When saskatchewan became the first jurisdiction in Canada to merge its securities commission with regulatory bodies for insurance, pensions and other financial services, few expected it to become a model for a national regulatory body for financial institutions.

But that’s what the Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission — which brought the regulators of insurance, credit unions, pensions, securities, trust and loans, and mortgage brokers together under one roof — has become, says David Wild, chairman of the Regina-based SFSC.

In February 2003, the Sas-katchewan government integrated the Saskatchewan Securities Commission, the financial institution section of the consumer protection branch of the province’s Department of Justice and the department’s pension benefits branch into one new body.

Three years later, concerns about how this would go have been laid to rest. “It has been an unqualified success,” says Wild.

There have been mergers of regulators in other jurisdictions, but those organizations don’t regulate all three financial sectors. “We still are unique in Canada,’’ he adds.

British Columbia, for example, brought together all the regulators of financial institutions except for securities and pensions. In Alberta, regulators of financial institutions have merged, but not the securities regulator. Ontario announced plans to merge its financial services regulators under a single commission, but then the plans were quietly shelved. Quebec brought all its regulators together except pensions.

The fact that the SFSC has been the only one to regulate all financial sectors is why this commission could serve as an example for a national regulatory body for financial institutions, Wild says.

“There are three elements of a successful national regulatory system: one is the harmonization of the rule book; two is bilateral and multilateral co-operation among regulators; and three is regulatory competency within each regulator,” he says. “These three elements are the key to whether or not we will be successful.”

As for how various jurisdictions can work together, Wild cites the example of the Joint Forum of Financial Market Regulators, which represents regulators of insurance, pension and securities industries in Canada.

The joint forum was instrumental, for instance, in developing practice standards for “intermediaries’’ — salespeople who sell financial products and services for one or more suppliers, he says.

In 2005, the joint forum came up with new standards of practice for all financial intermediaries. Now, prospective customers of insurance agents; mortgage, loan and investment brokers; deposit agents; and financial planners can find out how their representatives are being compensated, and by whom, and whether or not they’re qualified to sell financial products and services.

The practice standards make it clear that the consumer’s interest comes before the interests of salespeople and companies, says Wild, who serves as chairman of the joint forum.

The SFSC uses the expertise of regulators in all three sectors to find solutions to common problems.

“We can tackle problems that don’t fit nicely into one statute. We’ve sat across from folks who have an issue or problem and want to try something new, and we can give them a multi-dimensional solution to the problem,” says Wild. “We can bring together securities, insurance and pension regulators in the same room and deal with the problem.”

Wild also praises the commission’s staff of 34 professionals, who are, for the most part, young, highly motivated and work well together. “Our survey of employees shows a lot of satisfaction with our operation. It appears to be a good place to work,” he says.

The commission’s older, more experienced staff have fit well into the new organization, too. “We haven’t had any turnover. Our senior people have been here for quite a long time.’’

Wild admits it took time for the SFSC to develop its own distinct corporate culture. But, he says, the positive attitude of the commission’s staff seems to be rubbing off on its clients — the securities, insurance and pension industries.

“Our sectors appear to be happy,’’ Wild says, adding that a survey conducted in June 2005 showed a customer satisfaction rating of 83%.

The SFSC’s structure, with separate divisions for securities, insurance and pension regulation, reflects the fact that there are differences as well as similarities among the three financial sectors being regulated, Wild says.

Nevertheless, the regulation of the financial services industry needs to reflect the consolidation happening within the industry, with increased cross-ownership among banks and trust companies, insurance companies and securities firms, he adds.

@page_break@“There’s a single consumer that’s being served here. And the industry is going to evolve in whatever direction consumers want it to evolve,” Wild says. “Our organization is a reflection of what’s happened in the marketplace.’’

He says there needs to be more communication and co-operation among regulators: “We have other organizations that bring the regulators together within a sector.’’ There are strong national organizations in each sector, such as the Canadian Securities Administrators and the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities. “It’s between the sectors that we need to talk more, to share more,” he says.

For example, scams that appear in the insurance business will suddenly pop up in the securities industry, and vice versa. “It’s critical to public protection that our enforcement people share information, share intelligence, with each other,” he says.

The SFSC can show other Ca-nadian jurisdictions that merging their regulatory bodies can be done, just as Australia and Britain have done, says Wild.

But he’s not holding his breath: “Nobody wants to talk about a national financial services regulator, which would make sense to me.’’

But, he hastens to add, “It’s a political question, not a regulatory question.” IE