Albert Lin

On September 22, 2026, CAFII hosted a webinar titled Credit Protection Insurance (CPI) Consumer Opinion Research with Pollara—What Are CPI Holders’ Views of the Product, Including Their Claims Experience? 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 Lesli Martin, Senior Vice President of Pollara.

A 20-year research veteran, Ms. Martin leads Pollara’s consumer insights and financial services divisions as well as its health affairs and reputation specialty practices. With a client portfolio spanning every sector, she specializes in uncovering the beliefs and motivational systems at the root of each relevant audience and illuminating the message themes that will provoke and inspire these targets, influencers, and stakeholders.

Prior to joining Pollara, Ms. Martin was a senior researcher and account lead at Leger and comScore, and led research departments at Sears, Cossette, and Great Gulf Homes. She has authored research-based articles in peer-reviewed medical journals such as Healthcare Quarterly, and her research has appeared in most Canadian newspapers as well as Marketing Magazine.  

After introducing Ms. Martin, R. Jennings extended a special welcome to several VIP guest attendees, including CAFII’s 14 member companies, 12 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 Ministry of Finance, Government of Alberta
• The Autorité des marchés financiers, or AMF 
• The Ministry of Finance, Government of BC
• The Insurance Council of British Columbia
• The Canadian Association of Direct Relationship Insurers, or CADRI
• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, or FSRA
• LIMRA and LOMA Canada

R. Jennings explained that the webinar will share the results of the third iteration of a consumer study CAFII regularly conducts with Pollara to learn the views of holders of credit protection insurance products. CAFII conducts this study to understand what clients like about these products and what they feel could be improved. Understanding customers and their views is part of CAFII’s commitment to the fair treatment of customers and to continuous improvement.

Before detailing the results, L. Martin explained the study’s background and methodology. The study was conducted in April 2026 as an online survey. Pollara spoke with over 1400 adult Canadians who fell into the following three groups:

• Who have a mortgage or Home Equity Line of Credit and currently have Credit Protection Insurance (CPI): N= 1,007
• Who have a mortgage or a Home Equity Line of Credit and do not have Credit Protection Insurance (CPI): N= 475
• Who have made a credit protection insurance (CPI) claim: N= 484

This is a tracking study, with the first two iterations conducted in 2018 and 2022. Pollara conducted a similar study in 2021, but it focused on changes in purchasing behaviour due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among people with CPI, overall impressions were high in 2018 and 2022 and have increased substantially since then. More than 9 in 10 consumers feel CPI is convenient and effective protection, a rise since 2022. While value and affordability scored lower, three-quarters still rated CPI positively, up from 2022 (78% versus 66%). In fact, 76% of respondents agreed that CPI is an affordable insurance option, up from 69% in 2022. L. Martin clarified that value for money is difficult to achieve because, across industries, consumers will always want something cheaper and more convenient. This is not an indictment of the product or consumers. It is the nature of consumption; free is best. Lastly, 79% indicated they would not know what would happen to them or their families in an emergency if they did not have CPI.

Life insurance remains the most chosen CPI coverage, returning to 2018 levels after a drop in 2022 (82% in 2018; 74% in 2022; and 80% in 2026). Critical Illness and Job Loss coverage have steadily increased since 2018. Disability Insurance has remained stable across all three studies, at around 50%.

An audience member asked whether any of the results or statistics include credit card protection insurance. L. Martin explained that they do not; the study focused only on mortgages and Home Equity Lines of Credit.

Overall, a large majority of CPI holders feel confident in their understanding of their product and the level of coverage they will receive. This is especially true for Life Insurance, which rose from 84% in 2022 to 91% in 2026. Critical Illness has steadily increased, from 80% in 2018 to 86% in 2026. Confidence in Disability and Job Loss Insurance coverage has also risen:

• Disability Insurance: In 2022, 76% felt confident in their coverage; this rose to 85% in 2026.
• Job Loss Insurance: In 2018, 78% felt confident in their coverage; this rose to 87% in 2026.

Pollara asked CPI owners whether, if something happened and they needed to make a claim, they felt they would receive their desired outcome. Overall confidence in the service they would receive when submitting a claim was high and has increased since 2022.

• 86% felt they would receive the expected quality of service;
• 86% felt the information needed to make a claim would be clearly communicated;
• 82% felt the claim would be paid as expected; and
• 81% felt the claim would be paid in a timely manner.

While ease of submitting a claim scored somewhat lower, three-quarters (74%) reported high confidence in the process.

The next section of the study focused on customers’ purchase experience and satisfaction levels. CAFII added a new question to this section, not included in the two previous iterations, asking how much CPI coverage consumers selected. For mortgage holders, most respondents (74%) indicated CPI coverage for their entire loan, while 21% opted for partial coverage. For HELOC holders, 79% of respondents indicated total coverage for their loan, with only 16% opting for partial coverage. Of those who selected partial coverage, 39% of mortgage holders and 55% of HELOC holders explained that it made more financial sense.

Pollara asked respondents if a representative discussed CPI when they were acquiring their mortgage and/or HELOC. L. Martin noted that this question is perception-based, so although 77% said yes and 11% said no, this does not necessarily mean that 11% of representatives did not discuss CPI. It could mean that 11% of consumers do not recall it being discussed. This is reflected in the 13% who did not recall whether it was discussed. When asked what factors were discussed, the vast majority said coverage options, premiums and costs, and the product’s advantages were all discussed. When asked if they were told about the free review period, 65% recalled being informed; however, this number has increased since 2018 (44%) and 2022 (52%).

When asked how financial institutions communicated about CPI, most CPI holders said a representative informed them (80%).

Consumers are more likely to conduct further research besides talking to a financial institution representative. Pollara asked consumers whether they did any research, including talking to friends and family, online searches, etc. 74% said yes, up from 56% in 2022. This is an excellent finding for two reasons. First, this suggests consumers are doing more research to better understand the products they want to buy. Second, it suggests that, when they do research, consumers find the product worthwhile and necessary.

Pollara asked what was important when considering CPI. Below are just some of the factors mentioned:

• Benefits and features of the coverage: 96% consider this important in 2026; 93% considered this important in 2022 and 2018.
• Price: 95% consider this important in 2026; 94% considered it important in 2022; and 93% considered it important in 2018.
• Ease of overall purchase: 93% consider this important in 2026; 88% considered it important in 2022; and 89% considered it important in 2018.
• Convenience of obtaining at the same time as mortgage: 90% consider this important in 2026, while 83% considered it important in 2022.
• Coverage for pre-existing conditions: 80% consider this important in 2026; 76% considered it important in 2022; and 68% considered it important in 2018.
• Ability to buy online: 63% consider it important in 2026; 56% considered it important in 2022; and 48% considered it important in 2018.

L. Martin noted that coverage benefits and features have risen, and so has coverage for pre-existing conditions. People are interested in what the coverage will provide for them. Ease and convenience are also becoming increasingly important. As consumers buy more financial products online, it is unsurprising that the ability to purchase CPI online is growing in importance.

When asked where they purchased, most (80%) bought from a financial institution (bank or credit union). When asked how they purchased CPI, 53% bought in person at a branch. Online CPI sales, however, lag. 15% said they initiated the process online, including mobile, up from 11% in 2022, while 13% said they completed the whole process online, up from 9% in 2022.

Customers’ overall satisfaction with the purchase experience is high and has continued to rise; 94% reported high satisfaction in 2026, up from 87% in 2022 and 2018. 80% of respondents also reported high satisfaction with CPI’s value for money, up from 72% in 2022.

Consumers’ understanding of CPI documentation has increased. 78% of respondents said CPI documentation makes it easy to find information, up from 67% in 2022 and 2018, and 75% said it is easy to understand, up from 65% in 2022. This connects to the earlier finding that consumers are researching more and doing the due diligence to understand their financial products.

The survey then moved on to claims, noting that in 2026, more claim submissions were paid than denied. Pollara found that 34% of CPI owners made a claim. Of these, 18% were for mortgages, 8% for HELOCs, and 7% for both. Of processed claims, 90% were paid, up from 83% in 2022 and 78% in 2018. In fact, most processed claims resulted in payment, regardless of claim type. Pollara found that while payment for life insurance claims remained relatively stable at 90%, payments for critical illness claims increased to 91% from 70% in 2022.

Overall, 90% of customers were satisfied with their claim experience, up from 79% in 2022.

When looking at claimant satisfaction with all aspects of the claims process, Pollara saw a significant increase compared with 2022 and 2018 findings:

• Explanation about the steps involved in a claims process: 81% in 2026; 60% in 2022; and 69% in 2018.
• Explanation of how the claim payment was determined: 81% in 2026; 66% in 2022; and 64% in 2018.
• Clarity/completeness of rep’s responses to my questions: 80% in 2026; 61% in 2022; and 62% in 2018.
• Empathy/understanding the representative showed me: 80% in 2026; 62% in 2022 and 2018.
• Ease of understanding and completing the claim forms: 79% in 2026; 65% in 2022 and 2018.
• Explanation given of how long it would take to process the claim: 79% in 2026; 65% in 2022; and 69% in 2018.
• Documentation required in support of the claim was reasonable: 79% in 2026; 67% in 2022 and 2018.
• Ease of starting the claims process: 79% in 2026; 68% in 2022; and 64% in 2018.
• Knowledge of the representatives: 78% in 2026; 64% in 2022; and 69% in 2018.
• Timelines in which the claim was paid: 78% in 2026; 65% in 2022; and 66% in 2018.
• Number of claim forms that I had to submit was reasonable: 76% in 2026; 65% in 2022; and 70% in 2018.

These findings show that nothing in the claims process stands out as problematic or unsatisfying.

Over 70% of claimants felt various aspects of the claims process were easy. This is a new question, added this year, so Pollara has no tracking data. However, the findings indicated that 72% to 77% of claimants found the claims journey somewhat or very easy. 

When asked about the explanation for a claim’s outcome, 89% of respondents rated it as good or very good, up from 79% in 2022. Among those whose claim was denied, 61% were satisfied with the explanation, up from 40% in 2022.

Pollara asked respondents whether their claims and payment experience met, exceeded, or fell short of their expectations. Overall, 87% felt both their claims and payment experiences met or exceeded expectations, up from 74% in 2022. For those whose claim was denied, 49% felt their experience met or exceeded their expectations, up from 26% in 2022.

Moving on to complaints, L. Martin explained that Pollara reviewed complaints made during the claims process. 33% of claimants filed a complaint, matching the 2022 rate but up from 25% in 2018. Most filed their complaint with their financial institution (51%), while 35% filed it with their insurance company. 23% followed up with a supervisor or manager at their FI, while 22% followed up with an employee at their insurance company. Only 13% of claimants escalated their claim to a regulator.

The most common reason for a complaint in 2026 was the length of processing time. The second most common reason was a lack of updates during the process. However, 85% of claimants were satisfied with how their complaint was handled, up from 62% in 2022.

L. Martin concluded her presentation and opened the floor to audience questions.

R. Jennings asked L. Martin to speak further about customer satisfaction in general. She mentioned that 85% of customers who filed a complaint were satisfied with how it was handled, and noted the impact COVID had on consumers’ expectations. L. Martin explained that things have changed since COVID; people complain more. Pollara has seen this across industries: people feel they can complain more. This may be because of online platforms or changing expectations; regardless, it is true across sectors. In short, during and after COVID, people were angrier and scared. Pollara’s finding that satisfaction with complaint handling returned to 2018 levels is an excellent result and indicates that the insurance industry is moving in the right direction.

An audience member asked whether L. Martin knew why so many results were significantly higher than in the previous 2022 wave. L. Martin believes there are two possible explanations: consumers are either less involved or more involved in their insurance and financial planning. When people are more involved, do more research, and build confidence in their knowledge, they see their coverage as more important and impactful because they are more confident in their selection and purchase. A Pollara survey found that more consumers, in fact, are taking the time to research insurance, increasing their overall satisfaction. K. Martin added that when CAFII and its members learned of declining consumer satisfaction levels in 2022, they committed to addressing it at the member level. Part of the reason CAFII conducts these surveys with Pollara is to identify where improvements can be made, and that was one of them. CAFII’s members took that lower percentage seriously and made concerted efforts to address this issue.

Another audience member asked whether industry is seeing larger life claims due to illness and whether those claims have a younger average age. What is the leading cause of claims? Is it cancer? K. Martin responded that the survey did not include these questions. While cancer, heart attack, and stroke are the three major reasons for claims, the present study did not capture the distribution.

Did respondents indicate whether the challenges they experienced when submitting a claim were associated with online or digital platforms or manual processes? Pollara examined how claims were made; however, it did not explicitly inquire about the submission challenges. 27% of respondents said they submitted their claim face-to-face, while 26% said they submitted it through an online portal. Because the percentages are nearly identical across submission channels, L. Martin felt there may not be a significant difference in challenges, though the reasons for issues may vary. This is an area that Pollara could explore.

R. Jennings asked about the slow but steady increase in consumers using online claims platforms. L. Martin explained that Pollara asked consumers about their preferred method of obtaining CPI, and the responses showed that people still want contact, with 84% indicating they want a face-to-face interaction in 2026. Self-serve online platforms are increasing in use; however, they remain low at 13% in 2026. CPI and insurance in general are a contact game; people want to speak to another knowledgeable human.

K. Martin asked about economic pressures and how they have affected consumer spending habits. L. Martin explained that, in 2022, Pollara asked consumers about budgeting and expense planning. The survey found that 2/3 planned to cut back on eating out, and half planned to reduce retail shopping and travel spending. Pollara also asked about how economic conditions affected the likelihood of purchasing CPI. In 2022, 35% said they were more likely to purchase CPI now because of the economic conditions; in 2026, that number rose to 46%. People are beginning to see the value and protection CPI can provide for them and their families, especially amid job loss and economic uncertainty.

R. Jennings and K. Martin thanked L. Martin and concluded the webinar.

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. 

On April 9, 2026, CAFII held its first reception event of the year. Graciously hosted by CUMIS/Co-Operators, the evening was a great success. Attendees helped themselves to hors d’oeuvres and drinks while listening to CAFII’s excellent guest speaker, Paula Allen, Global Leader and VP of Research, Insights, and Strategic Communications at TELUS Health, discuss mental health and the workplace. After the speeches, attendees continued to mingle and enjoy the rest of their night. Below is a summary of Ms. Allen’s speech.

Paula Allen began her keynote address to CAFII by explaining how, early in her career, she was struck by how mental illness physically alters a person’s brain, a process that can actually be clinically observed.  A brain, for example, is structurally altered due to ongoing clinical depression.  This is why she is dedicated to helping people protect their brains, something that is so precious and important yet also so fragile.

This has not always been easy, as stigma around mental illness has been a major impediment to focusing the required attention on it.  But there has been a real evolution in recent years in the recognition that mental illness is not something to be ashamed of, although much more still needs to be done.  Part of this evolution is the recognition by industry and government that failing to address these issues leads to economic penalties.  A remarkable 60% of disability claims are related to mental health issues.

As laudable as the commitment to responding to these realities is, it has to be balanced against the private sector’s ability to manage the costs associated with the impact of mental health issues. The impact on ROI is real but not sustainable in the long term. There is already strong pressure to rein in these costs and establish stronger controls over claims. Focusing on the quality of care will be paramount, and there will need to be a focus on more than just access to care; businesses will also need to ensure that benefits payments are financially sustainable over the long term.

As a result, a reckoning is coming. While industry is to be commended for recognizing the reality of mental illness, we also have to recognize economic realities, and companies cannot forever increase the sums they spend on claims related to mental health issues or arising from mental health problems. The depth of the problem is immense: 36% of working Canadians are at high risk of mental health problems, 40% say they are under constant stress, 28% feel angrier than ever, and the problem is worse among young Canadians—and these statistics are worsening with each passing year.

The key to overcoming these mental health challenges is healthy relationships. Human evolution has hard-wired us to respond to threats, and we can calm those concerns through social bonding. But our society is pushing individuals in the opposite direction, towards greater and greater isolation, and isolation is a prime cause of mental health issues that result in anxiety and stress. Society and the structure of work have become increasingly unhealthy, with all the pernicious outcomes associated with that tendency. Young people are at the greatest risk, and there is a real concern that some of these tendencies will translate into permanent dysfunctions and problems. Fully 27% of the population feels helpless, and a significant proportion of young people report that “poor mental health is their fate.”

Given the enormity of these challenges, open and frank talk about them is paramount. Toxins are everywhere in our environment and our lives, and they must be recognized and addressed. A focus on a healthier, happier societal and work environment is required—but achieving such systemic change is not easy. Canada, to add to the challenge, is behind other countries in addressing these matters, including by governments. But the cost of not doing so will force the issue and cause governments to explore ways of reducing the toll of societal mental health triggers. We have seen this story before—we have dealt with infectious disease threats (clean water, vaccines); we have dealt with safety issues in the workplace (regulatory and legislative initiatives, along with cultural shifts in what risks are acceptable for workers); we have dealt with preventable cancers (taxes on cigarettes and public efforts to attack smoking). The issue of our time is rapid change amid a lack of predictability, something the human brain is not equipped to handle. The human brain prefers pain to uncertainty, yet our business environment often leaves workers in a constant state of uncertainty. The economic costs of doing so will force change. We saw an example in 2025 in Australia, when a university forced downsizing in such a callous way that a Court found it unacceptable and forced it to cease and desist. We will see similar developments in Canada. The economics of mental health problems on businesses and societies will cause governments in Canada to address these issues, in some way or another.  

Ms. Allen concluded her talk on an optimistic note, urging leaders to take up the challenge.  We can and must be interested in our lives and those of our colleagues, and strive to make the environment we operate in healthier and happier.  This includes being inclusive, being team-oriented, being kind, having a sense of purpose, and making decisions.  On the last point, Ms. Allen returned to her earlier observation: the human brain does not tolerate uncertainty well, and uncertainty leads to poor mental health outcomes.  So make decisions to reduce that uncertainty—even if it may not be the best decision, make it anyway, and your colleagues and teams will appreciate you for it.

The talk garnered great interest, and the energy in the room was undeniable.  Ms. Allen was warmly received, and the applause was genuine. At the ensuing reception, there was much commentary on how motivating and impactful her remarks were, especially for their twin benefits of grounding in scientific research and a foundation of sincere humanity.