Mortgage Broker

CmB magazIne cmba-achc.ca spring 2018 | 11 update letters CMBa MEMBErS' VIEWS In March, the B.C. Ministry of Finance issued a set of proposals which could have far-reaching implications for mortgage broker licensing and regulation in B.C. e proposals appear to adopt the concept behind Ontario's new Financial Services Regulatory Authority, commonly known as FSRA. Specifically, the proposals include recommendations to: n turn the Financial Institutions Commission into a Crown agency, which would have greater authority and autonomy than it currently possesses; n expand the role of the Commission to oversee mortgage broker regulation and appoint the Registrar; and n issue legally enforceable guidelines and rules. One member wrote to us to express the following concerns with these proposals: ank you for an opportunity to provide my comments with respect to the Review of the FIA and how the recommendations may impact mortgage brokers. My long-standing position is that the government that governs least governs best; on all fronts, it is clear that the review is headed towards a regulatory nightmare. e purpose of the review is to determine "whether changes to the legislative and regulatory framework are needed." e review document does not list one single problem that might require such changes, and therefore it is difficult to conclude what, if any, changes are required and it can be easily concluded that no such changes are required since no problems are referenced. In another paragraph, the government claims that the current regulations have proven effective. en why does it need to be changed at all? e very concept of an "enforceable regulation" is ill-formed. We already have enforceable regulations – laws. And we already have a public body that dras these – the legislature. Essentially, a body that makes enforceable regulations is nothing other than an unelected legislature. is both undermines the basic structure of our parliamentary democracy and creates a confusing, complex and non-transparent pseudo-legal structure which can only result in decreased efficiency and increased political influences and possibly corruption. To best protect the general public, they should be able to know what is legal and what is not, simply by reading the applicable law. If there is a parallel framework in place, this ceases to be the case and creates a regulatory environment where only a lawyer or other specialist can determine what is allowed and what is not. More regulation and more laws are not the answer; simpler regulations are the solution. e recommendations hold out "public consultation and ministerial approval" as a replacement for due deliberation by a legislative body. But this is disingenuous. Public consultation and ministerial approval can only be seen as a way of circumventing proper and public legislative debate and replacing it with a patently un-transparent process – particularly in view of the intent to replace qualified executives with political appointees. Am I correct when I say that currently, the positions of CEO of FICOM, Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Superintendent of Pensions, Registrar of Mortgage Brokers and CUDIC are all positions that are filled by a standard talent search and hiring process, ensuring that the most qualified individuals are hired? If so, it would be a terrible mistake to transform these into political appointees. is would result in a politically motivated bureaucracy and would therefore make FICOM less effective and more expensive. is is the exact opposite of the stated goal, which is to create a "Commission structure that reflects best practices and includes expertise from the regulated sectors." In several places, the review paper holds out the proliferation of increasingly intrusive regulations and reporting requirements as a trend to be embraced. On the contrary, we have already gone much too far in this direction. is dangerous trend towards It Ain't Broke

• Cover