Clients can self-serve. No paperwork. No cheques (unless they want to). Everything is client-name and not in nominee.

I wont be giving up on this. It already received validation from FI'S and Dealers. Its live soon.

Your biggest obstacle is trying to get past the convenience of the FundSERV platform that investment and mutual fund dealers use to serve mutual funds and Investment Savings Accounts to their clients and, to a lesser extent, the convenience of the HISA ETFs. Difficult to get both the dealer member firms and, by extension, their clients to use yet another platform.

Since it's not in production yet, my best advice would be just to abandon the idea. You'll thank me in 5 years.

Cheers,
Doug

Over the past 6 years I’ve spoken with major brokers, financial institutions, and software vendors to better understand the GIC landscape. Over the last year, I built a platform that connects clients directly with financial institutions (either advisor-led or self-directed).

The goal is simple: create a place where clients can renew or move GICs between institutions without the usual friction of transfers, paperwork, and starting new applications every time.

I’d really appreciate the community’s thoughts:

1️⃣ General reactions to this idea
2️⃣ Would any serious GIC investors be open to seeing a demo and sharing user feedback? (Its not in production yet)
3️⃣ What are the biggest pain points you’re currently facing with GIC investing or renewals?

Thanks in advance — I’m here to listen and learn

Chadwick Westlake is actually CEO of EQB Inc. and Equitable Bank, not EQ Bank. EQ Bank is just their online channel.

According to their Investor Fact Sheet (Q4 2025), most of their deposits don't even come through EQ Bank:

28% EQ Bank
 6% Credit Unions
13% Wholesale Funding
54% Brokered Deposits & Others

Interesting article ➡️ https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/bu.....hold-name/

Dean

dell15454 said
Time to outlaw Property Controls the supermarkets have been using to stifle competition.  

I doubt that would do much of anything for food prices. I suspect the losers would be landlords since their Major Tenant lease values will be reduced and potentially their long term Major Tenants moving elsewhere only to be replaced by shorter term leases after incurring major reno costs.

RetirEd said
the travel expenses for an official government delegation are not at all out of line, as listed in the article.  

you got to be kidding.
If they are paying out of their own pocket, you think they will spend as much (let's be fair and deduct security and special handling fee for diplomat, etc)
Give u a simple example, I can open a bottle of water at my hotel room and get charged $8. Or I can go downstairs to the convenient store and pay $2 for the exact bottle.
A diplomat opens the $8 bottle, I walk downstairs and open the $2 one, enuf said.

Bill said

The problem is the media, as usual, is not telling the truth, starting in fact with the headline "Daughter hit with $660,000 tax bill when both parents died in same year". That is a complete fabrication, the daughter was hit with no tax bill at all, it was the last parent to die's estate that was hit with a tax bill.
…

That's correct. It was her father's estate that owed $669,126 of taxes on both the collapse of his $715,000 RRSP and the capital gains on the deemed disposition of his cottage on his death.

Not sure where the hardship came from. The estate could have paid the taxes easily from the proceeds of the $715,000 RRSP alone.

I don't see the point of giving everybody money and then taxing some back, to me it makes more sense to give the money to your target groups, end of story.

And, as Newton and mordko pointed out, the travel expenses for an official government delegation are not at all out of line, as listed in the article.

The vast majority of Canadians are eligible for the GST rebate (or newly renamed credit):
The credit is designed to assist Canadians with low-to-moderate incomes. Single individuals making $52,255 or more (before tax) are not entitled to the credit. A married couple with four children cannot exceed an annual net income of $69,015.

The problem is the media, as usual, is not telling the truth, starting in fact with the headline "Daughter hit with $660,000 tax bill when both parents died in same year". That is a complete fabrication, the daughter was hit with no tax bill at all, it was the last parent to die's estate that was hit with a tax bill.

If the estate doesn't have enough money to pay its taxes the beneficiaries are not liable for anything. Unless, of course, they previously received distributions from the estate, that can be recovered by CRA as distributions to beneficiaries should not be made without leaving enough in the estate to pay its final tax bill.

"Financial distress" is irrelevant, tax laws need to be applied to everyone, it's not on a case by case basis. And no distress in this case anyway, they inherited a "cottage" (which apparently was of suitable quality and location to use as a principal residence), insurance policy and additional assets, including likely proceeds from the sale of the home a few years prior, i.e. the kids ended up with a nice inheritance. For the daughter to go to the media with a victim narrative, well, that's typical, I guess.