Albert Lin

On July 9, 2026, CAFII hosted a webinar titled A Conversation on the State of Canada’s Financial Landscape Amidst an Increasingly Complex World: A CAFII Virtual Fireside Chat with Sonia Baxendale, the President & CEO of the Global Risk Institute. CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, began the webinar by thanking all attendees and introducing CAFII’s Senior Research and Policy Analyst, Robyn Jenning, who then introduced Sonia Baxendale, President and CEO of the Global Risk Institute.  

In addition to her roles as President and CEO of the Global Risk Institute (GRI), Ms. Baxendale has extensive experience as an executive and non-executive in the global financial services industry. She is an active corporate director who sits on the boards of Laurentian Bank, Definity Financial Corp., and Intermediate Capital Group (ICG). Prior to joining GRI, Sonia held senior roles at CIBC, including Senior Executive Vice President and President of CIBC Retail Markets, where she led the Retail & Commercial Banking and Wealth Management businesses. Prior to CIBC, she held various positions within American Express Canada and at Saatchi & Saatchi.    

Ms. Baxendale is a graduate of the University of Toronto, where she was named the Victoria College Alumni of Distinction in 2017. She was named one of the “Top 100 Most Powerful Women in Canada” for three consecutive years and was inducted into the Top 100 Hall of Fame in 2010. In 2000, she was recognized as one of Canada’s Top 40 Under 40.  

After introducing Ms. Baxendale, R. Jennings extended a special welcome to several VIP guest attendees, including CAFII’s 14 member companies, 13 Associates, allied industry associations such as the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA), the Travel and Health Insurance Association of Canada (THIA), and representatives from various insurance and financial services regulators and policy-making authorities, including the following: 

• The Alberta Insurance Council  

• The Autorité des marchés financiers, or AMF  

• The British Columbia Financial Services Authority, or BCFSA  

• The Government of BC  

• The BC Ministry of Finance  

• The Insurance Council of BC  

• The Canadian Bankers Association, or CBA 

• The Canadian Association of Direct Relationship Insurers, or CADRI  

• The Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations, or CISRO  

• The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC  

• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, or FSRA  

• The Insurance Council of Manitoba 

• The Financial and Consumer Services Commission of New Brunswick  

• The OmbudService for Life and Health Insurance, or OLHI 

• The Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan 

• The Government of Saskatchewan 

R. Jennings opened the webinar by asking Ms. Baxendale to speak about the GRI and its core mandates. GRI was founded after the 2008 Financial Crisis by the then-Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, and the late Federal Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty. The objective was to build risk capability and capacity to position Toronto and Ontario as a center of excellence, which would then be expanded beyond the financial sector. GRI has grown from 13 members to 52, including banks, insurance companies, credit unions, pension funds, a number of Crown corporations, and educational institutions, combining academia, government, and industry.  

The foundation of GRI is research, both internal and external, as well as education. GRI has become known for its convening power, bringing together diverse viewpoints, including government, regulatory partners, and industry, on major issues and emerging risks.  

Ms. Baxendale was asked what is fundamentally different about the risk environment facing Canadian financial institutions today? Before the 2008 Financial Crisis, most risk was considered financial – market, liquidity, credit, etc. After the Financial Crisis, the focus shifted to non-financial risk, such as operational, conduct, and compliance risk. Ms. Baxendale explained that today the fundamental difference in Canada’s risk environment lies in the complexity, speed, and interconnectedness of current risks. Risk used to be dealt with discretely; this is no longer the case. She identified the top three risks GRI’s members are most focused on: economic uncertainty, geopolitical events, and technological change. These three areas are broadly affecting the risk environment across all FIs.  

The links between these risks have become increasingly pronounced in recent years. Technology is an amplifier; it is playing an outsized role, both positive and negative, in risk. Arguably, the most obvious things being impacted are cyberspace and cyber issues.  

R. Jennings remarked that one reality of today’s risk environment is that FIs are being asked to account for growing uncertainty in their long-term strategic planning. She then asked Ms. Baxendale which external forces she believes are having the greatest influence on strategic decision-making today, and how organizations are adapting. Geopolitical uncertainty, policy fragmentation, economic volatility, rapid technological change, and affordability pressures are the main forces shaping long-term strategic planning. All these factors, however, are outside organizations’ control, so what can be done? FIs need to evolve beyond the traditional control frameworks. One such way is prioritizing operational resilience. Success will not necessarily be measured by an organization’s ability to predict the next crisis or risk, but by its overall preparedness and adaptability. Strong governance plays a part in this.     

What distinguishes organizations that respond well to risk from those that simply react? This goes back to preparedness. The strongest organizations recognize that external risks cannot be prevented or controlled. Rather than trying to eliminate uncertainty, they build resilience, flexibility, and adequate decision-making capabilities into their controls. Strong governance and accountability also play a vital role. In a world increasingly dependent on technology and AI, it is essential that organizations be clear about who is accountable for what and where decision-making resides. Senior management accountability is driven by regulators’ acknowledgment that we need clearer organizational lines on who is actually making decisions.  Another crucial determinant is scenario analysis. To conduct successful scenario analysis, organizations need to think broadly and creatively about secondary and tertiary impacts. Organizations that have a transparent, timely escalation and challenge process are crucial. Large FIs that are willing to hear divergent points of view will be more successful than those that are resistant to change or challenge. Ms. Baxendale urged organizations to adopt clear crisis management plans that are flexible enough to respond to environmental changes. FIs need to have the courage to course-correct when faced with barriers.  

R. Jennings then asked what AI accountability looks like in practice. Ms. Baxendale explained that accountability is heightened when it comes to AI. It needs to flow vertically; communication must reach across organizational hierarchies and structures so that decision-making and direction are clear. AI is no longer a silo because technology is no longer reserved for specific departments. Technology is now a facilitator for many aspects of business; therefore, AI is often part of strategic or organizational decisions. Accountability requires clarity: is this AI decision a business one or a support-function one? Who is responsible for making strategic decisions versus technological ones?  

The housing market remains an important focus for both policymakers and industry. R. Jennings asked Ms. Baxendale, as institutions navigate affordability challenges, slower growth, and changing market conditions, where she sees the most significant risks emerging. The housing market is deeply affected by macroeconomic forces, which, in turn, are influenced by the geopolitical environment. This is where scenario planning is crucial, as it enables a deeper understanding of the implications of these external influences. Canada has already undergone a meaningful correction from peak pricing levels reached during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Greater Toronto Area and Vancouver, there has been a 15% to 18% correction from the peak. Population growth has declined due to lower immigration, which has significantly impacted the market. This may continue into 2027, with changes to federal immigration policy and homeownership, though no one is certain what these changes will look like. Canadians continue to have high debt relative to income, which is currently at its highest level ever. However, our debt-to-net worth ratio has improved due to increases in home value. The IMF, in its 2025 assessment, identified elevated housing leverage and impending mortgage renewals as prominent vulnerabilities. The Bank of Canada and OSFI, in their assessments, have felt that Canada will withstand those renewals without significant impact to FIs. There will be some impacts to individuals. There are myriad factors influencing Canada’s housing market. Ms. Baxendale feels that, overall, Canada’s financial sector is well positioned, though this will continue to depend on the pace of risk, geopolitical events, and economic shifts. 

Ms. Baxendale has described technology as an amplifier of risk. What does that mean for leaders and boards trying to manage risk in this period of escalating change? In the world of AI, leaders and boards should not think of decision-making as separate from AI and emerging technologies; they are now interconnected. AI decisions are strategic or business decisions and must be treated as such. Where organizations are actively using or developing a plan to use AI, leaders must understand their organization’s critical technology dependencies, including any outsourcing to third parties. Outsourcing inevitably incurs risk. Leaders must understand these dependencies and ask themselves what a failure means to their specific organization. Furthermore, boards must ensure that governance frameworks are aligned with adoption as organizations progress.  

Many FIs have what Ms. Baxendale described as an “inverted pyramid,” in which the people at the top are the least knowledgeable about AI and emerging technologies. Board members often learn about these tools as an educational exercise rather than through practical use. This fundamentally limits their core knowledge. This is a challenge because it forces leaders to become inherently dependent on other levels of their organization for information and use. This can also create risks, such as leaders being conservative in their use of AI due to a lack of comfort, or deploying AI too quickly because they do not adequately understand the tool, its uses and limitations, and the implications. Humility comes into play; senior people need to be comfortable expressing confusion and asking for help.   

R. Jennings asked Ms. Baxendale how businesses should rethink resiliency given the interconnectedness of decision-making, technology, economics, and geopolitics. Ms. Baxendale stated that businesses need to focus on building resiliency. Thinking was once hyper-specific and specialized; now it is a much broader ecosystem in which organizations need to consider third parties, technology providers, and critical infrastructure dependencies. It is no longer sufficient to focus only on internal risk. Resilience is not about prevention; it is about adaptability, responsiveness, and comprehension. Risk is inevitable, but how we respond to it is not. Having a crisis management plan is one way to mitigate the impact of risk. Scenario planning and testing are other approaches, particularly for supply chain disruptions. The GRI strongly supports the consideration of technology providers as critical parts of the financial sector’s infrastructure. This has been done in Europe and other markets, but not Canada. Finally, building redundancy into the conversation around resiliency. While it is expensive, it is and will be useful in the face of risk.  

Canada recently released its national AI strategy. GRI welcomed many elements of the strategy while also identifying opportunities to strengthen Canada’s long-term resilience and competitiveness. What do you see as the most important priorities moving forward? Ms. Baxendale thought the National AI Strategy was strong for its emphasis on safety, trust, adoption, and innovation. These are critical foundational components for the financial sector. GRI was disappointed that the Financial Sector was not mentioned more specifically for the role it can and should play on this issue, not the least of which is its early adoption of emerging technologies. As a result, FIs can serve as a source of practice implementation, governance, consumer protection, and operational resilience. What stood out was the need, for both the country and the financial sector, for greater regulatory clarity and coordination across jurisdictions. Without this clarity, it is difficult for individual organizations to invest and innovate at the necessary pace. There need to be clearer pathways for responsible experimentation and innovation. Although steps have been taken, there needs to be enhanced collaboration between government, regulators, and industry. This involves active involvement in helping shape decision-making, including at the national level. The National AI Strategy also stressed the importance of AI literacy.  

How should financial services leaders balance innovation, competitiveness, and responsible adoption? The most important thing for every organization is to be built on strategy – what is the goal? What is the strategy? What are the desired outcomes? Then, leaders need to ask: is AI a more effective way to achieve the desired objectives? There is a fine balance between stagnation and innovation. If an organization is not doing anything, it will lose competitiveness; if it is doing too much or going too fast, it puts itself at greater reputational risk. Responsible progress and innovation must be a part of an organization’s strategic plan. This takes time, but with the right collaboration and expertise, it can be achieved.  

How can leaders build and sustain trust? Arguably, the most important step is recognizing that failure is unavoidable. There will be disruption. By responding to risk and rupture with transparency, communication, honesty, and genuineness, trust can be built and maintained.  

R. Jennings thanked Ms. Baxendale before K. Martin concluded the webinar. 

On June 11, 2026, CAFII held its June Reception Event, following the June Board meeting. The event, hosted by BMO in Toronto, ON, began with a welcome from new Board Chair Julie Gaudry, who then presented plaques to departing EOC and Board Chairs, Karyn Kasperski and Val Gillis, in appreciation of their contributions to CAFII. Afterwards, Board Member Tracey Klodt gave a land acknowledgement. She then spoke about BMO, its history, and its top priorities. She introduced Dexter John, CEO of FSRA, the keynote speaker for the evening. 

Dexter John thanked CAFII and BMO for this opportunity. Life and health insurance is a sector that touches the lives of millions of Canadians and provides security when life doesn’t go as planned. This is why confidence in this sector and regulation matters. He then spoke about some of the challenges that this sector faces and will continue to face over the next ten years. These challenges shape FSRA’s priorities. 

Once the conversation focused on rules; now it is about outcomes. Are consumers being treated fairly? Are the regulations and requirements producing the outcomes needed to ensure security, innovation, and success? Good outcomes do not happen by accident. They come from evolving markets and consumer satisfaction. Outcomes must be measured. Regulators and industry alike need data and evidence to support their claims. This requires data governance and a strong understanding of consumer outcomes. 

The regulatory question concerns accountability and clarity throughout the distribution chain, and whether consumers are protected at every level. The same is true when considering emerging technologies. AI can transform this sector, but without proper supervision, this could be detrimental. 

Customers do not experience services one at a time. Data does not stop at provincial borders. Regulations, however, continue to reflect a fragmented reality. This fragmentation carries costs, stifling innovation and increasing them. This is why harmonization is the most important question for regulators. 

Harmonization conversations often start around rules. This, however, needs to change to focus on outcomes. Collaboration is essential for harmonization. If regulators cannot see the market through a common lens, it becomes harder to manage. Harmonization matters not because regulators are seeking uniformity but because consumers deserve clarity. Harmonization cannot happen without dialogue. Good harmonization is rarely developed in isolation. Regulators need to understand consumer behaviour, which is fine through stakeholder engagement. 

The pace of change is accelerating. Regulatory burden and operational resilience need to recognize that yesterday’s systems are not necessarily the best at responding to today’s risks and issues. 

Mr. John concluded his speech by explaining that FSRA is working to achieve success in today’s and tomorrow’s landscape. This requires collaboration, conversation, and innovation. 

Ms. Gaudry then opened the floor for audience questions. Ms. Gillis asked whether there had been any early discussions about collaboration. She also asked about data. Mr. John responded that FSRA has made a concerted effort to harmonize and collaborate with other jurisdictions. A few initiatives will be announced in the coming months that speak to this. 

CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, asked about AI and regulatory responsibilities. Mr. John said that, internally, FSRA has its own regulatory processes, but for industry, FIs are trusted unless they show otherwise. FSRA, for the most part, trusts the industry to handle its guardrails and governance. 

An audience member asked about what is to come in the next 20 years. Mr. John replied that he hopes FSRA is in a unique position regarding consumer protection and innovation, but that fraud is a concern. As long as there are guardrails in place to protect consumers and industry, then he will be happy. 

Are there other markets or regulated industries that have harmonization? FSRA looks to Australia and the US for collaboration. The issue, however, is politics and legislation, which take time to change. People want to eliminate obstacles; it just takes time and effort. 

Ms. Gaudry thanked Mr. John before concluding the evening with drinks and hors d’œuvres. 

CAFII Reception Opening Remarks by FSRA’s CEO, Dexter John

Good evening, everyone. Thank you to CAFII for the invitation, and to BMO for hosting us this evening. It is a pleasure to be here with leaders from across Canada’s life and health insurance sector. This is a sector that touches the lives of millions of Canadians. It helps families manage uncertainty, it provides security when life does not go according to plan, and it plays a critical role in helping Canadians protect what matters most. That is why confidence in this sector matters, and it is why the way we regulate this sector matters.  

This evening, I would like to offer a few reflections on what I believe is one of the defining challenges facing financial services regulation in Canada over the next decade. The challenge is not simply how regulators respond to change. The challenge is how we build regulatory systems that can adapt to change while continuing to deliver strong consumer outcomes, resilient markets, and a competitive environment that supports innovation and growth. At FSRA, that challenge is shaping many of our priorities today, and it is increasingly shaping our thinking about harmonization across Canada. 

For many years, regulatory conversations focused primarily on rules. Today, I think the more important conversation is about outcomes. As regulators, we are ultimately accountable for outcomes. Are consumers receiving suitable advice? Are products being distributed fairly? Are firms managing conflicts appropriately? Are vulnerable consumers being treated fairly? Are markets functioning effectively? Is the sector resilient? And perhaps most importantly—how do we know? 

I believe one of the most significant shifts taking place in regulation today is the continued evolution toward principles-based and outcomes-focused supervision. Historically, regulators often focused on whether prescribed requirements had been met. Today, we are increasingly asking a different question: Are those requirements producing the outcomes they were intended to achieve? That requires a different regulatory mindset. It requires regulators to be more evidence-based and data-driven, more forward-looking, more risk-focused, and more disciplined in how we collect, govern, analyze, and use information. At FSRA, our commitment to principles-based regulation and risk-based supervision is grounded in that approach.  

Good outcomes do not happen by accident. They depend on understanding where risks are emerging, how markets are evolving, and whether consumers are experiencing the outcomes we collectively expect. That is why data is becoming one of the most important strategic assets available to regulators. Not because we need more information for its own sake, but because outcomes cannot simply be asserted. They must be measured. If we say consumers are receiving suitable advice, how do we know? If we say conflicts are being managed appropriately, what evidence supports that conclusion? If we say a sector is resilient, which indicators tell us whether resilience is strengthening or weakening? These are increasingly the questions regulators must answer, and they can only be answered through stronger data governance, better data quality and analytics, and a clearer understanding of both consumer and sector outcomes. 

In many respects, the future of supervision will be defined by the quality of our insights, not the quantity of our rules. That reality is reflected in many of FSRA’s priorities. Whether we are modernizing licensing processes, strengthening market conduct supervision, improving operational resilience, or examining the implications of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity risks, the underlying objective is the same: To become a more effective, more agile, and more outcomes-focused regulator. Consider the evolution of MGA distribution models. As distribution networks have become more sophisticated, the regulatory question is no longer simply whether individual requirements are being met. The more important question is whether accountability is clear throughout the distribution chain and whether consumers are receiving consistent protections regardless of how they access products and advice. That is fundamentally an outcomes question. It requires regulators to understand how the system is functioning in practice…not simply how it is designed on paper. The same is true when we think about emerging technologies. 

Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform financial services. It also raises important questions. How do we ensure transparency? How do we identify bias? How do we preserve data lineage? How do we maintain accountability as decision-making becomes increasingly automated? These are not questions that stop at provincial borders. They are questions that regulators across Canada and around the world are grappling with together. This brings me to a second observation. 

As our markets become increasingly interconnected, regulation itself must become more connected. For many of you in this room, your businesses do not operate one province at a time. Your customers do not experience financial services one province at a time. Technology platforms do not stop at provincial borders. Data does not stop at provincial borders. Innovation certainly does not stop at provincial borders. Yet too often, regulatory frameworks continue to reflect a more fragmented reality. To be clear, provincial regulators have distinct mandates and responsibilities, and there will always be circumstances where different approaches are appropriate. But we should also recognize that fragmentation carries costs. It creates complexity. It can increase compliance burden. It can slow implementation. It can make innovation more difficult, and ultimately, those costs can find their way back to consumers.  

That is why I believe harmonization represents one of the most important opportunities facing regulators in Canada over the coming decade. Not harmonization for its own sake, and not uniformity at all costs, but thoughtful harmonization focused on outcomes. Too often, harmonization discussions begin and end with rules. I would suggest a different starting point. The more important question is whether regulators are pursuing similar outcomes. If regulators across Canada are trying to achieve fair treatment of consumers, suitable advice, strong governance, operational resilience, and market confidence, then we should continually ask where greater consistency can help us achieve those goals more effectively. That requires collaboration. It requires trust among regulators, and increasingly, it requires common approaches to information, intelligence, and risk. 

In my view, the future of harmonization is not only about aligning rules; it is also about aligning how we understand risk, how we measure outcomes, how we identify emerging issues, and how we share insights across jurisdictions. Because if regulators cannot see the market through a common lens, it becomes much harder to supervise an increasingly national marketplace effectively. We can already see this dynamic in areas such as segregated funds. Consumers benefit from transparency and clear information about the products they purchase, including the costs associated with those products. But consumers also benefit when regulatory expectations are as consistent as possible across jurisdictions. That is why harmonization matters. Not because regulators are seeking uniformity, but because consumers and firms increasingly operate in a national marketplace and deserve greater clarity, comparability, and confidence. At FSRA, we see significant opportunities to continue advancing collaboration with our regulatory counterparts across Canada. Not because it is easy, but because it is increasingly necessary. And while harmonization is important, it cannot happen without dialogue. 

One of the lessons I have learned throughout my career is that good regulation is rarely developed in isolation. Regulators need to understand how markets function in practice. We need to understand operational realities. We need to understand consumer behaviour, and we need to understand how innovation is changing the way products and services are delivered. That is why stakeholder engagement remains a critical priority for FSRA. 

Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to participate in discussions with members of FSRA’s Sectoral Advisory Committee on Life and Health Insurance. One theme emerged repeatedly throughout the discussion: the pace of change is accelerating. Whether the conversation focused on technology, distribution models, consumer expectations, regulatory burden, or operational resilience, there was broad recognition that yesterday’s approaches will not always be sufficient for tomorrow’s challenges. That is precisely why ongoing dialogue between regulators and industry is so important. The best regulation is informed regulation, and informed regulation depends on evidence, engagement, and a willingness to learn from one another.  

As we look ahead, I believe the Canadian financial services sector is exceptionally well positioned. We have strong institutions. We have talented professionals. We have sophisticated markets, and we have a regulatory community that is increasingly committed to modernization and collaboration. The challenge before us is ensuring that our regulatory frameworks continue to evolve at the pace of the markets we oversee. That means embracing innovation while maintaining confidence. It means protecting consumers while supporting competitiveness. It means preserving provincial accountability while advancing national collaboration, and it means remaining relentlessly focused on outcomes.  

At FSRA, that is the balance we are working to achieve. A regulatory approach that is evidence-based, risk-based, forward-looking, collaborative, and focused on delivering measurable value for consumers and the sectors we regulate. Because ultimately, the success of regulation should not be measured by the number of rules we create. It should be measured by the confidence we help build. 

Thank you. I look forward to continuing the conversation this evening. 

CAFII held a webinar on privacy issues and trends in insurance on 26 January, 2023 with Dallas Ewen, Canada Life, and David Elder, Stikeman Elliott. 

David Elder said that from a business perspective, privacy laws to date in Canada have been quite effective.  In the common-law provinces, those laws are largely principles-based, and Privacy Commissioners have been able to deal with a wide variety of issues.  There are significant non-monetary penalty reasons why companies want to comply with privacy requirements.  One problem, however, is that there is no real way to appeal a ruling made by a Commissioner.  Dallas Ewen agreed that the privacy regime is largely effective in Canada.  He also agreed that there is difficulty challenging privacy rulings, but the new federal Bill C-27 does provide for a tribunal that, to an extent, addresses this shortcoming. 

Dallas Ewen noted that there is a lack of privacy laws harmonization in Canada from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  There is the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) which applies everywhere in Canada except where there are provincial regimes that have been deemed to be substantially similar to PIPEDA — which is the case for British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec (Personal Information Protection Acts (PIPA) in BC and Alberta, and a different name in Quebec).  But there are some small differences between the different regimes.  The most significant difference between the regimes is around the obligation to report breaches. David Elder echoed Mr. Ewen’s sentiments, but noted that those challenges are not that different from other jurisdictional issues that exist in Canada in other sectors.  There is also broad co-operation and co-ordination between regulators, which is helpful.  However, new challenges may come about with Quebec’s recently modernized privacy legislation, which will make it a bit of an outlier. 

David Elder built on those comments by noting that Quebec has recently taken a very different approach and is making major amendments to its privacy regime.  Quebec’s amendments are taking place over several years and reflect a new direction, which is more similar to the approach taken in Europe (the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR).  In general, there are higher standards and expectations now in the Quebec requirements as well as new, additional requirements. Quebec’s new law is also imposing requirements not just for activity outside of the country, but outside of Quebec.  There are also now significant new monetary penalties in the Quebec legislation, and a right of private litigation.  Dallas Ewen agreed that the new rules are different from elsewhere in Canada and quite intense.  There is more of a philosophy in this new regime around viewing privacy as a human right. 

Notwithstanding Quebec developments, most other jurisdictions in Canada are also looking mainly at international developments, including in California and the European Union’s GDPR.  The federal privacy rules that are being modernized in Bill C-27, if passed, will replicate many of the features of the Quebec rules.  Canadian privacy laws will likely have to be  reformed in order to align more closely the GDPR and with international developments generally, especially in terms of enforcement and having significant monetary penalties for non-conforming businesses. 

Any business that is data-dependent will have to deal with the issues around the use of personal information.  If data was once personal information and in aggregated form could be tied back to an individual, such data could now be captured by the more stringent rules in Europe and elsewhere.

There were attendees at the webinar from allied industry associations CLHIA, THIA, and the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA), and from regulatory and policy-maker organizations including:

• the Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations, or CISRO;
• the Insurance Councils of Saskatchewan, or ICS;
• the Alberta Insurance Council, or AIC;
• the Government of Alberta; 
• the British Columbia Ministry of Finance; and
• the British Columbia Financial Services Authority, or BCFSA.

CAFII held a 1 December, 2022 webinar with Blair Morrison, CEO of the British Columbia Financial Services Authority. 

Mr. Morrison said that as a relatively new organization launched three years ago, BCFSA has undergone a significant journey since 2019.  The Financial Institutions Commission of British Columbia, FICOM, was the predecessor to BCFSA.  The Minister of Finance wanted the new regulatory authority to be “modern, effective, and efficient.” 

BCFSA is an integrated financial services regulator that needed to make changes from the way that FICOM had operated.  In particular, BCFSA has emphasized the importance of dialogue with the industry, and it views conversation and consultation as critical to its mandate.  As an integrated regulator, it is responsible for credit unions, insurance companies, real estate companies, trust companies, pensions, mortgage brokers, real estate licensees, and deposit-taking institutions. 

Mr. Morrison said that there is a Superintendent model at BCFSA where he is ultimately the lead regulator for all the different financial services sectors; but because no one person can manage all those areas, he has many senior people supporting him.  However, there is a functional approach as opposed to a siloed approach, so different staff executives cut across the different sectors.  This is important because decisions in one area will have an impact in many other areas, so executives need to understand the overall picture.  Mr. Morrison also takes a very delegated approach. He said that BCFSA has 350 employees, with a budget of $60 million which comes from fees paid by industry.  Employees operate in a hybrid model, working both from home and in the office.

Mr. Morrison said that he is supportive of a principles-based regulatory approach, but there also need to be rules to ensure consumer protection.  BCFSA knows that it does not have all the answers, and it believes in communication and dialogue; but there are times when enforcement is required.  However, the starting point is the larger principle of what the regulator is trying to achieve.

BCFSA has rule-making authority, and Mr. Morrison said that was necessary to provide it with the types of tools it may need to use for consumer protection.  Rule-making authority, however, is part of a very clear and transparent process and does involve consultation with industry.  BCFSA also has some emergency powers but they are also subject to a process. In terms of regulatory priorities, BCFSA wants the industry to succeed.  It has a three-year roadmap which it has shared with industry. 

There is a BCFSA Insurer Code of Market Conduct consultation that is ongoing.  Industry has provided a lot of input on this, but there are constraints on what BCFSA can do (or not do) because developing a BC Code is a statutory requirement.  Climate change is another major priority for BCFSA.  But all those priorities are subject to ongoing discussions with industry — everyone, the regulator and the industry included, has too many jobs and not enough resources, so it is important to work collaboratively to achieve the best outcomes. BCFSA has strong, productive relationships with the BC Ministry of Finance and with the Insurance Council of British Columbia.  It also consults with federal bodies such as the Bank of Canada, and it works closely with the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR). 

On digitization, Mr. Morrison said that data is incredibly important and regulators will need to use data well to make better decisions.  There needs to be more sharing of data, as regulators will need it to understand what is happening in the industry and how best to respond.  With digitization, there are always risks of leaks and breaches, and regulators need to keep a close eye on those risks.  Regulators will also increasingly need to use regulatory software applications to operate more efficiently. 

Mr. Morrison said that he supports regulatory harmonization, but every province may have different priorities or approaches from time to time.  When that happens, there will be dialogue with industry and an explanation of why that unique or separate approach is being taken.

Mr. Morrison ended the webinar fireside chat by noting the important role of mental health in the workplace and that supporting employees at BCFSA is a key priority for the organization and for him personally. 

There were representatives in attendance at this webinar from the CLHIA and from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, or IBC, and from the following regulator and policy-maker organizations:

the Office of Nova Scotia’s Superintendent of Insurance;

• Quebec’s Autorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF;
• the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, or FSRA;
• the Insurance Councils of Saskatchewan;
• Saskatchewan’s Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority, or FCAA;
• the Ministry of Finance, Government of British Columbia;
• the Insurance Council of British Columbia;
• the British Columbia Financial Services Authority, or BCFSA; and 
• the Government of the Northwest Territories.