cafii

On January 29, 2026, CAFII hosted a webinar titled AI is here. Now What? An Operator’s Playbook for Unlearning and Relearning Insurance. CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, opened the session by thanking attendees and introducing CAFII’s Senior Research and Policy Analyst, Robyn Jennings, who in turn introduced the featured speaker, Tatenda Manjengwa, Executive Vice President of AI Strategy and Product Management within financial services.

Mr. Manjengwa is a recognized AI leader who transforms emerging capabilities into production-grade solutions in highly regulated environments. In his previous role as Managing Director, Head of BMO Wealth Management’s AI Innovation Lab, he drove enterprise-wide AI adoption across 5,000+ employees, launching Rovr AI, Canada’s first of its kind external-facing generative AI assistant for insurance underwriting, while establishing governance frameworks across BMO Private Wealth, Global Asset Management, Insurance, and InvestorLine. With 20+ years spanning capital markets and wealth management at BMO, Bloomberg, Citibank, and Deutsche Bank, Mr. Manjengwa operates at the intersection of AI product strategy, quantitative finance, and commercial innovation. He has led cross-functional teams of data scientists and engineers, deploying NLP- and AI-enabled workflows on secure, scalable multi-cloud platforms that improved client experience and reduced operating costs.

Mr. Manjengwa holds an MBA from Chicago Booth and an MSc in Business Analytics & AI from NYU Stern. A lifelong learner, he is currently pursuing his third master’s degree: an MS in Computer Science at Georgia Tech.

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

• Alberta Insurance Council
• The Government of Alberta
• Alberta Treasury Board and Finance
• The Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF)
• The British Columbia Financial Services Authority (BCFSA)
• The BC Ministry of Finance
• The Insurance Council of BC
• The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC)
• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA)
• The Insurance Council of Manitoba
• The Insurance Council of Saskatchewan

R. Jennings opened the discussion by asking T. Manjengwa to summarize the state of AI in financial services. He framed the moment in concrete terms: AI is here, but the work now is turning hype into hard-dollar outcomes. The industry’s task is shifting from experimentation to industrialization — from one-off pilots to a disciplined, scalable AI manufacturing line that reliably ships results, not just ideas. He characterized this as the move from AI-curious to AI-capable. The deeper question, he added, is not how to use AI to do what firms already do — but what becomes possible that was previously unthinkable, and whether organizations are building themselves to ask that question seriously.

Canada, he noted, has been punching above its weight: Manulife ranks fifth among the world’s 30 largest insurers in Evident’s global AI maturity index, and is one of only three firms to place in the top ten across every dimension measured. The opportunity is tangible; the question is whether organizations have built the factory to capture it.

T. Manjengwa clarified that when he refers to AI, he means actual machine learning models, including generative AI. He encouraged intentionality and discipline as organizations scale these technologies — moving from a small team of AI engineers familiar with the tools to embedding capability across every level of the business. That structural shift, he argued, will separate firms that lead from firms that stall.

R. Jennings asked how leaders can integrate AI into deeply embedded legacy systems. T. Manjengwa replied: “We are not prisoners of our legacy systems — we are prisoners of the ideas that brought us here.” These systems were built to support the financial institutions of a different era. They have served us, but the operating logic must change. He suggested a three-phase approach:

• Preparation Phase: a complete diagnostic to map current systems, identify what is critical to core operations, and determine the cost and feasibility of modernization.
• Integration Phase: targeted deployments to test value, surface trade-offs (training, infrastructure, temporary productivity dips), and prove out the model before broader rollout.
• Continuous Optimization: monitor, retrain, and iterate. AI capability is a living system, not a finished project.

Asked what insurers must unlearn first, T. Manjengwa invoked Alvin Toffler’s line that the literate of the 21st century will be those who can learn, unlearn, and relearn — and was direct: AI is not a side conversation parallel to business — it is the business conversation. Three specific unlearnings followed: that AI is a technology problem to be solved by data scientists (it is an organizational transformation requiring workflow redesign and change management); that certainty must precede action (it must not, in environments this dynamic); and that pilot culture is sufficient (it is the trap most firms get stuck in). Digitization, he noted, fails when best-in-class tools are layered on top of analogue, redundant processes. Leaders must internalize that change management is not part of what they do — it is what they do. Deploy AI only to replicate existing workflows, he warned, and you risk scaling today’s constraints into tomorrow’s systems.

As much as we shape AI, it also shapes us.

On balancing risk-aversion with the need to experiment, T. Manjengwa was measured: being smart, methodical, and equipped with the right guardrails allows leaders to balance risk and innovation. Active engagement with regulators is essential — calibrating AI guardrails will require many participants. And firms must put the right people in the right seats; AI is complex, and capable, talented teams will make the difference.

On the qualities to hire for, he prioritized two: curiosity and humility. Curiosity drives experimentation and innovation; humility enables course correction when something is not working. Combined with a strong knowledge base, these traits enable an organization to learn, relearn, and unlearn at the pace the technology demands.

On regulatory governance, T. Manjengwa called for a shift from a posture of compliance-and-monitoring toward genuine co-creation between industry and regulators. Regulators will need deeper familiarity with business models to ensure rules promote responsible innovation rather than stifle it. He encouraged the same talent discipline on the regulatory side — the right people in the right roles.

R. Jennings raised the concern around AI replacing humans, asking where human judgment must permanently reside. T. Manjengwa responded that LLMs are probabilistic by design and require a human-in-the-loop, particularly when handling financial information and adverse decisions. Citing Satya Nadella’s recent comments at Davos, he noted that real value comes from grounding these models in firm-specific context — but that is one input, not the final answer. AI should be regarded as a tool to augment judgment, not replace it; offloading menial work — for example, summarizing a 60-page document — frees experts to focus on the complex, the contested, and the consequential. The deeper test, he suggested, is not what AI can do, but what we are willing to entrust to it — and, just as importantly, what we refuse to relinquish.

On work unbundling, T. Manjengwa explained that traditional roles are being decomposed into component tasks, with AI handling structured analysis while humans focus on judgment, relationships, and complex cases. He cited the recent McKinsey CEO framing of an organization with 40,000 humans and 25,000 agents — and the practical reality that managers will increasingly orchestrate both. The claims adjuster is illustrative: AI automates intake and damage estimation; the human is freed for disputed and complex matters. Jobs will not vanish, but they will evolve, and the skills firms recruit for must evolve with them.

The deeper shift, he suggested, is not in how insurers do the work but in what the work itself becomes. McKinsey has framed it as the move from “detect and fix” to “forecast and avert” — from a business that indemnifies losses after they occur to one that uses continuous intelligence to prevent them. Parametric products, real-time risk monitoring, prevention as a revenue line: these are not adjacencies to insurance; increasingly, they are what insurance is becoming. The unbundling of jobs is the operational symptom; the rebundling of the value proposition is the deeper event.

The corollary is a hiring redesign: the goal cannot be turning the next generation of professionals into mere exception-handlers. Roles must be designed around uniquely human skills — judgment, empathy, complex reasoning — paired with fluent AI use.

Asked who is responsible when AI makes or influences a bad decision, T. Manjengwa was clear: accountability sits with the team and the organization, not a single individual. Building interdisciplinary teams — business, regulatory, and technical expertise together — is what makes AI defensible. There will always be a chief analytics officer, but successes and failures should be read as collective. When AI succeeds, it is a team result; when it fails, the same logic applies.

On what firms owe their customers, he was unequivocal: full transparency on how data is used and where AI is involved. In financial services, disclosure is not optional.

R. Jennings asked why so many AI programs fail. T. Manjengwa pointed to MIT’s recent NANDA report finding that 95% of generative AI pilots produce no measurable P&L impact. The root cause is the execution model: teams chase flashy use cases rather than solving real business problems, and they try to do it without seasoned partners. The takeaway is twofold — solve a real business problem, and do not start from scratch. Working with vendors and consultants is a strength, not a weakness; he referenced the Rovr AI build at BMO, which leaned heavily on Microsoft, not for lack of internal talent but because the territory was new for everyone.

Closing the webinar, R. Jennings asked what would constitute evidence that an insurer has moved from AI-curious to AI-capable. T. Manjengwa pointed to several markers: a structured, rigorous implementation discipline that has evolved past use cases into a philosophy of continuous learning and experimentation; visible adoption metrics — Manulife, for instance, has reported a 75% adoption rate of AI tools across its workforce after years of systematic investment; and active regulator engagement. He flagged the regulatory horizon as well — OSFI’s Guideline E-23 on Model Risk Management takes effect May 1, 2027, and applies to all federally regulated financial institutions. The recent CAFII–Deloitte study, in which more than 60% of insurers expect AI to materially impact underwriting and claims, underscores why the move from curious to capable is now an industry-wide imperative.

T. Manjengwa concluded with a quote from John Schaar that reads “The future is not some place we are going, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made. And the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination.” The work, he closed, is not merely to adopt tools but to align them to a clear aspiration for the kind of institutions this industry chooses to become. These are questions of identity, courage, and imagination — and the answers we choose will shape us long after today’s tools have changed.

On April 25, 2024, The Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance (CAFII) held its third webinar of 2024 – Mental Health Issues in the Workplace. CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, moderated the webinar. He was joined by Jeff Scott (Global Head of Benefits, Wellness, Performance, and Recognition at BMO), Jennifer Heaslip (Program Manager for Employee Mental well-being at Canada Life), and Paula Allen (Global Leader and SVP for Research and Client Insights at Telus Health). All three are well-versed, with years of experience, in the mental health sphere.

Many representatives from CAFII’s 15 member companies and 10 Associates attended the webinar, as did representatives from allied industry Associations such as the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, or CLHIA; and the Travel and Health Insurance Association, or THIA. Many insurance and financial services regulators and policy-making authorities attended as well, including the following government organizations:

• The Authorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF;
• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, or FSRA;
• The Insurance Councils of Saskatchewan, or ICS;
• The Government of Saskatchewan;
• The Government of Alberta;
• The Alberta Insurance Council, or AIB.

After a brief introduction, K. Martin asked Paula Allen to share some of Telus Health’s recent research results to provide context for the discussion to follow. She began by noting that open conversations around mental health have become more common; however, this does not necessarily mean that industry and employers alike are keeping abreast of change, including trends impacting the mental health and well-being of employees. P. Allen then introduced three topics that stand out as priorities:

1. The mental health of younger employees and those entering the workforce: Recently, studies have shown that mental health vulnerability and stress have only grown within the younger generations. Feeling overwhelmed is a common sentiment among young people.
2. The epidemic of loneliness: The World Health Organization has drawn attention to this issue, and it has only intensified over the last few years. While this impacts mental health, it also impacts physical health.
3. The accelerated pace of change: While digitalization has already increased and affected industry, this rate of change will only continue to grow exponentially in its power and impact.

There are structures in place to help employees suffering from any of the aforementioned issues. One that P. Allen supports is employee assistance programs, like crisis response, family support, work-life support, and counselling opportunities. As wonderful as these tools can be, if workers aren’t aware of them, then their usefulness is diminished. Telus Health found that one in four (25%) employees did not know what the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) was. Within the cohort that did know about EAP, many had egregious ideas about their access to this program. Furthermore, P. Allen noted the importance of reducing stigma around mental health by promoting, and thereby normalizing, these programs.

Finally, P. Allen mentioned workplace and psycho-social risks. Within Canada, 50% of employees feel that rewards and recognition are biased. When it comes to workplace bullying and harassment, 28% said they felt these issues were not dealt with quickly or adequately. Therefore, there are great opportunities to close the gap on what Canadians need by leveraging the programs and tools already available.

K. Martin asked Jennifer Heaslip what she thought about the impact of economic and societal pressures on the mental health of employees and customers. J. Heaslip responded that the myriad of economic and societal pressures has only exacerbated people’s mental health issues. With more people working from home, loneliness and tendencies to ruminate have increased, thereby, intensifying issues such as anxiety and depression. In fact, a study done by Yale’s School of Global Affairs found that mental illness alters people’s consumption levels, savings, habits, and work ethic. In Canada alone, it is estimated that over 50 billion dollars per year is lost in healthcare costs, productivity reductions, and poorer health-related quality of life because of mental health issues.

Jeff Scott added that it is important to consider how we are working to destigmatize the topic and facilitate better, more proactive conversations about mental health. The statistics are there; they are the call to action. This webinar is a good example of how we can fight the stigma and create spaces for dialogue. He then encouraged company leaders to incorporate mental health topics into their lexicon to facilitate this normalization and destigmatization.

Mental health is health. Wellness and wellbeing coverage within companies needs to extend to mental health to properly care for our employees.

Piggybacking off J. Scott’s comment, K. Martin asked P. Allen how Canada ranked in terms of company support structures for employees facing mental health issues. P. Allen replied that Canada is doing “okay” and is in the “middle of the pack.” Canada is strong in terms of good general benefits, like EAP services; however, we falter when it comes to the psychological health and safety within the workplace. Europe has significantly more focus on work-life balance and employee input regarding organizational structures.

Returning to J. Scott’s salient comment that mental health is health, K. Martin noted that there seems to be emerging societal recognition that anyone is susceptible to experiencing mental health issues and challenges. He asked J. Scott what efforts are being taken within his organization to destigmatize the topic. J. Scott replied that he hopes that his organization has moved beyond the emerging stage into a concrete dialogue stage; however, he understands that it is difficult to stay ahead of the topic. The question that we need to ask is whether our efforts are outpacing the evolution of mental health discussions. In some ways, while we need to continue to chase, we also must implement and embed this destigmatization within workplace culture. This comes through intentional transparency efforts. Since organizations are hierarchical, this needs to start with leadership. Therefore, leaders need to be knowledgeable and compassionate about the subject.      

Even with this growing conversation, has the stigma truly diminished? K. Martin noted that in the last two webinars, CAFII hosted on the topic of mental health in the workplace, people have indicated they still feel their jobs and career projections will be negatively impacted if they speak out about their personal struggles. J. Heaslip replied that, while more and more conversations are indeed being had, there is still much work that needs to be done. And while these types of conversations do demystify mental health, the stigma, in J. Heaslip’s opinion, remains.

J. Heaslip brought up an interesting sub-issue she has seen arise, and that is what she has called well-meaning stigma. This is when a leader sees an employee struggling and doesn’t want to create more strain for them, so instead does not give them more tasks. As a result, the employee is unable to showcase their skills and is looked over for any job advancements. J. Heaslip suggests that, rather than avoiding struggling employees, leadership should speak with them directly, and ask how they are doing and what they can handle. Just because someone has struggled in the past does not mean they cannot handle more work. She impressed the importance of caution when making assumptions about mental health capabilities.

P. Allen said she very much believes mental health stigma still exists. While it has become less socially acceptable to demonstrate stigmatizing ideologies, people can and do still believe in them. This comes down to a lack of knowledge; if people understood why mental health issues arise, what the impacts are, and what it takes to work through them, they would be significantly more compassionate. Even when environments are inclusive and supportive, some people have a hard time trusting and accepting this care. There is still an association, particularly in high-demand workplaces, that asking for help or taking a break is a weakness or will result in job loss. There is still much that needs to be done, but this starts with education.

Mental health issues do not have to become major incidents. Low-level chronic stress and anxiety can produce long-lasting negative effects. J. Scott said that this is a concern. Companies need to consider developing solutions or frameworks that consider preventive and reactive measures as well as the categorization of injury versus illness. To help navigate this, BMO created a mental health navigation e-book guide to help employees understand the services and offerings available to them within BMO. The goal was to simplify an otherwise complex and overwhelming topic into a concise, digestible, and accessible tool.

P. Allen added that Telus Health equips its management with proper resources, like leadership training, to help its teams. Something that Telus Health has seen is declining trust in workplaces. Therefore, companies must ask themselves: what does a healthy workplace look like? The ability to step in with empathy and kindness is crucial because nice, well-intentioned people can still cause damage. Harkening back to J. Heaslip’s notion of well-meaning stigma, P. Allen agreed, explaining that this kind of treatment can unintentionally communicate to employees that they are incompetent.

K. Martin remarked that each panellist is currently working at a large organization. He asked how young Canadians who are now in the gig economy get help with mental health issues. P. Allen replied that this is a serious issue since many of these workers do not have a safety net. The well-being of gig workers impacts us all through public health costs. In an ideal world, gig workers would receive full benefits and a range of support because strain will likely online continue to increase. J. Heaslip agreed, adding that this support cannot just be one-time; it needs to be ongoing. J. Scott encouraged organizations to think beyond their own four walls; this topic cannot be exclusive per company but must be a societal, cultural shift.

K. Martin asked J. Scott what organizations can do to drive more use of the services available. He replied that companies must be intentional about their post-launch strategy and do anything and everything to promote and educate their employees. This intentionality must be ongoing as well. At BMO, the effort is directed towards the amplification of its services and encouraging conversations to drive usage and destigmatization. J. Heaslip said that this is a priority for Canada Life as well, noting that these efforts must go beyond on-boarding. Helping employees see the value in these services for their own well-being is crucial to the success of those services. It is a result of poor communication strategies if employees are unaware or misinformed about the resources available to them.

How important is it for leadership to openly talk about their experiences with mental health issues and their utilization of resources to help mitigate them? P. Allen said yes, it is monumentally impactful for the public and other leaders for C-Suite leaders to speak up. She explained that Telus Health did a study on the mental health and well-being of C-suite leaders. What they heard consistently was that these leaders felt the rules were different for them and that their careers would be compromised if they spoke out. This highlights the need for these conversations because, when vulnerable stories are shared, they transcend hierarchy to impact those across all rungs of an organization. Finally, it is essential that positive stories are shared because they communicate to others that relief, success, and acceptance come from speaking out and being transparent and vulnerable.

To conclude the webinar, K. Martin asked each panellist, if they were the Prime Minister, what changes they would institute to better support Canadians. J. Heaslip said she would begin the conversation earlier with children so that, by adulthood, people would be equipped to talk about mental health. J. Scott echoed this sentiment and included intentionality with education. P. Allen said she would have a minimum standard to support youths in schools. She would extend this to public health. For her, the fact that, across Ontario, there is a fragmentation of the support available is unacceptable, and there is a need for standardization.  

Among the key messages to emerge from the webinar is that there is a significant opportunity to continue to advance and destigmatize mental health. While lasting change is not implemented in a day, starting is what matters, and every action counts. Finally, remember that there is power in vulnerability and authenticity.