Financial Planner/Financial Advisor (FP/FA) title protection framework consultation summary report

Several stakeholders raised concerns about the potential for the title protection framework to introduce additional burden and duplicative oversight for individual title users and potential CBs.

In the Notice and Request for Comment, FSRA indicated that the design of the title protection framework would allow for existing Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs) to apply and obtain approval as CBs. There were also several comments for and against this approach.

One commenter suggested that approved CBs should be limited to overseeing education, training and credentialing, and that their role should not duplicate the conduct, discipline and complaints oversight already in place with SROs.

Another stakeholder commented that the proposed FPTP Rule and the proposed administrative structure should be reviewed with a view to removing any duplicative functions performed by existing regulatory bodies.

Stakeholders also recommended that FSRA should avoid creating a scenario where an individual is subject to duplicative title protection oversight from multiple CBs.

• One of FSRA’s key principles in designing the title protection framework is to achieve regulatory effectiveness and efficiency.
• FSRA intends to leverage existing regimes for licensing and designating financial professionals to ensure efficient and effective regulation. This will mean introducing requirements that will compliment existing regulatory frameworks without imposing duplicative or overlapping regulatory requirements on individual title users. For example, credentialing bodies will be required to have a code of conduct, as well as appropriate complaints and disciplinary proceedings, which are already common elements of the existing licensing and designation programs in the marketplace.
• This approach allows for existing licences/designations to be recognized as meeting minimum standards for title usage, and to enable certain individuals to continue to conduct business using the FP and FA titles without significant disruption.
• FSRA’s intent is to include SROs as approved CBs under the framework. This would drive regulatory effectiveness and efficiencies for both title users and approved CBs, and should mitigate any potential duplication between the SROs and other approved CBs. In particular, the framework does not introduce new conduct standards for firms and individuals registered with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) or the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA).
• Leveraging existing frameworks of regulatory bodies that operate across Canada could also help facilitate other provinces implementing their own title protection regimes.

The proposed FPTP Rule provides a 3-year transition period for FA title users and a 5-year transition period for FP title users.

The majority of stakeholders believed that the proposed transition periods should be shortened.

The following feedback was submitted for FSRA’s consideration:

• Some stakeholders expressed concern that the transition period allows individuals to use the FP/FA titles without holding an approved credential. Several stakeholders opposed the concept of a transition period altogether.
• Some stakeholders also expressed concern about the lack of oversight for individuals who do not hold an approved credential and are utilizing the transition period.
• Some stakeholders also suggested that to reduce consumer confusion, individuals utilizing the transition provision should be transparent with clients and disclose that they do not meet the minimum standard for FP /FA title use.
• Some stakeholders questioned the January 1, 2020 date to determine eligibility for the transition provision, and argued that eligibility should not be applied retroactively.
• One stakeholder requested clarification about whether individuals who use the FP/FA titles after January 1, 2020 would be prohibited from using the titles altogether.

• Consumers should be confident that the individual they are working with is qualified to provide financial planning and advising services.
• The transition provision is intended to provide a window for individual title users to determine whether their existing credential has been approved by FSRA, as well as to allow individuals who were already using the FP or FA titles on or before January 1, 2020 a sufficient amount of time to obtain an approved credential. Individuals who began using the FP or FA titles after January 1, 2020 will only be permitted to continue using the titles if they have obtained a FSRA-approved FP/FA credential.
• FSRA has considered the feedback provided by stakeholders on the transition provision and has made amendments to the proposed FPTP Rule, shortening the transition periods to 4 years for FP title use and 2 years for FA title use.

Some stakeholders expressed concern with FSRA’s approach to allow more than one CB to enter the framework. Having more than one approved CB may cause consumer confusion as well as present challenges for establishing a minimum standard (e.g., multiple CBs leads to multiple versions of conduct oversight, standards of care and curriculum).

Some stakeholders also suggested that the CB approval criteria should mirror the requirements set by international standard-setting bodies.

In addition, several commenters suggested that the CB approval criteria should:

• Require a public interest mandate.
• Require a proven track record for enforcing compliance and discipline.
• Include detailed requirements with respect to the make-up of a CB’s Board of Directors.
• Require CBs to justify the fees they charge to credential an individual.

Stakeholders also made the following suggestions regarding the FPTP Rule:

• Significantly enhance the requirement for an approved CB to review its curriculum, including developing a body of knowledge, consulting on course material and conducting psychometric evaluation of testing.
• Enhance clause 4(4)2 to include disciplinary action taken by other CBs or a Canadian financial services regulator.

• The approval criteria outlined in the proposed FPTP Rule were carefully considered to ensure that approved CBs maintain effective oversight of their credentialing programs so that only individuals meeting minimum standards are able to obtain and maintain a credential.
• FSRA set these standards based on research of the existing licensing and designation bodies in the marketplace. In addition, FSRA conducted research on requirements set by international standard-setting bodies for accreditation, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the National Commission for Certifying Agencies, and other organizations that issue a form of credential.
• FSRA has taken a principles-based approach to drafting the proposed FPTP Rule. The standards seek to minimize prescriptive requirements, where appropriate, and provide for flexibility in achieving compliance.
• This approach is intended to accommodate the complex and diverse existing landscape of FP/FAs, their employers and their designation or licence granting bodies, without introducing unduly burdensome barriers for new entrants. It also aligns with the existing marketplace expectations by fostering competition and course variety.
• FSRA will assess the oversight practices and/or professional standards of each applicant CB on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they meet FSRA’s minimum standard for approval.
• FSRA has considered the comments submitted with respect to the CB approval criteria, and has made several amendments to the proposed FPTP Application Guidance in order to further clarify its approach to assessing a potential CB and its credentialing program.

Several stakeholders suggested that approved CBs should have strict conflict of interest guidelines with respect to the activities of the organization, which support acting in the public interest.

• The proposed FPTP Rule includes a proposed requirement to have effective governance, administration procedures and practices that serve the public interest.
• Through the application process, FSRA will assess the extent to which this standard has been met.
• To further clarify its approach, FSRA has amended the proposed FPTP Application Guidance to specifically require applicant CBs to demonstrate their processes and procedures for identifying, managing and addressing any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

Some stakeholders recommended that individual CBs should be permitted to implement alternative pathways for obtaining a credential.

One stakeholder suggested that FSRA should maintain the ultimate discretion to determine whether an individual has the qualifications to use a title, should the individual not meet the qualification requirements as set by an approved CB.

• FSRA supports the development of alternative pathways to obtaining a credential. This could provide additional options for individuals who wish to use the FP/FA titles.
• The process for obtaining a credential via an alternative pathway will be reviewed as part of the application process for approval of a FP/FA credential.
• FSRA will review each pathway to ensure that only qualified individuals obtain a credential.
• FSRA is not a CB under the FPTPA.
• FSRA will review all applications to ensure that the credentialing program is fair and is not designed to prevent admittance into the credentialing program, other than on the basis of competence and the ability to serve the public interest.

Some stakeholders recommended that:

• Complaints against title users should be addressable by an external financial ombudsman, similar to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, to provide consumers with access to independent complaint handling services.  
• CBs should be required to have a whistleblower program so that the CB and FSRA can identify rule breakers.
• CBs should be prohibited from removing disciplinary action from the public domain unless approval is obtained by FSRA or a court so that historical disciplinary data is readily available should it be required by consumers or other organizations.

• Should the proposed framework be implemented, FSRA will require CBs to maintain effective processes to respond to complaints and adjudicate such complaints in a transparent and impartial manner.
• FSRA will review these processes upon application to ensure that they will provide appropriate resolution for consumers in the event of misconduct by a credential holder.
• FSRA will implement a process for the review and adjudication of complaints against approved credentialing bodies or individuals using the FP/FA titles without an approved credential.

Several submissions commented on the level of detail regarding FSRA’s oversight and supervision of approved CBs. There were also several recommendations with respect to how FSRA should supervise CBs (e.g., a recommendation to implement a requirement to audit approved CBs in order to evaluate performance).

One commenter also inquired about FSRA’s approach to title use if a CB’s approval is revoked.

Several comments inquired about information sharing among CBs and between CBs and FSRA, particularly with respect to disciplinary and enforcement action.

• FSRA’s approach to supervision of the CBs will be based on monitoring and enforcement to ensure compliance with the FPTPA, the proposed FPTP Rule and any applicable terms and conditions of approval. This will include an annual review of approved CBs.
• FSRA has posted for consultation proposed Approach Guidance – Financial Professionals Title Protection – Supervisory Framework (FPTP Supervision Guidance), which outlines how FSRA intends to approach supervision with respect to CBs, individuals who use an FP/FA title without holding an approved credential, and potential misrepresentation as an approved CB.
• The FPTPA provides the government with authority to make regulations governing the use of titles in circumstances where a CB’s approval is revoked.
• Information sharing is an important element in ensuring that only qualified individuals obtain/maintain a credential. FSRA expects CBs to address information sharing with other CBs in an application for approval.
• FSRA will require CBs to provide data reports with respect to complaints and enforcement activity as well as information on how it continues to carry out their ongoing responsibilities as an approved CB.

Many stakeholders commented that the BCPs are too general, and that FSRA should provide greater detail to further differentiate between the FP and FA titles. Stakeholders also suggested that greater detail in the BCPs and/or guidance would assist CBs with the content of their curriculum.

Alternatively, one stakeholder supported the high-level approach to the BCPs, and suggested it would be more appropriate to expand and further define minimum standards at a later date.

Stakeholders made the following comments with respect to FSRA’s approach to setting a minimum standard:

• Request for clarification that the BCPs are not meant to require any one individual to have all of the outlined competencies, but rather that the curriculum or syllabus of the credentialing program must include the content outlined in the BCP.
• The framework should raise the bar for proficiency in the financial services marketplace, and not doing so would put consumers at risk.
• FSRA should prohibit individuals from providing advice in areas or products with which they are not familiar.
• FAs should be required to have knowledge in more than just one technical area.

In addition, several stakeholders suggested that the BCPs should:

• Include enhanced wording with respect to conflicts of interest.
• Be consistent with language used by other regulators such as the Ontario Securities Commission.
• Meet existing international standards.
• Clarify the breadth and depth with respect to the particular silo of knowledge.
• Clarify whether the BCP covers the sale and recommendation of different types of insurance products.

• The BCPs establish minimum educational standards for FP/FA title use. The profiles were used to inform the development of the FP/FA credential approval criteria in the proposed FPTP Rule.
• The intent of the BCPs is to outline education program components that set the minimum standard for FP/FA title use. They are not intended as a checklist of activities or competencies that should be held by an individual title user.
• FSRA took a principles-based approach to developing the BCPs, as well as the credential criteria in the proposed FPTP Rule, in order to accommodate the many diverse education programs already in existence.
• FSRA considered all of the comments submitted with respect to the BCPs and has adopted a number of the recommendations. FSRA has also clarified its position on certain items in the proposed FPTP Application Guidance. In addition, FSRA now requires that FA curriculum provide an understanding of standard retail investment products, and how those products should be considered with respect to other areas of financial planning/advice.
• The BCPs have been published as part of the proposed FPTP Application Guidance, and will be used to inform FSRA’s approach to assessing the curriculum of a potential credentialing program, along with the credential criteria as set out in the proposed FPTP Rule.

Some stakeholders expressed concerns with respect to FSRA’s position on life insurance agents not meeting the minimum standard for FA title use. Some stakeholders commented that life insurance agents, as well as mutual fund dealers, are sufficiently qualified to use the FA title.

In contrast, some stakeholders expressed concern that the licensing or registration of life insurance and mutual fund salespeople should not be the baseline for FA title use as it does not adequately equip an individual to provide financial advice.

Several stakeholders also recommended existing credentials which they felt already met the standard for FP and/or FA title use.

• In the public consultation, FSRA acknowledged that some existing licences and designations may not meet the minimum standards for title use, such as the life insurance agent licence.
• All existing licences or designations that may be submitted for approval must meet the approval criteria in the proposed FPTP Rule and the proposed FPTP Application Guidance in order to obtain approval.
• The Life Licence Qualification Program (LLQP) equips individuals with the appropriate knowledge and skills to sell life insurance products across Canada.
• Over the course of the consultation, FSRA conducted additional research, and met with several insurance industry stakeholders regarding the LLQP curriculum.
• FSRA maintains that the LLQP curriculum does not fully align with its minimum education standards for the FA credential, as it does not provide life insurance agents with a sufficient level of knowledge and competency for FA title use. In particular, FSRA has identified gaps in the LLQP curriculum with respect to the Canadian financial services marketplace, economics, and the fundamentals of dealing with retail clients.
• FSRA is considering alternative approaches to addressing the gaps in the existing LLQP curriculum. This could include potential credentialing bodies developing new “top-up” courses, which could enable life agents who wish to use the FA title to comply with the framework.
• The FPTPA requires an entity to apply to FSRA in order to obtain approval as a CB and to offer an FP/FA credential. FSRA does not have authority to pre-determine the licences or designations that could meet the minimum standards for title use.

There is no requirement in the proposed FPTP Rule for an individual to use or disclose the FP/FA titles. There is also no requirement for title users to disclose the credential which permits them use of the FP or FA title.

In the consultation paper, FSRA asked for comments on whether FP and FA title users should be required to disclose to their clients the credential they hold that affords them the right to use an FP or FA title, the form that this disclosure could take and the overall consumer benefits it could achieve.

Many stakeholders supported a requirement for FP/FA title users to disclose their credential. Some suggested that the name of the approved CB should also be disclosed.

However, it was also mentioned that FSRA should not impose additional disclosure requirements because they could lead to additional consumer confusion, especially with respect to individuals who hold more than one credential, or could lead to unnecessary burden or infringe on existing regulatory requirements.

With respect to the form the disclosure should take, the following feedback was submitted for FSRA’s consideration:

• Title users should provide a one-page disclosure document, which outlines the title they are permitted to use and the approved credential.
• Disclosure should be verbal, written on business cards and on any client-relationship document.
• CBs should provide a diploma or equivalent to all credential holders to disclose to clients.
• Disclosure should be at the time of initial engagement in writing, and at other times deemed appropriate.
• Disclosure should extend beyond credentials and include disclosure of competencies and/or scope of services.
• Consider disclosure provided in a standard letter of engagement or brochure.
• Confirmation from FSRA that an individual is approved to use the FP/FA title (e.g., a “seal of approval”).
• Disclosure could be in the form of a registry by FSRA.

Stakeholders believe that enhanced disclosure would benefit consumers by making it easier to verify an individual’s credential as well as confirm the disciplinary history of a credentialed individual.

One stakeholder also commented that it would be difficult to enforce a disclosure requirement, and that FSRA should consider an attestation-based approach as part of the annual certification renewal with the CB.

• FSRA’s intent is that a CB’s code of ethics and professional standards would include policies and standards with respect to the disclosure of credentials when its credential holders use an FP/FA title. The following are examples of methods for credential holders to provide disclosure to clients that FSRA would consider appropriate:
• Contract with client.
• Marketing materials.
• Standard correspondence (e.g., letterhead).
• Website.
• Business card.
• The CB’s policies and standards should also address how credential holders would confirm to the CB that clients have been provided with appropriate disclosure of credentials.  

The majority of stakeholders expressed interest in how FSRA was going to address titles that could reasonably be confused with FP/FA.

The following feedback was submitted for FSRA’s consideration:

• Stakeholders believe that a limited scope with respect to determining these titles would be harmful to consumers.
• Stakeholders suggested that FSRA take a broad approach to determining which titles could reasonably be confused with FP/FA and include titles such as “wealth manager” and “financial consultant”.
• Stakeholders also suggested that FSRA set out its expectations in guidance or mirror the approach taken in Quebec and establish a regulation, which outlines the titles and terms that are prohibited from use by FP certificants.
• One stakeholder requested clarification about whether individuals holding an approved credential would be permitted to use other titles that reflect their designation, indicating that the framework should not prevent individuals who hold dual or multiple functions within an organization from using employment titles in addition to the FP or FA titles.
• One commenter requested clarification from FSRA with respect to titles that are regulated under the Canadian Securities Administrators, such as “advising representative” and “adviser”.

• A number of concerns have been raised about the wide array of titles used by individuals in the financial services marketplace, and how it has led to consumer confusion.
• The title restrictions under the FPTPA extend to the use of the FP and FA titles in another language, an abbreviation, or a title that “could reasonably be confused with” the FP or FA title. FSRA interprets these similar titles to include examples such as “advisor” vs. “adviser”. The use of titles such as “financial consultant” and “wealth manager” are not expected to fall within the scope of the framework.
• FSRA has included an appendix in the proposed FPTP Supervision Guidance, which provides illustrative examples of titles that FSRA considers could reasonably be confused with the FP or FA titles and examples of titles that would not likely be confused with FP and FA titles.
• FSRA will review any concerns or complaints brought forward about the use of titles that could reasonably be confused with the FP or FA titles, subject to the specific facts and circumstances of such use, on a case-by-case basis and develop additional guidance for the industry as needed.

The consultation confirmed that stakeholders want FSRA to work with other provinces/territories to ensure that similar frameworks are implemented across Canada, and that the frameworks are as harmonized as possible.

Several commenters stated that a non-harmonized approach to title protection would be unduly burdensome, not only for individual title users, but also for companies and/or designation bodies that may operate nationally.

In addition, it was suggested that FSRA formally recognize or exempt individuals who have obtained an FP certification from the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF).

• Over the course of the consultation period, as well as during the policy design phase, FSRA has engaged other provinces to discuss the title protection framework and the potential for harmonization across Canada.
• In designing the FP/FA framework, FSRA has considered how the different requirements can be harmonized with other Canadian jurisdictions. For example, through the development of the FP/FA baseline competency profiles, FSRA established minimum standards for FP/FA title use. This approach allows for the recognition of existing national designations/licences and will help foster harmonization across Canada, providing a more efficient transition for title users and potential CBs to obtain recognition in other Canadian jurisdictions.
• In July 2020, the Financial Planners and Financial Advisors Act received Royal Assent in Saskatchewan, which will implement a title protection framework for FPs and FAs. This legislation is, in principle, very similar to the standards that will be put into place in Ontario. FSRA will continue to pro-actively engage other provinces who wish to implement a title protection framework and seek, as much as possible, harmonization with the frameworks implemented in Ontario and Saskatchewan.
• FSRA will consider the feedback submitted with respect to Quebec’s FP certification regime and determine what solutions may be available to mitigate any potential business disruption for individuals living in Quebec who wish to conduct business in Ontario and use the FP/FA titles. This could be achieved through the establishment of alternate pathways to obtaining an approved credential.

With respect to individuals using the FP/FA titles without obtaining an approved credential, several stakeholders suggested FSRA establish a detailed enforcement framework with appropriate penalties. One stakeholder also encouraged FSRA to take a more proactive approach to enforcement.

Some stakeholders also noted that a FSRA Compliance Order will not be a sufficient tool to deter individuals from using the FP/FA titles without an approved credential.

Concerning the implications of an enforcement action against an individual title user, some commenters inquired how the enforcement action would be communicated with other approved CBs and whether other CBs would be required to recognize the enforcement action.

One stakeholder highlighted the need to avoid situations where an individual using an FA or FP title could avoid enforcement sanctions by moving to another financial sector or CB.

One stakeholder highlighted that, should MFDA and IIROC be approved as CBs, FSRA should distinguish between the role of the SROs as regulatory bodies and the oversight role of CBs over credential holders.

A stakeholder also suggested that under the FP/FA framework, FSRA should only assume responsibility for the approval of CBs, while compliance and enforcement should be performed by existing regulators that are familiar with their members and approved persons.

• The proposed FPTP Supervision Guidance addresses how FSRA will administer complaints, compliance investigations, and enforcement against CBs and individuals who misuse the FP/FA titles (e.g., individuals who use the FP/FA titles without an approved credential).
• The FPTPA regulates title usage. It does not directly regulate the conduct of credential holders. However, under the FPTPA, FSRA has the authority to take enforcement action against CBs that do not comply with the FPTPA, the proposed FPTP Rule and/or terms and conditions of their approval. FSRA’s enforcement tools with respect to CBs under the FPTPA include:
• Ability to revoke the approval of a CB; or
• Issue a Compliance Order.
• Under the FPTPA, FSRA also has the authority to issue Compliance Orders against individuals who use an FP/FA title without an approved credential.
• FSRA will post the details of its enforcement action, including any Compliance Orders, on the FSRA website.
• As part of their approval process, FSRA will also require CBs to have processes and procedures in place to manage cases of misconduct relating to one of their credential holders. FSRA also expects that CBs will have policies and procedures in place to assess the good standing of its credential holders should enforcement action be taken by another CB or regulatory body.

In the consultation paper, FSRA asked for comments on whether the title protection framework should allow for any exemptions. In particular, FSRA requested comments on:

• The principles governing an exemption regime;
• The extent to which exemptions may be required;
• To whom they should be made available (if at all); and,
• The benefits and drawbacks of permitting exemptions.

In the consultation, FSRA noted that if any exemptions are to be considered, the policy rationale must ensure that the interest of the public continues to be maintained.

A large number of stakeholders stated that they did not support exemptions for individuals who currently use the FP or FA titles.

Several stakeholders noted that the use of exemptions would undermine the purpose of the proposed FPTP Rule and the associated legislative framework. One stakeholder noted that granting exemptions would not align with FSRA’s key policy principle of protecting against any potential harm to consumers. 

In contrast, some stakeholders have encouraged FSRA to consider exemptions for both FP and FA title users subject to the oversight of a statutory regulator. Some stakeholders specifically recommended exempting IIROC and MFDA registrants. One stakeholder suggested providing an exemption for any individuals already overseen by the Canadian Securities Administrators .

In the event FSRA did provide exemptions, one stakeholder suggested that exempt individuals should be required to disclose any exemption under which they are operating.  

• The purpose of the title protection framework is to establish a common minimum standard across title users. For any exemptions to be made available, FSRA must be satisfied that designation meets, and will continue to meet, the minimum criteria for FP/FA title usage.
• FSRA continues to consider the feedback it has received with respect to exemptions.

In order to implement the title protection framework, FSRA must establish a FP/FA fee structure.

In the consultation paper, FSRA asked for comments on the existing fee structure under the FPTPA, including whether it allows for fair cost recovery, or if there are any operational challenges that credentialing bodies may experience with such a fee structure.

The following feedback was submitted for FSRA’s consideration:

• The majority of stakeholders recommended that fees for the FP/FA sector should be reasonably low and not significantly increase over time.  
• Some stakeholders asked FSRA to consider calculating fees based on the number of individuals who use the FP/FA title instead of the number of credential holders.
• Some stakeholders suggested FSRA charge CBs a fee that is proportionate to the number of FPs and FAs that are credentialled by the CB.
• Other stakeholders suggest that FSRA should collect its own fees directly from credentialed individuals and not require CBs to collect and remit fees from credential holders as stipulated under the FPTPA.
• Some stakeholders recommended that FSRA collect fees directly from credential holders to minimize burden for smaller CBs and to ensure individuals credentialed with two or more CBs do not pay multiple fees.
• One stakeholder suggested FAs and FPs that are not SRO registrants should pay fees directly to FSRA.
• Another stakeholder recommended that FAs or FPs who are existing SRO registrants should have their fees assessed by the SRO, not FSRA, and that the fee should be a nominal, incremental cost on top of the existing SRO fees.

FSRA also received several comments with respect to what the fee structure should look like for:

• Approved CBs.
• Individuals who are both SRO registrants and a credential holder of a FSRA approved CB.
• Individuals who qualify to use both the FP and FA titles (an individual with multiple credentials).

Some stakeholders noted the cost of using the titles could be passed to consumers. Stakeholders urged FSRA to establish an efficient fee structure to avoid the unintended consequence of consumers not being able to afford financial planning and advising services.

• As an independent, self-funded agency regulating on a cost-recovery basis, FSRA will establish fees for the FP/FA sector to support its operations. The fee structure will take into consideration the principles of simplicity, consistency, fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency.
• FSRA is proposing that the fee structure consist of an application fee and an annual fee. The fees will enable FSRA to recover start-up costs and ongoing regulatory costs for the FP/FA framework.
• FSRA has included a high-level overview of its approach to establishing the FP/FA fee structure in the Notice of Changes and Request for Further Comment (see Appendix B). Additional details are forthcoming.

In the consultation paper, FSRA asked for feedback on options for consumer education campaigns to support and follow the implementation of the title protection framework.

FSRA also solicited comments on how government, regulators, CBs, and industry can educate consumers in Ontario about financial planning and advising services and on FP/FA title use. 

Stakeholders submitted the following feedback for FSRA’s consideration:

• Consumer education will be vital to the success of the framework.
• FSRA should work with government, other regulators, CBs and industry to educate consumers on the new title protection framework.
• Consumer education should focus on reducing confusion regarding the different titles.
• Consumer educational material is essential, should be written in plain language and be published on FSRA’s website.
• Consistent messaging to the public is required to minimize consumer confusion. The use of online and paper guides written in both official languages explaining the FP/FA titles and the difference between financial planning and financial advising.
• Different mediums should be used to inform consumers about the importance of dealing with a proper professional (credentialed individual).
• Consumer education should be guided by the principle of public protection.
• FSRA should provide a standardized list of credentials that qualify for each title in marketing material and as part of consumer education campaigns.

FSRA also received several comments with respect to:

• The need to avoid potentially misleading, confusing, or inconsistent messaging directed to consumers.
• Encouraging retail investors to seek advice from a credentialed FP/FA.
• The need to raise public awareness regarding recognized credentials in the market when seeking financial planning or advisory services.
• The need to inform consumers that use of the FP/FA titles without approval from a FSRA-approved CB is prohibited, and that an individual using one of the titles without having an approved credential does not meet the minimum standards required to use those titles.

Some stakeholders highlighted the importance of educating the public on the title protection framework during the transition period to ensure investors/consumers and financial services professionals understand the meaning and purpose of the framework.

One stakeholder suggested FSRA’s role should be limited to promoting a registry whereby consumers can verify if an individual has obtained an approved credential to enable them to use the FP/FA titles.

Another commenter suggested FSRA should consider providing web links to easily understandable and widely accessible financial literacy and other investor protection information, as well as information on what disclosures consumers should be looking for to verify title use.

One commenter suggested it would be useful for FSRA to provide consumers with a list of specific questions to ask when retaining a FP/FA.

Some stakeholders noted that it will be important for consumers to understand FSRA’s role in the framework, and that CBs should make it clear that FSRA is the regulatory authority for the framework.  

• The consultation confirmed that stakeholders overwhelmingly support efforts to educate the public on the FP/FA title protection framework. 
• FSRA believes that an effective consumer education campaign will require stakeholders, including but not limited to approved CBs, credential holders, and regulators, to collaborate and coordinate efforts.
• FSRA also supports a multi-faceted consumer education campaign and will work with key stakeholders to ensure a consistent approach to educating consumers.
• In developing a consumer campaign, FSRA intends to provide clear and easily accessible information through various channels, including information on approved CBs and credentials on FSRA’s website. 

Several stakeholders suggested that FSRA should implement a public registry as part of the FP/FA title protection framework. Of those stakeholders, all agree that the public registry should list the name of all approved credential holders authorized to use the FP/FA titles, along with their approved credential(s) and the CB that issued the credential. A couple of stakeholders have recommended the public registry also contain information with respect to a credentialed individual’s licensing and registration status, disciplinary history, and complaints.

Stakeholders also suggested the public registry include:

• Links to responsible CBs.
• Links to a complaints form and information on how consumers should make a complaint.
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), including definitions of what constitutes an FP and FA.
• If applicable, a list of exempted credentials, the corresponding CBs, and the individuals who hold one or more of these credentials.
• Information on financial literacy and consumer education.

One stakeholder suggested the registry should be maintained at a national level.

• As part of the FP/FA title protection framework, FSRA plans to design and implement a public registry for individuals that hold an approved credential in Ontario.
• FSRA believes a public registry will support its regulatory objectives under the title protection framework and enable consumers and investors to verify whether an individual meets the minimum standards of expertise and knowledge to provide financial planning and advisory services in Ontario.
• The ability to ascertain an individual’s qualifications using the public registry would provide consumers added confidence in the quality of service they receive from those using the titles.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns that the proposed framework focuses on title protection and does not directly regulate the conduct of credential holders. To prevent consumer harm, stakeholders have pointed out that individuals who provide financial planning and advising services should be subject to best interest or fiduciary standards. In addition, the following feedback was submitted for FSRA’s consideration:

• FSRA should implement a “fiduciary responsibility” for title users.
• FSRA should regulate conduct of title users.
• FSRA should develop a professional Code of Conduct and Practice that applies to all credential holders.
• CBs should require title users to adhere to a best interest standard, and to behave fairly, honestly and in good faith.

• The FPTPA regulates title usage. It does not directly regulate the conduct of credential holders. FSRA requirements with respect to title usage will work alongside existing regulatory frameworks that govern activities undertaken by FP/FA title users. For example, approved CBs will be required to ensure credentialed individuals comply with a code of ethics and professional standards but the responsibility for administering such requirements will remain with the CB.
• Financial planning and advising activities/standards that are already subject to regulation will continue to be overseen by relevant regulatory bodies in Ontario. FSRA will not take over or duplicate such activity. 

One stakeholder suggested the FP/FA title protection framework should also apply to financial advice and planning services provided through a digital space/medium. Another stakeholder also inquired if the framework will capture various financial planning and advising tools currently being offered in the marketplace.

• The proposed FPTP Rule, and the supporting legislation, will introduce restrictions on individuals’ use of the financial planner and financial advisor titles. This will include the use of the titles by individuals through a digital space/medium.

Some stakeholders indicated they would like to see greater collaboration and coordination between regulators and CBs to ensure that individual title users with multiple registrations and/or credentials are subject to consistent standards and oversight.

One stakeholder inquired whether approved credentialing bodies will have mechanisms in place, such as Memoranda of Understanding with the regulatory bodies, to ensure that complaints or disciplinary actions are shared.

• The title protection framework does not directly regulate conduct or intend to impose duplicative or overlapping regulatory requirements on individual title users. Existing regulatory bodies will continue to oversee the conduct of their registrants / licensed individuals. Approved CBs will be required to oversee the conduct of their credentialed individuals.
• The proposed FPTP Approach Guidance makes clear that FSRA will look for approved CBs to have processes in place to review a credential holder’s good standing should enforcement action be taken by another CB or regulatory body.

Some stakeholders were of the view that the proposed FPTP Rule, as drafted, provides a short-term solution and that in the long run it should be amended to include more direct licensing, conduct oversight and regulation.

Some stakeholders voiced their concern over the various licensing and professional designation regimes currently present within the industry. These stakeholders suggested a coordinated regulatory approach to the provision of financial advice in Ontario is required.

A stakeholder suggested FSRA’s Notice should include detail on how the proposed framework complements existing regulation. According to the stakeholder, this detail should also discuss whether FSRA’s title protection initiative is creating a higher level of registration, and differences in accountability and scope of services that will be offered by individuals using the FP/FA titles.

With respect to the overall regulatory structure and purpose of the title protection framework, one stakeholder submitted the following questions:

• Is the title protection framework an attempt to acknowledge the wider scope of advice beyond the narrow confines of securities suitability determination? 
• Is the title protection framework an attempt to properly frame and professionalize the market for financial advice, to define its standards, competencies and conduct to meet professional body recommendations and consumer needs? 
• Is the title protection framework an attempt to harmonize regulation of financial services (banking, insurance, mortgage, securities, financial planning) in Ontario via one common minimum standard?

• FSRA is a principles-based regulator. The proposed FPTP Rule is drafted in a way that will help ensure regulatory flexibility.
• The title protection initiative attempts to address the absence of a regulatory framework with respect to the expertise and knowledge of individuals providing financial planning and financial advisory services in Ontario. The title protection framework will establish minimum proficiency, competency, and knowledge standards for individuals approved to use the FP or FA title. 
• The FP/FA title protection framework will not result in a new licensing regime for individual title users and will also not regulate the conduct of individuals using the FP or FA titles.
• FSRA intends to leverage existing regulatory frameworks for granting and supervising FP and FA designations and licences, and does not intend to impose duplicative or overlapping regulatory requirements on individual title users. Financial planning and advising activities/standards that are already subject to regulation will continue to be overseen by the relevant regulatory bodies in Ontario. Establishing such standards, such as those related to conduct, goes beyond FSRA’s mandate to set minimum standards for title usage.
• Over time, FSRA will review the proposed FPTP Rule and associated Guidance to ensure that the framework continues to align with existing regulatory requirements.