Canadian Politics Today

I don't anything but minor quibbles.
Changing the text to say they "did not find wide spread problems" is perfectly fine if it is true.

Sharing a review with the subjects before publication is simply professionalism.
This is not some journalist trying to create a hit piece to boost ratings.
This is a regulator that has an ongoing working relationship.
The key unknown is the banks asked for edits that were rejected.

The argument that checking facts means you only have to send the facts is nonsense.
Facts can be presented in a context that completely distorts the facts.
Journalists abuse this all of the time.

The one thing that is a concern is the rejection of the argument that banks have a fiduciary duty to their customers.
Businesses hate these clauses because it opens them up to all kinds of merit-less lawsuits.
But it is a principle that we should require of all people providing financial advice for profit.

Morneau the inside trader

oh my! Does that fit/fall within 'Fair Comment'?

Fair Comment Definition: A comment made which though defamatory, is not actionable as it is an opinion on a matter of public interest.

oh wait... is that your opinion... which matter of {related} public interest are you relying upon? 

Sharing a review with the subjects before publication is simply professionalism.
This is not some journalist trying to create a hit piece to boost ratings.
This is a regulator that has an ongoing working relationship.
The key unknown is the banks asked for edits that were rejected.

Can you name other examples of an independent regulator legit sharing draft of it's work to the people it's regulating for "edits"?  It's a complete and utter farce.  It shouldn't be softening their language and prescriptions because the people they're regulating get their butts hurt.

I see it all the time in my business. Documents are provided to allow for feedback from all affected stakeholders before publication. The regulator is under no obligation to accept any edit and, in this case, there does not appear to be a reason to believe the edit is false. If there was such evidence I would share your concern.

What you seem to be missing is phrasing can have different meaning to different people. Sometimes document authors will make statements without realizing how others will interpret them. So it is fair for a stakeholder to come back and say "did you really mean this?" and if the answer is "no we did not" then it extremely appropriate to update the wording to reflect the intent of the regulator.

As I said before, the job of the regulator is to look after public interest. It is not to create hit pieces that create controversies to boost sales.

They edited out key pieces of the draft.  Very key language.  Changing things like "must" to "should" changes a requirement to a recommendation.  Changing some minor language makes sense, but they totally softballed the report.

Changing things like "must" to "should" changes a requirement to a recommendation.

I am arguing about when to use "should" and when to "must" constantly in my work. Without the back and forth discussions we can't know why the regulator agreed to the changes. But lack of information does not mean you are wrong - it just means you can't assume that you are right.