this could discourage fintechs from working with banks.
Insurers faced a similar commercial choice. A tool built for regulated finance might have customers far beyond finance, yet the legal route could narrow who could own the business or where the product could be sold. That can influence which investor a founder takes, how the company is structured and which markets it enters next.
Parliament responded on June 21, 2018. The 2018 Budget Implementation Act broadened permitted technology activities, removed prior ministerial approval for the expanded nonfinancial activities, widened referral powers and created a new investment category for companies whose businesses were mostly financial services. The law clearly moved toward more flexibility.
But Parliament didn’t define how much of a company had to be financial to qualify as a majority financial services entity. It also left the revenue, capital, reporting and transaction conditions to regulation. Without those operating rules, institutions couldn’t use the new powers and stayed under the older framework.
Parliament gave banks and insurers broader ownership powers in June 2018. Finance still had to define the majority test, exposure limits and safeguards before anyone could use them. The authority existed. The investment route didn’t.
That left financial institutions making real investment decisions under the old framework while fintech business models kept widening. A company could fit the rules when a bank first invested and create a new legal problem later simply by adding a commercial activity customers wanted.
After Royal Assent, Finance worked with the CBA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and OSFI. The first problem was the regulatory perimeter. Finance called separating new technology activities from core financial services a “serious technical challenge”, especially when the same staff, assets and systems served both. Officials also had to preserve existing investment prohibitions and keep visibility into the new business.
Then came the operating limits. In 2019, officials worked through revenue caps, regulatory capital exposure, annual reports and transaction conditions. A 2020 technical review exposed two more problems. Uniform rules could box out smaller institutions, while the proposed reporting package could impose a significant burden. Finance later revised both.
The delay didn’t come from one unresolved issue. It came from six. Finance had to separate finance from technology, preserve limits on unrelated commerce, set revenue and capital exposure caps, give smaller institutions enough room to compete, and reduce reporting requirements industry said were too burdensome. Those were the five regulatory design problems documented through the consultation record.
The sixth problem sat in the law itself. Bill C-59 received Royal Assent in June 2024 and made technical corrections to the 2018 law. It fixed discrepancies between the English and French provisions and clarified that the expanded technology powers were limited to information technology. By then, Finance had already consulted in 2019, reviewed a draft in 2020, consulted again in 2021 and returned with another draft in 2024.
Every revision created another round of legal or regulatory work. Caps changed. Reporting changed. Parliament repaired the statute six years after passage. The first public regulations still didn’t reach Canada Gazette Part I until October 2026, even though stakeholders were asking by 2024 for the powers to come into force “as soon as feasible.”
National Bank took control of Flinks in 2021. Its disclosed transaction included C$73 million for voting preferred shares followed by another C$30 million investment. The bank’s interest rose to 85.9%.
RBC bought WayPay in 2019 to expand automated business payments and account reconciliation. Canada Life acquired ClaimSecure in 2021, adding 1.25 million plan members and technology handling more than C$1.2 billion in annual claims payments. Canada Life and ClaimSecure later launched a combined benefits product.
Those deals matter because they rule out the easy story. Canada didn’t ban institutional fintech investment, and banks and insurers kept buying businesses that fit the existing framework. The squeeze showed up at the edges, where finance blended with commercial activity or a company later expanded beyond the legal fit that supported the original investment.
By October 2026, Flinks had moved beyond financial data connectivity into banking development, payment integrations, account switching and managed services. That’s exactly the kind of expansion a strategic shareholder may want to keep backing. Under the older framework, a different commercial move could force the shareholder to stop and ask whether it could legally stay invested.
The CBA warned that the legal fit could affect a deal before anyone applied for approval. If a fintech needed capital quickly, a bank bid carrying a regulatory condition could lose to cleaner, faster money. A later business change could also force the bank back into approval or divestment. A lost opportunity can disappear before Ottawa ever sees a file.
Finance expects more activity once the new route is usable. Over the past decade, roughly one institution per year sought the relevant ministerial approvals. Finance now assumes large banks will average two qualifying investments annually and large insurers one. The figures aren’t directly comparable, but Finance itself expects more activity because the process should be faster, less costly and more certain.
Government data can count approvals. It can’t count the bank bid that was never made, the expansion pushed into another company or the investor a founder never approached because the legal fit was poor. It can’t count technology an insurer decided not to sell outside finance either. Those decisions rarely leave a public record.
The economic toll starts before an approval file exists. A bank offer with conditions can lose to faster capital. A founder can split a product, delay a commercial move or avoid an investor whose ownership may become a future constraint. None of those choices needs a rejection letter to change the company’s path.
The October proposal finally puts a number on majority. A target can qualify when at least 60% of its business consists of qualifying financial activity, measured using whichever produces the highest result among revenue, operating expenses or assets. That gives younger or differently structured companies more than one way to clear the test.
The investor has separate limits. Institutions with more than C$12 billion in equity would face a 10% nonfinancial revenue ceiling and a 10% regulatory capital exposure limit. Small and medium institutions with C$12 billion or less in equity would get 15% revenue headroom while keeping the same 10% capital limit.
Take a payments company that also sells merchant software. Under the older activity based route, one impermissible commercial activity could knock the company out of that investment permission. Under the proposal, a business with 70% qualifying financial activity and 30% other commercial activity could potentially qualify. The 70 and 30 split is illustrative, but the business consequence is straightforward. The founder may no longer have to strip out every useful commercial feature just to keep a bank investor eligible.
The percentages don’t describe the same limit. The historical 5% exemption covered certain bank technology investments without approval and required the investee to stay within prescribed activities. The new 60% test applies to the target company’s business mix. The 10% and 15% limits apply to the investing institution’s aggregate nonfinancial business. There isn’t a simple old cap and new cap comparison.
More eligible bank and insurer investors can improve financing choices, distribution and negotiating leverage for an independent fintech. A strategic buyer can get a product in front of customers much faster. It can also end up owning technology several competing institutions rely on. More capital and more competition aren’t automatically the same outcome.
Finance is trying to keep sight of that risk. Certain large acquirers would have to report material supply arrangements between a target and the acquirer’s competitors. Smaller and medium institutions get more revenue headroom and no new reports, because identical limits would leave them with much less room to compete.
A wider buyer pool can help founders raise money, get distribution and negotiate exits. It can also put an important supplier or emerging challenger inside a major incumbent. That’s where the reform shifts from a capital question to a competition question.
The Competition Bureau’s fintech study supported removing unnecessary barriers to entry and collaboration while keeping scrutiny where incumbent relationships could weaken competition. Finance’s new supply reporting reflects the same concern. The useful outcome isn’t simply more acquisitions. It’s more capital reaching strong companies without draining independent competitive pressure from the market.
Finance estimates the proposed rules will add C$267,518 in annualized administrative and compliance costs, or about C$1.88 million in present value over 10 years. Those figures cover the new reporting burden. They don’t count the savings from removing some ministerial approvals, and they certainly don’t capture eight years of slower, narrower business choices under the old framework.
The regulations are proposed, not in force. Canada Gazette Part I opened a 30 day consultation on October 17, 2026, with comments due November 16. The government still has to finalize the regulations and use a separate Order in Council to activate the dormant 2018 amendments.
The last round now turns on execution. The 60% definition has to work for current fintech business models, smaller institutions need enough room to compete, and Finance needs visibility into new risks without rebuilding the reporting burden industry spent years pushing back on. Get those choices wrong and the reform can still underdeliver even after eight years.
Canada has already spent eight years designing conditions around powers Parliament approved in 2018. The next step is simpler to describe and harder to deliver. Put the rules into force, give good businesses a workable path to institutional capital, and keep enough independent competition in the market that customers actually benefit.
Canada’s eight year delay carried a real economic toll. Banks faced approval processes that could take three to four months. Mixed fintechs could lose access to some bank or insurer investors as they expanded. Insurers had less room to sell useful technology outside financial services. Finance now says the old framework can prevent or complicate investment, limit capital and impede productivity. We can’t put a credible dollar figure on every deal, product or expansion that went another way, but the commercial cost isn’t abstract. It lands in who funds a company, what it builds next and how quickly it gets to market.
Canada has good reasons to keep banks and insurers out of unrelated commerce. Those guardrails protect stability and stop financial institutions from controlling too much of the wider economy. But a safeguard carries a cost when rules written for older business models keep constraining newer ones after Parliament has already approved change. The Competition Bureau’s fintech progress review has warned that regulatory barriers can weaken competition too. Capital won’t wait eight years for rulemaking to catch up.
Founders didn’t stop building while Ottawa worked through the rules. Banks and insurers still found ways to invest where the old framework allowed it, as Flinks, WayPay and ClaimSecure show. The 2026 proposal can widen those paths without turning strategic investment into another route to incumbent control. Eight years are gone. The better outcome now is a market where good Canadian fintechs have more ways to finance growth, commercialize useful technology and challenge the status quo.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |