The B.C. Securities Commission has released a report regarding its’ audit of the Investment Dealers Association.

The BCSC says it is expecting more enforcement results from the IDA’s Pacific district operations now that the self-regulatory organization has cleared away much of what hampered its enforcement activities.

“They have certainly put in place better processes and procedures to identify and target enforcement priorities since we reviewed their operations in 2000,” said Lang Evans, BCSC director of Capital Markets Regulation. “They addressed staffing levels but the final critical test now is getting enforcement results. We think they can do better in that area.”

The findings were released in an audit conducted by the BCSC’s Capital Markets Regulation division, covering a period from September 2000 to December 2002. It was conducted as a follow-up to recommendations made in a BCSC audit of the IDA Pacific District’s operations completed in 2000. At that time, the IDA was experiencing significant changes resulting in an independent comprehensive national review of its’ enforcement department by Robert Chambers. The 2000 BCSC audit report recommended that a subsequent audit be conducted to review the impact of the Chambers and BCSC recommendations on enforcement results.

The 2002 audit focused on Investigations and Prosecutions and was narrower in scope than the comprehensive audit conducted in 2000. Evans said that the IDA’s Pacific regional office has implemented many of the recommendations in the BCSC’s 2000 report and it has improved its effectiveness in meeting its regulatory responsibilities.

“Overall, the IDA implemented a significant number of the previous recommendations to improve its effectiveness in meeting its regulatory responsibilities. Significant change has been accomplished with the implementation of new systems and the development of better processes for handling complaints and managing priorities,” it said. “However, enforcement results have still lagged below historic levels particularly in corporate actions brought against firms. The most significant factors contributing to the lack of results appear to be key staff vacancies and file backlogs.”