Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Karsten Wenzlaff is a Crowdfunding and Fintech Expert from Germany. He is Secretary-General of Digit[...]
Category Archives: Regtech, Compliance, Governance
Why Canada Keeps Tightening Its AML Rules
November 5, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Risk Compliance And Regtech, Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization
Canada keeps closing financial crime gaps, but investigations, prosecutions and asset recovery still have to catch up with the much larger system
Canada added another layer to its anti money laundering system on November 3, 2026.
Bill S-8 would tighten registration for money services businesses, give FINTRAC more grounds to refuse or revoke registrations, add controls for crypto ATMs, restrict some large cash transactions and third party cash deposits, and let regulated firms receive more financial crime information from government and law enforcement.
Five days earlier, the Auditor General had delivered a very different AML announcement.
FINTRAC was taking nearly 4 months on average to provide requested financial intelligence. Half of the recipients surveyed said information sometimes arrived too late to help an active investigation.
A month before that, FATF had praised parts of Canada's system while still calling for stronger supervision, more complex money laundering prosecutions and better asset recovery.
Canada isn't short of rules.
It has spent more than 25 years adding them.
This is a story of Canada closing one financial crime gap after another, only to find that more reports and tougher rules don't automatically produce faster investigations, prosecutions or recovered money.
The 2022 truck convoy became one of the most visible turns in that story.
It wasn't the beginning.
Banks and other reporting firms now have to tell FINTRAC when money looks suspicious. Investigators gain a national source of financial intelligence that didn't exist before, and regulated firms can no longer treat unusual transactions as someone else's problem.
But criminals aren't limited to bank accounts. Money can pass through companies, intermediaries, cash businesses, real estate and foreign accounts. The first rulebook catches more activity, and the routes around it become easier to see.
Customer checks get stronger. MSBs register. FINTRAC gains penalties and more supervisory reach. A regulated firm has fewer excuses for not knowing who opened the account or sent the money.
Then investigators reach the company behind the transaction and can hit another wall. The account holder may be visible while the person controlling the corporation isn't. The search moves from the customer to the owner.
A shell company becomes less useful when investigators can identify the people with significant control. The ownership trail gets shorter, and legitimate companies get clearer record keeping duties.
The trail can still cross provincial registries, trusts and foreign entities. And while Canada is looking deeper into ownership, another way of moving value is growing outside the familiar bank payment path. The next gap starts with the money itself.
Crypto exchanges and payment firms now have to build registration, identity checks, records and reporting into products designed to move value quickly. Legitimate operators gain a clearer path into the Canadian market, but compliance becomes part of the product itself.
Bringing crypto inside FINTRAC doesn't cover every new way Canadians can collect or move money. A year later, crowdfunding and payment platforms show where the boundary still ends. The next expansion arrives in the middle of a national crisis.
Ottawa closes the gap quickly. Crowdfunding and payment firms that had built businesses outside traditional banking inherit FINTRAC registration, identity checks and reporting. The line around the regulated market moves again.
Legitimate platforms pay for the same controls. Staff, systems, records and audits become part of the cost of staying in business. The government closes one blind spot and pushes compliance deeper into smaller financial firms.
A suspicious account at one institution can become more useful when another firm recognizes the same owner, wallet or transfer pattern. Activity that once ended inside separate compliance teams can start connecting across institutions.
That gives firms another job. They need controls around what can be shared, why it can be shared and who gets access. Canada gains more intelligence, while compliance becomes a bigger part of running the business.
A strong operator can benefit when firms that ignore reporting duties or regulator requests lose market access. Banks and partners have more reason to trust an MSB that stays registered and responds when FINTRAC calls.
But the price of proving that compliance is uneven. Large institutions spread legal, data and monitoring costs across millions of customers. A startup can't. The regulator starts removing weaker operators just as the cost of being a strong one keeps rising.
FINTRAC no longer has to wait for a criminal case to hit a company hard. It can order fixes, impose much larger penalties and put compliance failures into public view. For regulated firms, the cost of weak controls can arrive long before police lay a charge.
But the money laundering case still has to be built somewhere else. Police need evidence, prosecutors need a case they can prove and assets have to be found before they disappear. Canada has made it faster to punish weak compliance. Catching and recovering the criminal money is still the slower job.
FINTRAC can connect reports across institutions and point investigators toward suspicious money. It can tell police where accounts connect and which transactions deserve another look.
Police still have to identify the people, gather admissible evidence and find the assets before they move again. Ottawa is creating another institution because financial intelligence doesn't arrest anyone or recover a dollar by itself.
Canada now has more reporting entities, ownership data, penalties, registration controls and financial intelligence than at any earlier point in FINTRAC's history. The reporting side of the system is bigger and harder to ignore.
Investigators still need the information before assets move. Prosecutors still need complex cases they can prove. Governments still need to recover more of the money. Canada has become better at spotting suspicious activity than finishing the journey from report to recovered proceeds.
Stronger registration can remove operators that lie about their business, ignore regulator requests or raise serious integrity concerns. Legitimate MSBs, payment companies and remittance firms may benefit when weak operators lose access.
Every added check still needs people, systems and legal work. Small firms spread those costs across fewer customers than banks do. Canada can shut bad operators out and still make the door heavier for good ones to open.
The Next Gap Won't Be Fixed by Another Form
Bill S-8 may close more holes around MSB registration, crypto ATMs, cash deposits and financial crime information sharing.
But Canada is reaching the point where adding another reporting obligation produces less value if the rest of the chain can't keep up.
FINTRAC can collect more information.
Banks, fintechs and MSBs can build better controls.
Law enforcement can receive more leads.
None of that helps much if investigators get the intelligence too late, prosecutors can't build enough complex cases or criminal assets are gone before authorities can reach them.
That is where Canada's next AML chapter is heading.
The proposed Financial Crimes Agency could give Ottawa more capacity to investigate serious financial crime and recover proceeds. Bill C-12 gives FINTRAC much stronger leverage over regulated firms. Bill S-8 would tighten who gets into parts of the market and how certain transactions are handled.
Those tools now have to work together.
For fintechs, that creates a different kind of pressure.
The firms that survive stricter registration and supervision may become easier for banks, investors and customers to trust. But every new control also costs money, and smaller operators don't have the same compliance scale as the country's largest financial institutions.
Canada can keep tightening the perimeter.
The bigger question now is whether the system inside that perimeter can move fast enough to catch the money, recover it and still leave room for legitimate firms to compete.
That answer won't come from the next amendment.
It will come from the cases Canada is actually able to finish.
Talking Point
Will Canada's next AML gains come from tougher rules, or from finally turning more financial intelligence into completed cases and recovered assets?
Share this story → Explore related intelligence → Subscribe
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
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |  |  |
Mako Digitizes Odlum Brown Client Onboarding
November 5, 2026 | Market Activity | Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech
Odlum Brown Connects Client Onboarding Directly to Dataphile
On November 3, 2026, Odlum Brown and Montreal based Mako Financial Technologies launched a digital client onboarding system integrated with Odlum Brown’s Dataphile book of record. The custom workflow supports Odlum Brown’s self clearing model and carries client information from account applications into the system used to maintain its accounts. Clients can complete an application themselves, work through it with an advisor or have the advisory team enter information with them.
Odlum Brown has operated as an independent Canadian investment firm since 1923 and now manages more than $25 billion in client assets across six British Columbia locations. Mako was founded in Montreal in 2018 and builds digital workflows for wealth firms, including client onboarding, account opening, KYC and ongoing account administration. The Odlum Brown deployment connects client onboarding directly with the systems used to maintain accounts, instead of treating onboarding as a separate digital form.
How Does Mako’s Odlum Brown Onboarding Work?
The workflow changes what a client or advisor sees based on answers already provided. If an earlier response changes what information, documents or authorization are needed, later steps adjust with it. Advisory teams can also work on several applications for the same household at the same time. That fits how wealth relationships are often opened in practice, where a household may need individual, joint, registered and corporate accounts rather than one application at a time.
Odlum Brown says clients and advisory teams can share the work instead of forcing every account through one fixed process. The companies expect that to reduce friction and give advisors more time with clients, but they haven't yet published measured results for account opening time, errors, staffing costs or incomplete applications.
Raphael Bouskila, Founder and CEO, Mako Financial Technologies:
“Onboarding should make it easier for firms to serve their clients, without creating more work behind the scenes.”
Mako’s wider platform also supports digital KYC, AML checks and identity verification workflows.
Why Does Connecting Onboarding to Dataphile Matter?
Putting account forms online doesn't solve much if staff still have to migrate the same information into other systems afterward. Odlum Brown uses Dataphile inside its existing operating environment, and Mako says the new workflow connects directly to that book of record through native straight through processing.
That is especially relevant for a self clearing dealer. Odlum Brown controls more of its own account operations, so onboarding has to fit the way its advisors, operations teams and existing systems already work. Mako built the workflow around those requirements instead of asking the dealer to adopt a standard process designed for somebody else.
Mako has worked with Dataphile before. In a Designed Securities deployment, Mako connected digital account opening with Dataphile and Aviso Correspondent Partners. That gives Mako prior experience integrating onboarding with Canadian wealth management systems. Its wider platform also supports digital KYC, AML checks and identity verification workflows, giving wealth firms more compliance functions around the same onboarding process.
What Does the Odlum Brown Launch Mean for Canadian Wealthtech?
A better client interface helps, but firms also need onboarding data to reach the systems used to open, maintain and service accounts. Mako says its platform supports more than 100 wealth firms, asset managers, fund issuers and dealers and connects with Canadian platforms including Dataphile, Aviso, Broadridge and VieFund.
See: OneVest Launches Agentic Account Opening in Canada
Client data portability remains a separate industry issue. CSA Pauses Investment KYC Portability Test in Canada. Odlum Brown is solving a specific problem inside its own business by connecting onboarding more directly with its existing account systems.
Takeaway
For Canadian wealth firms, integration is becoming as important as the client experience. Wealthtech vendors that fit into a dealer’s existing systems have an advantage over those that require firms to replace them.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Best Google Review Removal Services in Canada: What Small Businesses Should Know
Nov 5, 2026
A comparison of Canadian review-removal services, pricing and practical fit for small businesses.
A single suspicious review can cause real concern for a small business. For a restaurant, clinic, contractor or local retailer, online feedback is often one of the first things a prospective customer reads. Yet a negative review is not automatically a policy violation, and a third-party agency cannot simply delete it. The useful question is whether a review breaks Google’s rules and what support a business needs to present its case.
For Canadian entrepreneurs evaluating paid assistance, ReviewsBoost and ReviewRemoval offer per-review services, while Reputation.ca provides a broader, ongoing reputation-management approach. These models have different costs and serve different needs.
1. ReviewsBoost: a lower-cost specialist option
ReviewsBoost is aimed at Canadian businesses seeking assistance with potentially policy-violating Google reviews. Its service model emphasizes a review assessment, managed reporting support and updates on progress. For owners facing an isolated questionable review, its simpler per-review pricing may be appealing.
Pricing: CAD $45 upfront per review, plus CAD $95 upon successful removal, for a total of CAD $140 per removed review before applicable taxes.
Best fit: cost-conscious small businesses seeking specialist help with a specific review and a clear per-review fee structure.
2. ReviewRemoval: a more involved, case-focused option
ReviewRemoval serves Canadian businesses seeking managed help with reviews that may breach Google’s policies. Its website describes reviewing the circumstances, preparing the case, handling reporting follow-through and explaining any steps that must be completed through the business owner’s own Google account.
Pricing: CAD $50 upfront per review, plus CAD $125 upon successful removal, for a total of CAD $175 per removed review before applicable taxes.
Best fit: business owners looking for a structured case assessment and ongoing support throughout the review-removal process.
3. Reputation.ca: comprehensive management at a higher ongoing cost
Reputation.ca offers broader reputation services, including review monitoring, customer feedback programs and efforts to flag or challenge reviews that may violate platform policies. This can suit organizations looking for ongoing support rather than help with one disputed review.
Its publicly listed Essential Reviews Management package is CAD $499 per month with a six-month minimum, or at least CAD $2,994 over that term before applicable taxes. Its pricing page also lists reviews-management offerings in a CAD $299 to $999 monthly range. These are ongoing management packages, not a per-review Google deletion fee, so they are not directly comparable to the one-off prices above.
Best fit: organizations seeking ongoing review monitoring and broader reputation management. Main drawback: a six-month package can be costly for a small business seeking help with just one or two reviews.
Comparing the two per-review specialist services
| Comparison | ReviewsBoost | ReviewRemoval |
| Upfront per review | CAD $45 | CAD $50 |
| Success fee | CAD $95 | CAD $125 |
| Total if removed | CAD $140 | CAD $175 |
| Primary appeal | Lower total fee | More case-focused positioning |
Both specialist services use an upfront payment and a separate fee payable upon successful removal. For businesses comparing providers, the key differences are total cost and the level of case management offered.
For Canadian small businesses seeking professional help with disputed Google reviews, the right provider depends on the number of reviews involved, the budget and the amount of support needed.
See: Top 5 Digital Marketing Agencies in Canada to Consider in 2026
ReviewsBoost offers the lowest listed per-review price in this comparison at CAD $140 upon successful removal. ReviewRemoval provides another targeted option at CAD $175. Reputation.ca offers a broader monthly service, but its longer commitment and higher overall cost may make it a less practical choice for businesses focused on individual reviews.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Canadian ESG Firms Face UK and EU Rules Abroad
November 4, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Sustainable Finance And ESG, Regulation And Policy, Competition And Market Structure
Canada keeps lighter rules at home while UK and EU requirements follow Canadian ESG firms into foreign markets
ESG ratings promised investors a shortcut.
Instead of digging through climate data, labour records, governance practices and supply chains themselves, they could buy a score and put it to work.
Then the scores started disagreeing.
The same company could look strong through one provider and much weaker through another. Nobody had to be cheating or doing bad work. One firm might care more about carbon exposure. Another might put more weight on labour practices, board governance or supply chains. Even when they looked at the same issue, they weren't always using the same data.
Investors were left with a problem. They had bought a shortcut and now had to check the shortcut.
In Britain, thousands of financial firms eventually built their own checks around ratings they were already paying for. The FCA estimates that extra work now costs about £495 million every year.
Regulators eventually made a choice that wasn't obvious at the start. They didn't force every provider to use the same formula. They started regulating the firms producing the ratings.
The EU rules have applied since July 2, 2026. On November 3, 2026, the UK Financial Conduct Authority published its final ESG ratings rules. From June 29, 2028, firms caught by the UK regime need FCA authorisation.
Canada hasn't followed them.
That gives a Canadian startup more breathing room at home.
Then it lands a customer in London, Paris or Frankfurt.
The Canadian rules haven't changed. The business suddenly has.
One provider knocks a company down for carbon exposure. The investor sees the score fall and assumes climate risk is driving the result. But that number also reflects choices about which indicators were used, which data was trusted and how the provider turned those inputs into a score.
Another barely moves on carbon but cuts the same company for governance or labour practices. The company itself hasn't changed between the two ratings. What changed is the lens used to judge it. Same company. Same ESG label. Different story.
Providers sign up, publish more detail and tighten their controls. They still get to build their own methods and scores. That keeps room for different models to compete, but it also leaves customers comparing very different ways of measuring the same company.
Customers keep doing their own checks anyway. Banks, asset managers and other users still have to decide whether the provider's data, methodology and controls are strong enough for their own decisions. More disclosure helps, but the doubt doesn't go away.
A rating only saves time if the buyer trusts the data, methodology and controls used to produce it. By this point, many firms aren't simply reading the score. They're reviewing the provider, checking the method and sometimes changing their own systems before the rating can be used.
By 2025, thousands of firms have built their own second opinion inside the company. Some are spending months onboarding providers and assigning staff just to close information gaps or resolve concerns before a rating can be trusted. The shortcut has created another job.
Before, a provider could follow the voluntary code and convince customers that its controls were good enough. The customer could accept that explanation, ask for more or walk away. The regulator wasn't deciding whether the provider could stay in the market.
Under FCA rules, that choice disappears. Firms in scope have to meet requirements around governance, conflicts, systems, data and disclosure, and they need authorisation to keep serving the market. If the firm is caught by the regime, meeting the standard becomes part of staying in business.
A smaller Canadian provider can still reach European customers without waiting for Canada to create its own ratings licence. Recognition can give qualifying foreign firms a way in when equivalence isn't available, so the market isn't closed to an independent Canadian provider.
But it still has to meet European requirements. Depending on the route, that can mean a legal representative, added documentation and direct accountability to ESMA. The company can stay Canadian, but its European business can't simply run on Canadian rules. Getting into the market is possible. Getting in on Canadian terms isn't.
A Canadian startup can build an ESG scoring product, test it and sell it at home without first getting a dedicated ratings licence. That leaves more of its early budget for product, data, hiring and customers instead of a new authorisation process.
Then it signs a foreign customer. New legal work, documentation, controls and regulatory relationships can arrive with the contract even though the product itself is unchanged. The product hasn't changed. The cost of selling it may have.
The Canada EU digital trade deal can make contracts, permitted data transfers and online delivery easier for smaller Canadian companies. That can remove friction from how a digital service is sold and delivered across the Atlantic.
If the product is an ESG rating, ESMA's rules still apply. A smoother digital sale doesn't replace recognition, endorsement or any other requirement that applies to the provider itself. The sale may get easier. The regulatory work doesn't disappear.
Providers still get to disagree and build different models. One can give climate more weight while another puts more emphasis on governance, and the FCA doesn't try to choose the winner.
What changes is how much of the work behind the score has to stand up to scrutiny. Providers have to explain more about the data, methods, conflicts and controls that produced the result. The rating can stay subjective. The process can't stay hidden.
UK applications begin in 2027. Firms expecting at least £500,000 in ESG ratings revenue over the following 12 months apply first. Smaller providers follow. For a Canadian exporter, the size and timing of the sales pipeline can therefore affect when the FCA application work starts.
A firm serving both the UK and EU can reuse some people, controls and documentation. That should keep the second market from starting entirely from zero, but the two regimes remain separate and each still has its own entry requirements. It can reuse the work. It can't reuse the permission.
When Does Regulatory Divergence Start Costing Canada?
Canada gets a real benefit from staying lighter.
A young ratings or analytics company can spend more of its first dollars on product, hiring and customers instead of building a licence around a market that may still be small.
That works well while Canada is the market.
Then the company wants to scale.
A UK customer can bring FCA requirements into the sales process. A European customer can bring ESMA. The Canadian company starts hiring compliance staff, changing contracts, documenting methods and adding controls that Canada never asked it to build.
Copying the UK or EU isn't an obvious answer either.
A Canadian licence would cost money. Plenty of firms may never need one. Large global providers can spread that cost across thousands of customers. A startup can't.
But staying different isn't automatically free.
If every Canadian firm with global ambitions has to build around foreign rules anyway, Canada's lighter model starts saving less than it first appears.
Canada hasn't crossed that line by law. Some Canadian firms may cross it much sooner.
At what point does regulatory divergence stop saving Canadian firms money and start making international expansion more complicated?
Ottawa hasn't answered that question. Canadian firms trying to sell abroad may answer it first.
Share this story → Explore related intelligence → Subscribe
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Canada EU Digital Trade Deal Defines New Digital Business Framework
Canada EU Digital Trade Deal Defines New Digital Business Framework
November 3, 2026 | NCFA Regulatory Insight | Digital Trade, Fintech Regulation, Cross Border Services, Canada EU
Canada EU Digital Trade and Fintech Access
On October 30, 2026, Canada and the European Union concluded negotiations on the Canada EU Digital Trade Agreement, Canada's first concluded Digital Trade Agreement. The deal sets rules for trusted cross border data flows, electronic contracts, electronic signatures, electronic invoices and online consumer protection. It complements CETA rather than replacing it.
The agreement isn't signed or legally operative yet. Canada and the EU still have to complete their respective procedures before formal signature and conclusion. On the EU side, that includes legal review, translation into all EU languages and submission to the Council and European Parliament.
EU figures show bilateral trade in goods and services reached more than €130 billion in 2025, up from €72.1 billion in 2016. Digitally delivered services reached €19.8 billion in 2025, including €11.2 billion in EU exports to Canada and €8.6 billion in EU imports from Canada.
Canada EU digitally delivered services trade in 2025
EU exports to Canada
€11.2B
EU imports from Canada
€8.6B
Source: European Commission. Total digitally delivered services trade between Canada and the EU reached €19.8 billion in 2025.
What Changes for Companies Selling Digital Services?
The DTA seeks to prevent unjustified restrictions on cross border data flows and supports electronic contracts, signatures and invoices. Companies selling digital services between Canada and the EU can move more of the sales and delivery process online while still following the laws that apply to their service.
A software company serving European customers may need to move permitted business data, execute contracts, issue invoices and manage customer communications across two regulatory systems. Clearer digital trade rules can reduce duplicated processes and administrative work, which matters most to smaller firms that don't have large legal, compliance and operations teams. In summit remarks on October 30, Prime Minister Mark Carney said “A tech startup in Vancouver will have a smoother path to customers in Berlin.”
The final negotiated legal text hasn't yet been published, so businesses cannot assess every obligation, exception or enforcement mechanism. The October 30 announcements confirm rules on data flows, electronic contracts, signatures, invoices and consumer protection. Other provisions will need to be checked against the final text once released.
The agreement also covers misleading, fraudulent and deceptive online practices and sets rules around unsolicited commercial messages. Canada keeps the ability to regulate privacy, public sector data, government procurement, culture, cybersecurity, financial regulation and national security. Digital trade becomes easier without removing domestic control over regulated or sensitive areas.
Europe can still be an expensive market to enter. OECD research on the EU regulatory burden reports compliance costs equal to about 2.5% of turnover for SMEs. Turnover simply means annual sales or revenue. For an SME with €1 million in annual sales, 2.5% is roughly €25,000 spent dealing with regulatory requirements. The figure reflects costs reported for SMEs operating in Europe and does not mean every Canadian company entering the EU will spend exactly 2.5% of revenue on compliance.
What Does the Deal Mean for Canadian Fintechs?
Canadian fintechs can benefit from lower operating friction without gaining unrestricted access to the EU financial market. Financial software, compliance technology, digital identity, infrastructure, business finance platforms and other services that depend on data movement, electronic contracts or digital invoicing may benefit directly. A Canadian company selling technology to a European bank is in a different position from one providing regulated banking, payments or investment services directly to European customers.
A technology supplier may be able to contract with clients, deliver services and manage permitted data more efficiently without needing a financial licence of its own. A company providing a regulated financial service still has to meet the authorization and compliance requirements of the market where that service is offered. Canadian fintechs assessing a similar cross border question between Canada, the US and Mexico can refer to Does CUSMA Support Fintech Services Across Borders?.
See: How Canada Opened Its Financial Infrastructure
Canada and the EU also agreed to deepen work on digital infrastructure, AI, quantum technologies, semiconductors, advanced computing, data flows and interoperability. Separate summit commitments include work toward mutual recognition in digital identity and credentials, AI conformity assessments and cybersecurity.
Canada and the EU also plan closer financial cooperation, increased cross border capital flows and work toward connecting instant payment systems. In the same October 30 summit remarks, Carney said the two sides will “explore opening our markets to each other’s banks, insurers, and fintechs.” The statement points to future negotiations rather than current market access under the DTA. Canada Welcomes EU Associate Member Proposal provides additional Canada EU context around the broader relationship.
Takeaway
The DTA can reduce duplicated process and operating costs for Canadian companies serving European customers, but it doesn't remove the regulatory barriers around financial services. Deeper fintech market access still depends on separate work around licences, payments, regulatory recognition and interoperability.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
How to Prevent Leakage in Water Treatment Facilities
Nov 3, 2026
Water treatment facilities play a vital role in providing safe and clean water for public use. Leaks can cause serious problems, including costly damage and water contamination. Understanding what causes these leaks and how to prevent them is essential. By focusing on key components and maintenance, facilities can operate efficiently and protect water quality.
Here’s how to effectively prevent leakage in water treatment facilities.
Regular Inspections
Routine inspections are one of the best ways to prevent leaks. By regularly checking the facility, workers can find weak points that might lead to leaks. Inspecting pipes, joints, and connections helps address wear and tear before larger problems arise.
A good inspection plan should include both visual checks and technology. Pressure sensors or ultrasonic leak-detection systems can alert staff to issues that may indicate a leak. Early detection saves time and money by reducing further damage.
Quality Materials
High-quality materials are key to building effective water treatment facilities. Strong, durable materials resist wear and withstand the corrosive nature of water treatment. This is especially important for pipes, valves, and seals, which are prone to breaking down.
For example, the butterfly valve is a great choice for water treatment systems. They perform reliably because they can handle high pressure and flow variations without failing. Their design allows minimal flow resistance, improving efficiency and helping prevent leaks.
Proper Installation
Proper installation of equipment is essential. Even the best materials can fail if not installed correctly. Aligning valves, pipes, and fittings properly and fastening them securely helps create a tight seal, reducing the risk of leaks.
Hiring skilled technicians for installation is crucial. They have the experience to spot potential problems during setup, preventing headaches later. It’s worth investing time in training and hiring qualified staff who understand the specifics of water treatment infrastructure.
Maintenance Routine
Having a solid maintenance routine can help prevent leaks. Regular maintenance allows for thorough cleaning, testing equipment, and replacing worn parts. This includes changing old valves and checking all attachments for proper function.
Beyond basic visual inspections, staff should flush the system regularly to remove sediment buildup, which can damage pipes. A skilled maintenance team can quickly fix minor problems, preventing them from becoming larger issues.
Training Employees
Training staff on correct operational practices can improve leak prevention. When employees understand how the systems work and what signs to watch for, they can respond quickly to potential problems.
Training should include everything from handling equipment to monitoring techniques. Employees should also learn to spot early warning signs of leaks, like unusual sounds or pressure changes, so they can report issues promptly.
Using PVC Ball Valves
PVC ball valves effectively prevent leaks in water treatment facilities. These valves are durable and corrosion-resistant, making them suitable for many applications. Their simple design ensures a secure shutoff, helping control flow and prevent leaks.
PVC ball valves are easy to operate, which simplifies maintenance. With their reliable performance, these valves help keep the entire system intact. Using PVC ball valves throughout the facility reduces the risk of leaks from valve failures.
Emergency Protocols
Even with good maintenance, leaks can still happen. Clear emergency response protocols for leaks are essential. Every staff member should know what to do when a leak is detected. This knowledge can help minimize the impact of a leak.
Regular training and drills can ensure everyone understands their roles and the right steps to take. Keeping emergency supplies, such as leak containment materials and repair kits, on hand can also speed response times and reduce damage.
Advanced Monitoring Technology
Investing in advanced monitoring technology can help prevent leaks. Real-time monitoring systems can alert operators to unusual conditions that may indicate a leak, allowing for quick responses. These systems often use data analysis to predict potential issues before they happen, offering proactive solutions.
See: How Sediment Tanks Improve Water Management and Reduce Maintenance Costs
By combining technology with smart practices, water treatment facilities can maintain efficiency while ensuring the safety of the water supply. Understanding what causes leaks is the first step to creating a reliable water treatment facility. By following the best practices outlined here, including proper materials and training, facilities can prevent leaks. The key is to use vigilance, quality materials, and proactive measures to keep an effective water treatment system running smoothly.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Who Gets Accredited for Canada’s Open Banking System?
November 3, 2026 | NCFA Regulatory Insight | Open Banking, Consumer Driven Banking, Fintech Regulation, Canada
How High Will Canada Set the Bar for Open Banking Participation?
On November 2, 2026, the Bank of Canada launched a consultation on draft accreditation guidelines for Canada’s Consumer Driven Banking Framework. The framework is supposed to do more than make financial data sharing safer. The federal government has made competition, innovation and economic growth one of its three policy objectives, alongside consumer protection and financial system safety. That makes the accreditation bar more than a compliance question. How demanding the rules become will help determine which banks, fintechs and other providers participate, and how much real competition open banking ultimately produces.
That competitive promise depends on who can actually enter the system. Canada already has about nine million people sharing financial data through screen scraping, according to the federal framework, so there is an existing market for services that could move into regulated open banking. If accreditation is too expensive or difficult for credible fintechs to obtain, consumers may get safer data sharing without enough new providers to materially improve choice, pricing or service.
The Competition Bureau has warned about this risk for years. The Bureau's October 2026 submission on Canada’s draft Consumer Driven Banking Regulations says smaller fintechs, challenger banks, credit unions and emerging firms can face proportionately higher implementation and compliance costs, and that these costs can discourage entry or expansion. The Bureau supports strong safeguards but recommends that requirements reflect factors such as risk, size, activity and access to consumer data.
NCFA's Open Banking & Consumer-Driven Finance Interactive Intelligence has tracked the same tension across competition, accreditation, switching, innovation and global market design. The question now moving from policy into supervision is whether Canada can protect financial data without setting an entry bar that leaves too few challengers in the market.
What Is the Bank of Canada Consulting On?
On November 2, 2026, the Bank of Canada opened consultation on its first draft supervisory guidelines for accreditation.
Comments are due December 8, 2026, and the Bank specifically asks whether any part of the drafts needs clarification, would be difficult to implement, needs more examples or could “discourage voluntary participation.”
The consultation does not reopen the full Consumer Driven Banking Framework. It deals with how the Bank proposes to assess accreditation applications under the Consumer Driven Banking Act and proposed regulations. The two draft guidelines cover participating entities and accredited Third Party Service Providers, with later Bank consultations expected on other supervisory topics.
Which Accreditation Route Applies in Canada?
Canada proposes three accreditation routes for participating entities. The route depends largely on whether the applicant already operates inside another regulatory framework, while accredited Third Party Service Providers sit beside these three routes under a separate guideline.
1. Standard accreditation for independent applicants. This route applies generally to eligible corporations, trusts, partnerships, funds and other organizations that are not registered payment service providers or federally or provincially regulated financial institutions. The participating entity draft guideline requires the broadest evidence package under this route, including governance, security, technical compliance, consumer dashboards, complaints, insurance or guarantees, operations and national security information.
2. Streamlined accreditation for registered PSPs. Payment service providers already registered under the Retail Payment Activities Act can use a separate streamlined route. They still need to provide security, technical, insurance, governance, operating and national security evidence, but the Bank can rely on regulatory information and oversight that already exist rather than requiring every control to be established again from the beginning.
3. Streamlined accreditation for regulated financial institutions. Banks, authorized foreign banks, trust and loan companies, credit unions, caisses populaires, insurers and certain provincial Crown corporations can use the narrowest participating entity route. Their existing prudential regulation carries more of the supervisory burden, while the draft focuses particularly on technical compliance and a declaration from the responsible senior officer that required security safeguards are in place.
Accredited Third Party Service Providers (TPSPs) use a separate pathway. A TPSP is a company that performs specified technology or operational functions for an accredited participant. The TPSP draft guideline applies when a provider performs activities such as obtaining or managing consent, handling authentication, or providing or receiving consumer data. A software company does not need TPSP accreditation simply because it sells technology to a bank or fintech.
The structure already contains some proportionality. Firms with existing supervision get more streamlined treatment, while independent applicants carry more of the accreditation burden themselves. The unresolved competition question is whether prior regulatory status should be the main route to lower burden or whether lower risk independent fintechs should also have a staged way into the market.
What Will Applicants Need to Prove?
The standard route requires more than corporate information and a security policy. Applicants need an operating evidence file covering ownership, governance, responsible people, regulatory status, security safeguards, technical standards, consumer dashboards, complaints, insurance, expected activity and national security information. The Bank can also request more information while reviewing an application.
Security will require independent confirmation, but firms may be able to reuse credible work they already maintain. The draft says ISO 27001 certifications, SOC reports and NIST based assessments may support an application when an independent assessor maps that work to the Bank's safeguards and explains its scope and limitations. The Bank expects the confirmation to rely on an assessment completed within the previous 12 months.
Insurance also follows a risk based approach. Standard applicants and registered PSPs are expected to hold professional indemnity and cyber insurance, or comparable guarantees, but the Bank does not prescribe one coverage amount for everyone. Applicants need a documented methodology that considers factors such as data sensitivity, data volume, operating scale, complexity and potential losses from privacy, cyber or operational incidents.
Some important costs remain difficult to calculate. The draft guidelines say more information on accreditation fees and the web application process is forthcoming, and the participating entity guideline notes that the Technical Standards Body had not been designated when the draft was prepared. Firms can prepare much of their governance, security and insurance evidence now, but they still cannot fully map the cost and timing of accreditation.
How Do Canada, the UK and Australia Compare?
The UK and Australia show two different ways to make regulatory burden more proportional without removing consumer protection. Both markets allow firms to participate at different levels instead of requiring every company using open banking infrastructure to clear the highest regulatory bar itself.
The UK's Financial Conduct Authority allows a firm providing only account information services to use the registered account information service provider route. A business that combines account information with other regulated payment services needs authorization instead. Firms can also operate as registered agents on behalf of regulated principals. Those agents are part of the regulated ecosystem but do not hold the same independent authorization as their principal. They provide regulated services through that principal, which remains responsible for the activities covered by the arrangement.
Open Banking Limited reported 145 third party providers with live open banking propositions and another 406 registered agents in its 2025 impact report, with potentially thousands of additional firms using open banking data and payments through regulated providers. Open Banking Limited also reported more than 19 million active user connections and over 40 million open banking payments per month in 2026. That does not prove every UK regulatory choice should be copied, but it shows how participation can extend well beyond firms holding their own direct regulatory permission.
Australia goes further by creating several distinct participation routes through its Consumer Data Right accreditation framework. A firm can become fully accredited, obtain sponsored accreditation under a fully accredited sponsor, or participate without its own accreditation as a CDR representative under a written agreement with a fully accredited principal. Each step gives up some independence in exchange for a lower direct entry burden.
In 2025 to 26, Australia's competition regulator reported 30 active accredited data recipients and 178 active CDR representative arrangements. Representative arrangements are not the same as 178 unique companies, but the gap shows how much participation can occur outside full accreditation.
| Issue | Canada draft | United Kingdom | Australia | Lessons for Canada |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full direct participation | Independent participating entities can seek standard accreditation and participate directly | Authorized providers can deliver the regulated open banking services covered by their permissions | Unrestricted accreditation allows full participation, including collecting CDR data directly from data holders | Canada already has a full direct route. The larger policy question is whether every credible new entrant should need to start there. |
| Lighter direct route | Registered PSPs and regulated financial institutions receive streamlined treatment because another regulator already supervises them | A firm limited to account information services can use registration rather than broader payment services authorization | Sponsored accreditation reduces the evidence burden but requires an unrestricted accredited sponsor | Canada has no comparable lighter route for an independent fintech based only on lower risk or a narrower activity. Streamlining is mainly reserved for firms already regulated elsewhere. |
| Participation without full direct approval | TPSPs can perform specified functions for participating entities, but the draft does not create a broad representative route for an independent consumer facing fintech | Registered agents can provide regulated services through an authorized principal without holding equivalent independent authorization themselves | A CDR representative can offer its own goods or services to consumers without holding accreditation under a written arrangement with an unrestricted accredited principal | Canada has no broad agent or representative route that lets an independent consumer facing fintech enter under another accredited firm's responsibility. |
| What the lighter route gives up | Streamlining mainly benefits firms that have already entered another regulatory regime | A narrower permission limits the regulated services the firm can provide independently, while an agent depends on its regulated principal | A sponsored firm cannot collect CDR data directly from a data holder, while a representative depends on its accredited principal | Canada currently gives smaller entrants less ability to trade independence for a lower entry burden. The UK and Australia make that tradeoff explicit. |
| Security evidence | Standard applicants need independent confirmation, although existing ISO, SOC and NIST work may support the evidence | Security and operational controls remain required under the account information registration route | Sponsored applicants can self assess and attest to relevant information security compliance instead of providing the third party assurance report required for unrestricted accreditation | Canada can consider whether every lower risk direct participant needs the same independent assurance burden at entry. A lighter route could still preserve security requirements. |
| Insurance and financial protection | Relevant participating entities need professional indemnity and cyber insurance or comparable guarantees, with coverage tied to risk | Registered account information providers still need professional indemnity insurance or a comparable guarantee | Accredited recipients must demonstrate adequate insurance, while responsibility under representative arrangements sits with the accredited principal | Lower entry burden does not require weaker financial protection. Canada could vary the route while keeping insurance and accountability requirements in place. |
| Evidence of participation | The accreditation system has not launched, so Canada does not yet have participation results to compare | 145 live third party providers plus 406 registered agents were reported in the 2025 Open Banking Limited impact report, with potentially thousands of other firms using open banking data and payments through regulated providers | 30 active accredited data recipients and 178 active representative arrangements were reported for 2025 to 26 | The UK and Australia show that participation can extend far beyond firms holding the highest level of direct approval. Canada has not yet created an equivalent ladder for independent entrants. |
| Independent fintech with no existing regulatory status | Generally faces the standard participating entity route if it wants to participate directly | May qualify for registration if it limits its regulated activity to account information services, or may operate through a regulated principal depending on its role | Can seek sponsored accreditation or potentially participate without accreditation as a CDR representative | This is Canada's clearest gap. A credible lower risk fintech with no existing regulatory history has no sponsored, representative or narrow activity based route comparable to those available in the UK or Australia. |
| Where responsibility sits under lighter entry | Responsibility follows the statutory role of participating entities and TPSPs | The regulated principal remains accountable for the regulated services provided through its registered agent | The unrestricted accredited principal is responsible for its CDR representative, while a sponsor supports a firm using sponsored accreditation | Canada could let a stronger accredited participant carry more responsibility for a smaller entrant. Australia shows one way to lower entry burden without leaving responsibility unclear. |
| Bottom line | Canada is relatively lighter for firms already regulated, but more demanding for an independent fintech that wants to participate directly without that regulatory history. | The UK allows participation at several levels. Directly regulated providers sit alongside hundreds of registered agents operating through regulated principals, plus a wider group of firms using open banking through regulated providers. | Australia has the clearest participation ladder. Full accreditation, sponsored accreditation and representative arrangements let firms participate at different levels of independence and responsibility. | Canada's draft leaves independent new entrants with fewer ways in. The main policy choice is whether to add a limited, sponsored or representative route without weakening security or accountability. |
The comparison does not show that one country simply has weak rules and another has strong ones. The UK and Australia still require security, accountability and financial protection. The larger difference is how many ways a company can enter the ecosystem and how much independence it receives at each level.
In the UK, direct regulation is only one part of the market. Hundreds of registered agents operate through regulated principals, while a much larger group of firms can build open banking data or payment functionality into their products through regulated providers. Australia makes that ladder even more explicit. A firm can carry full accreditation, accept less independence under sponsored accreditation, or offer services as a representative while the accredited principal carries the regulatory responsibility.
Australia reported almost six active representative arrangements for every active accredited data recipient in 2025 to 26. That ratio should not be read as a direct count of companies or as proof that Australia's model is superior, but it does show that participation can become much broader when full accreditation is not the only practical entry point.
Canada already does something similar for registered PSPs and financial institutions by recognizing supervision they have completed elsewhere. The main gap is the independent fintech that creates limited risk but does not yet have a regulatory history that qualifies it for a streamlined route.
See: Canada Real-Time Rail Rules and Access
Also Canada already has a recent example of why voluntary participation cannot be taken for granted. BetaKit reported in October 2026 that none of Canada’s Big Six banks was then scheduled to participate in the first phase of the Real Time Rail, citing four fintech sector sources familiar with the rollout. The Real Time Rail and consumer driven banking are different systems, but the participation lesson is relevant. New financial infrastructure does not create competition by itself if major institutions or smaller providers decide the cost, timing or operating burden is not worth joining.
Could Canada's Entry Bar Limit Competition?
The Competition Bureau's October 23 submission puts that issue directly on the table. It supports strong accreditation, reporting, audit and security requirements but warns that fixed compliance costs can weigh more heavily on smaller firms and discourage entry or expansion.
The Bureau recommends considering requirements according to risk, size, activity and access to consumer data. It also suggests a provisional or tier based accreditation model that could let firms enter earlier under appropriate safeguards and move toward full accreditation as their operations and risk grow. Canada's current Bank draft does not create that model.
The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada found that switching barriers can reduce competitive pressure and weaken incentives for providers to compete on price and service. Consumer driven banking can improve comparison and portability, but those advantages are worth less if consumers don't have enough credible alternative providers to choose from.
NCFA's Canada Open Banking Rules and Regulations tracks the broader accreditation, security, liability and supervisory framework. The Bank's current consultation is where those rules begin translating into the practical cost of entering the market.
Canada does not need weaker protection to increase participation. It needs to decide whether security and accountability can remain firm while the pathway to meeting those outcomes varies with the activity, risk and maturity of the applicant. The UK and Australia show that proportionality can be built into market access rather than added after firms have already absorbed the full cost of entry.
How Long Could Accreditation Take?
The Bank does not promise a standard approval time. Once an application is complete, the Bank sends a copy to the Minister of Finance and begins its own review. The Minister has 60 days to decide whether a national security review is needed and can extend that decision period in additional 60 day periods.
If a national security review is opened, the review period is 180 days and can also be extended in additional 180 day periods. Not every applicant will undergo a full review, but the Bank cannot grant accreditation while the Minister's decision or review remains outstanding. Firms tying financing, hiring or product launches to accreditation need to plan for timing they cannot fully control.
See: Real Time Rail Puts Canada’s Productivity Test In Focus
A refused applicant can generally request review within 30 days. The Bank's delegated decision maker can accredit the applicant or confirm the refusal within 120 days after the applicant has had an opportunity to make representations, and a further appeal can go to Federal Court. Once applications begin moving through the system, publishing normal processing times would help founders and investors distinguish routine accreditation from exceptional delay.
What Should Firms Tell the Bank Before December 8?
The Bank wants written feedback by December 8, 2026. Respondents should identify themselves, use the subject line specified on the consultation page, identify the relevant part of the draft and explain the implementation issue as specifically as possible. Commercially sensitive information should only be submitted when it is clearly identified.
Fintechs should put numbers around the burden wherever they can. If security mapping needs 120 staff hours, another assurance exercise costs $40,000, insurance materially increases annual operating cost, or Canadian presence changes the economics of entry, those figures tell the Bank more than simply calling a requirement burdensome.
Registered PSPs and financial institutions should identify evidence another regulator already holds and where the Bank can safely avoid duplication.
Independent fintechs should explain whether a limited, provisional or sponsored route would change their ability or willingness to enter Canada, while TPSPs should identify where responsibility for consent, authentication and data handling remains unclear between provider and participating entity.
NCFA believes Canada should add a proportionate entry route for credible lower risk fintechs that are not already supervised under another regulatory regime. The UK and Australia show that this can be done without removing accountability. Canada should consider narrower permissions for narrower activities, sponsored participation through an accredited firm, or a representative model where a stronger regulated participant carries more responsibility while a younger company proves its product, controls and operating record before seeking full independent accreditation.
Bottom Line
A framework that protects data but attracts too few credible challengers will struggle to deliver the competition, consumer choice, innovation and pricing pressure that consumer driven banking was built to support. The December 8 consultation deadline gives industry a chance to influence that balance before the entry rules become embedded in Canada's open banking market. Responses can be emailed to SupervisionInfo@bank-banque-canada.ca
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
