CIRO oversees much of Canada’s investment industry, and its governance is critical to protecting investors. The organization has proposed extending the tenure of its Independent Directors on the Board. We have raised concerns because independence matters.
A key risk in self-regulation is “regulatory capture” – the risk that a regulator becomes too close to the industry it oversees and, even unintentionally, begins to view issues through the industry’s lens rather than the public’s. Strong governance safeguards exist precisely to manage that risk. That concern is particularly acute for a self-regulatory organization exercising delegated authority, where governance arrangements must not only be sound but also command public confidence.
Independent Directors play a central role in preventing capture. They exercise genuine, functional independence: asking tough questions, challenging CIRO’s leaders and priorities, and ensuring that investor and public-interest concerns are taken seriously.
Longer director terms can, over time, weaken that functional independence. They also create a perception problem: public confidence in self-regulation depends not only on independence in fact but also on independence being visible.
CIRO argues that longer terms would improve continuity and expertise. There is a legitimate trade-off: longer tenure can support continuity and institutional knowledge, particularly in complex oversight roles. However, those benefits must be weighed carefully against the risk that independence may erode over time. We are not convinced that the balance has been struck appropriately.
For retail investors, this matters. CIRO’s Board shapes regulatory priorities, oversight, and enforcement – decisions that directly affect investor protection. The question for Canadians is straightforward: do the proposed changes truly strengthen CIRO’s ability to act in the public interest, or risk tilting the balance too far towards continuity at investors’ expense?
Visit our website to view our full comment letter.