Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
July 28, 2026 | NCFA Resource | Sustainable Finance And ESG, Financial Inclusion, SME Finance And Business Banking

On July 23, 2026, SVX published Canada’s first comprehensive national assessment of community finance. The report identifies 768 institutions, estimates their combined assets and examines how community finance products direct money into housing, local businesses, Indigenous entrepreneurship, food systems, clean energy and other community priorities.
Its most useful contribution is a baseline. Until now, Canada didn't have a public national picture connecting credit unions, Community Futures organizations, Indigenous Financial Institutions, community loan funds, land trusts, community bond issuers and related intermediaries. The report brings these organizations together through a common definition, a product dataset and an interactive market map.
The report’s three main asset figures describe different parts of the market:
The $771.3 billion headline doesn’t mean that amount has been invested directly into community projects. It mainly reflects the institutional assets of large credit unions, including Desjardins, Vancity and Assiniboine Credit Union.
Credit unions account for approximately 99% of the reported assets, although they represent 40% of the 768 institutions. Community Futures organizations form another 34% of the network, followed by Indigenous Financial Institutions at 8%, community land trusts at 6%, community loan funds at 4% and community bond issuers at 4%.
That makes the $7.3 billion figure particularly useful. It provides a clearer estimate of the specialized community finance market operating outside credit unions. The report also identifies $755 million held by Indigenous Financial Institutions and $153.8 million raised through community bonds from 28 issuers.
Credit unions still belong in the national picture because member ownership and local deployment are central to the report’s definition. The DUCA Impact Lab discussion shows how a credit union can test lending models designed for people and businesses underserved by conventional criteria.
Community finance also means something different from community capital raising. In this report, community finance describes institutions that pool and direct capital toward a defined place, population or shared need. Differently, investment platforms that support equity crowdfunding like FrontFundr uses community capital to describe companies raising money from customers, supporters and retail investors through regulated crowdfunding. NCFA’s review of Canadian equity crowdfunding covers that second model.
The two can overlap. A community bond issuer or investment cooperative may attract individual investors while also qualifying as a community finance institution. A startup supported by its customers through an equity crowdfunding campaign doesn’t automatically meet the report’s institutional definition.
The institutional map combines 107 organizations in the Catalyst Community Finance Collection with 661 additional organizations identified through the Canadian Community Finance Intermediary Market Map.
Geographic coverage extends across every province and territory. Quebec contains 32.7% of mapped institutions, followed by Ontario at 25% and British Columbia at 12.9%. The geography chart is based on 752 institutions because location data weren’t available for every organization.
Assets are more concentrated than institution counts. Quebec holds 54.9% of total reported assets, largely because of the Desjardins caisse network. Ontario and British Columbia each account for approximately 14%.
Once credit unions are removed, Quebec’s share falls to 45.1%, Ontario’s rises to 40.1% and British Columbia accounts for 10%. Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories and Yukon remain lightly represented in the asset data.
The map shows that institutions exist across Canada. It doesn’t establish that every community has enough local financing capacity. NCFA’s review of rural financial access provides additional context on what happens when conventional financial infrastructure contracts in smaller and remote markets.
The detailed product analysis covers 202 products from 107 organizations. Private bonds and debentures account for 44.3% of the products studied, although they represent only 0.2% of reported product assets. Loan funds or equivalent products represent 20.9%, while private equity and venture capital funds account for 12.4%.
The CSI community bond campaign provides a current Canadian example. Individual and institutional investors supplied capital for community owned real estate while receiving defined interest rates and repayment terms.
Return expectations also distinguish these products from much of the conventional investment market. Among 91 products with disclosed return targets, 59.3% seek below market returns and 40.7% seek market rate returns. None of that sample targets an above market return.
Term information is available for 152 products. Nearly two thirds, or 62.5%, have terms of three to five years. This creates a practical consideration for investors because community outcomes and capital repayment often develop over several years.
Real estate is the leading investment focus. Of 192 products with disclosed objectives, 98, or 51%, support real estate activities such as affordable housing and green buildings. The most common United Nations Sustainable Development Goal alignment is SDG 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities, followed by themes connected to decent work, economic growth and reduced inequality.
The report gives Canada a common starting point for describing community finance. Its national map helps readers locate institutions, while its product data show how capital is structured, how long it may remain invested and what returns issuers target.
However, the figures shouldn’t be treated as a complete census of every institution or dollar. Asset information is incomplete at the individual organization level, particularly for Community Futures organizations and community land trusts. The 661 organizations added through the map also weren’t included in the detailed product analysis.
Several findings use smaller disclosure samples:
The provincial asset analysis combines Q4 2025 credit union data from the Canadian Credit Union Association and regulators with the core SVX collection. Quebec’s credit union figure includes an estimate for the Desjardins caisse network.
These limits don’t reduce the report’s value as a national baseline. They define how the figures should be used. Readers can compare institution types, product structures and geographic coverage, while avoiding claims that the dataset measures every community investment or proves the economic effect of the market.
A upcoming companion report, The Economic Case for Community Finance, is expected to examine job creation, enterprise growth, capital mobilization, government savings and potential returns from a national community finance strategy. That work should provide stronger evidence for evaluating community finance as an economic and public policy tool.
Talking Point: Canada now has a national view of the institutions involved in community finance. The next questions concern how much specialized capital reaches underserved communities, where financing gaps remain and which models can expand without losing their local purpose.
Community Finance In Canada Report (national market assessment, findings and methodology)
Catalyst Community Finance Collection (community investment products and participating organizations)
NCFA Weekly Fintech Intelligence Jul 18–24, 2026 (community finance figures and market context)
Canadian Impact Investing Platform SVX Launches (early development of Canada’s impact investment infrastructure)
Economic Case For Community Finance (scope for the forthcoming economic and policy study)
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
July 20, 2026 | NCFA Resource | Cybersecurity And Fraud, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure

On July 15, 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators published new cybersecurity guidance for registered dealers, advisers, and investment fund managers (Download the 12 page PDF report). CSA Staff Notice 33-322 combines findings from a focused review of 73 firms with practical expectations for policies, employee training, risk assessments, third party oversight, and incident response.
The notice is most useful as a compliance review tool. Firms can compare their written controls, operating practices, and supporting records against the deficiencies and effective practices identified by securities regulators. The guidance is particularly relevant for smaller and medium sized firms that may not have dedicated cybersecurity teams.
The notice organizes cybersecurity readiness around five areas that regulators examined under section 11.1 of National Instrument 31-103:
The review found useful benchmarks. 8% of firms had no written cybersecurity policies, while 55% had policies that needed improvement. Twenty one per cent provided no employee cybersecurity training. Forty five per cent completed risk assessments that could have been stronger, and 12% had no documented assessment during the review period.
Third party oversight was one of the clearest weaknesses. All examined firms used service providers with access to systems or data, but 62% had no documentation or limited documentation supporting their cybersecurity oversight. The CSA expects firms to complete and document due diligence before onboarding a provider and repeat that review throughout the relationship.
The guidance identifies information firms should assess, including data storage, encryption, access controls, patch management, incident notification, subcontractors, operating jurisdictions, and shared responsibility in cloud environments. It also recommends maintaining a complete vendor register and reviewing current SOC 2 or similar reports where available.
Incident preparedness also receives detailed attention. Fifteen per cent of firms had no written incident response plan. Among firms with a plan, 53% needed stronger procedures and 63% should have tested their plans more regularly. The notice describes tabletop exercises and simulated attacks as practical ways to test whether people, processes, and technical controls work together during an incident.
The primary audience is firms registered as dealers, advisers, portfolio managers, investment fund managers, exempt market dealers, and restricted portfolio managers. Chief compliance officers, directors, technology leaders, privacy professionals, and internal audit teams can use the notice to organize a control review and identify missing documentation.
Boards and senior executives can also use it to test whether cybersecurity oversight is tied to clear responsibilities, regular reporting, and evidence that controls operate as intended. Written policies alone aren’t enough when actual practices, testing schedules, or access controls differ from the documented process.
Cybersecurity consultants, legal advisers, insurance providers, managed service providers, and software vendors can use the findings to better understand the records and evidence registered firms may need during a regulatory review.
The notice is strong because it combines regulatory expectations with observed deficiencies, percentages, effective practices, and practical takeaways. It covers both governance and technical controls, including multifactor authentication, encryption, backups, access rights, patching, email filtering, endpoint protection, and activity logging.
It also makes documentation a central requirement. Firms should be able to show when policies were reviewed, who completed training, how risks were assessed, what vendor due diligence occurred, and when incident plans or backup recovery procedures were tested.
The guidance does not create a complete technical cybersecurity standard, and it doesn’t replace obligations under privacy, securities, corporate, or other applicable laws. Expectations also vary with the firm’s size, operating complexity, client information, service provider reliance, and exposure to cyber risk.
Firms should therefore use the notice as a regulatory gap assessment and evidence checklist, then supplement it with appropriate legal advice, technical standards, testing, and controls suited to their operations.
CSA Staff Notice 33-322 (cybersecurity examination findings and guidance for registered firms)
CSA Staff Notice 33-321 (foundational 2017 cybersecurity and social media guidance)
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (risk management structure for identifying, protecting, detecting, responding, and recovering)
CIS Critical Security Controls (prioritized technical and operational safeguards)
Wealthsimple Confirms Breach Impacting Clients (third party exposure and incident response)
Proposed Class Action Targets Equifax Access Controls (access governance and third party permissions)
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
July 17, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Regulation And Policy, Wealth Investing And Trading, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On July 9, 2026, the UK Financial Conduct Authority reported the results of its finfluencer enforcement campaign. A coordinated week of action involving 9 international regulators produced 3 arrests, 6 criminal proceedings, 11 warning or cease and desist letters, 50 warning alerts and 650 social media takedown requests.
Canadian regulators weren’t watching from the sidelines. The Alberta Securities Commission, Autorité des marchés financiers, British Columbia Securities Commission and Ontario Securities Commission participated in the June 2025 operation. Earlier analysis asked whether finfluencers were facing a crackdown or clearer regulation.
The FCA’s latest figures show that enforcement has now become repeatable. Investigators can identify illegal content, connect creators to products and firms, request platform removals, issue public warnings and escalate selected cases into criminal proceedings.
The scale of the FCA’s supporting operation is just as relevant. During 2025, it issued 2,329 warnings about unauthorized or potentially fraudulent firms, compared with 2,240 in 2024. It secured 17 criminal convictions involving fraud, insider dealing, money laundering and data protection offences. Twelve people paid a combined £1.77 million in market abuse fines for market abuse.
Technology is improving that capacity. FCA automation reduced the handling time for simpler supervisory cases from as much as 4 hours to about 6 minutes on average. That doesn’t automate consequential decisions. It clears routine work so investigators can spend more time on repeat promoters, hidden compensation, unauthorized firms and cross border distribution.
The 650 takedown requests are the most commercially relevant number. Arrests attract attention, but removing hundreds of accounts and posts targets distribution. Illegal promotions lose value when creators can’t reach an audience, acquire leads or direct followers to a trading platform.
The FCA can examine multiple parties within one campaign. A creator may publish the content, a financial firm may pay for it, an affiliate network may track referrals and a platform may distribute it. The underlying product can then lead investigators to an unauthorized operator or regulated firm with weak approval controls.
Criminal proceedings provide the upper end of that response. The FCA accused 3 people charged after the 2025 operation of promoting high risk contracts for difference without authorization. Each faces an allegation of communicating an invitation to engage in investment activity contrary to section 21 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Act.
The April 2026 second global week of action showed how quickly the system had expanded. Seventeen regulators participated. The FCA requested the removal of 120 accounts and identified 1,267 illegal financial advertisements that reached at least 2,338,372 accounts. People or firms already listed on its Warning List accounted for 66% of those advertisements.
That 66% figure exposes a persistent enforcement problem. Many promoters aren’t unknown actors. They continue publishing after regulators have already identified the related firm, person or offer. Effective supervision therefore depends on account removal, repeat offender monitoring and platform cooperation, not warnings alone.
The FCA also secured a guilty plea, began criminal proceedings against 2 more people, issued 34 new warning alerts and updated 14 existing warnings during the April operation. Coordination now combines prosecution, surveillance, education and content removal rather than treating each promotion as an isolated post.
Canada’s legal foundation is already in place. In December 2025, the CSA and CIRO published Staff Notice 31-369, which explains how securities law applies to finfluencers, issuers and registered firms. The practical requirements appear in Canada’s finfluencer guidance.
The guidance doesn’t create a separate licence for creators. It examines the activity itself. A creator may need registration when they provide investment advice as a business, facilitates trades, arranges referrals or connects paid subscribers to copy trading. General market commentary may qualify for an exemption, but creators must still disclose financial interests and other conflicts clearly and on time.
Compensation also changes the compliance analysis. Cash payments, securities, affiliate income, referral fees and free products can establish a commercial relationship. A disclaimer such as “not financial advice” doesn’t cancel the substance of a recommendation, the creator’s compensation or the transaction being encouraged.
Responsibility extends beyond the creator. Registered firms must supervise people acting on their behalf, address referral arrangements, retain records and review relevant communications. Issuers remain responsible for paid investor relations activity and promotional claims made for their benefit. The joint staff notice applies the same principles to AI generated content and digital personas.
The investor evidence explains why regulators are paying attention. An OSC study of 655 Canadian retail investors found that 35% had made a financial decision based on finfluencer content. Those who acted on it were 12.2 times more likely to report being scammed on social media and 2.3 times more likely to have experienced a significant investment loss.
The OSC also ran a simulated investment experiment involving 1,465 Canadians. After viewing a promotional social media post, 38% bought the featured asset. Only 8% of the control group did the same. The full findings and behavioural differences appear in the finfluencer effect on Canadian investors.
Canada has also produced direct enforcement results. In September 2025, the Alberta Securities Commission imposed sanctions on James Domenic Floreani and Jayconomics Inc. for promoting 4 issuers through YouTube, X and Patreon without clearly disclosing that they published the content on behalf of those issuers.
The respondents received a $30,000 administrative penalty, $10,185.10 in costs and 2 year restrictions covering investor relations activity, public securities promotion and securities or derivatives advice.
British Columbia added a preventive layer during the April 2026 operation. The BCSC issued 14 compliance letters to YouTubers and other promoters who had discussed publicly traded B.C. companies. It also referred to an active proceeding alleging that sponsored issuer promotions weren’t disclosed clearly.
The FCA operates a national financial promotions regime and can report one consolidated set of arrests, warnings, takedowns and prosecutions. Provincial and territorial authorities administer Canadian securities regulation, while CIRO supervises investment dealers, mutual fund dealers and regulated marketplaces.
Canadian action may therefore appear as several provincial cases, coordinated review periods, issuer investigations, warning letters and firm supervision rather than one national enforcement tally. That can make the activity look smaller even when regulators review the same creators, platforms and promotional networks.
The operating implications are already clear.
Platforms are also becoming part of the enforcement process. When regulators can connect warnings to hundreds of removal requests, account access becomes a compliance dependency. Firms using social media for distribution can’t treat the creator’s channel as an independent marketing asset beyond their control.
Canada doesn’t need to duplicate the FCA’s structure to produce comparable enforcement. Its regulators are already participating in the same international operations, applying national guidance and using provincial proceedings. The open question is whether those actions will become visible as a coordinated Canadian program or remain distributed across separate regulators and cases.
Will Canada’s finfluencer guidance support coordinated enforcement across provinces, platforms and firms, or will separate cases continue defining the compliance boundary?
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 engages 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |