Troy Woodland

Date: October 30, 2025

On October 30, 2025, CAFII hosted a webinar titled Fair Treatment for a Wide Range of Consumers – Learning & Impact on Canadian Regulatory Landscape. CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, opened the webinar by thanking all attendees and introducing CAFII’s Research Analyst, Robyn Jenning. R. Jennings then introduced Swati Agrawal Nevatia, Head, Market Conduct L&H Insurance Companies and MGAs Supervision at the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA). In this role, S. Agrawal Nevatia directs the development, design, and implementation of regulatory compliance and end-to-end thematic reviews for life insurance companies and their extensive distribution partners, such as Managing General Agents (MGAs). More recently, S. Agrawal Nevatia had a significant expansion of her leadership responsibilities, following the passage of Bill 216. The new legislation includes amendments to the Insurance Act that establish a regulatory framework for Managing General Agents (MGAs) in the life and health (L&H) insurance sector. S. Agrawal Nevatia played a central role in laying the groundwork for this legislative development and will now lead FSRA’s supervisory approach to MGAs, in addition to her existing oversight of L&H insurance companies.

S. Agrawal Nevatia has supported the FSRA CEO and represented Canada at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), where she has led international initiatives related to the IAIS Market Conduct Working Group (MCWG). She has fostered nationwide partnership relationships with regulatory counterparts, members of the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR), and industry associations to harmonize and collaborate on market conduct reviews. Prior to FSRA, S. Agrawal Nevatia was a Manager with KPMG’s Internal Audit, Risk & Compliance Services, focusing predominantly on financial services clients across North America. She has worked and supervised teams in New York, Philadelphia, and Toronto.

S. Agrawal Nevatia holds a Master of Business Administration (Finance) from the University of Wales in the UK. She is a CPA licensed by the State Board of Colorado and has completed a certificate program in Global Leadership in Financial Supervision.

Before beginning the presentation portion of the webinar, 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, or CLHIA; the Travel and Health Insurance Association of Canada, or THIA; from insurance research firm LIMRA; and, as well, from many insurance and financial services regulator and policy-making authorities, including the following:

• The Insurance Council of BC
• The British Columbia Financial Services Authority, or BCFSA
• The BC Ministry of Finance
• Alberta Insurance Council
• Government of Alberta
• Insurance Councils of Saskatchewan
• Government of Saskatchewan
• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, or FSRA;
• Quebec’s Authorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF
• The Financial and Consumer Services Commission of New Brunswick, or FCNB
• The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC
• The federal Department of Finance, Government of Canada
• The OmbudsService for Life and Health Insurance, or OLHI

R. Jennings opened the webinar by asking S. Agrawal Nevatia to provide an overview of the IAIS’ current strategic themes. She explained that the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, or the IAIS, is a voluntary membership association. The IAIS is the only standard-setting body in the world that develops principles, standards, and guidelines on best practices for insurance industry supervision. As a result, more than 200 jurisdictions are members, accounting for 97% of worldwide insurance premiums. Over the last few years, the IAIS has shifted its focus to include implementation. To do so, it created four core objectives:

1. To continuously evaluate global risks and trends.
2. Once a trend or risk has been identified, develop a globally recognized corresponding standard that can address the issue.
3.  Once the standards have been developed, proper implementation is required. The IAIS will facilitate capacity building and support its members in supervisory practices.
4. Every few years, the IAIS revisits the global implementation of the new standard to ensure consistency and comprehension. This assessment is to monitor for issues in adoption, confusion, and/or residual risks that may require modifications to the standards.

The conversation around the fair treatment of a wide range of consumers began a few years ago with the question: how should supervisors, insurance companies, and intermediaries conduct themselves so that consumers are treated fairly? Accordingly, Insurance Core Principle 19 (ICP-19) was developed to outline principles for treating consumers fairly and effectively. The IAIS has supported its members in implementing ICP-19.

In recent years, the IAIS examined the global implementation of ICP-19 and identified a gap in the treatment of vulnerable or diverse consumers. S. Agrawal Nevatia explained that, despite jurisdictions having implemented ICP-19, the IAIS found that vulnerable and diverse consumers were not treated fairly. This led to the development of an application paper on the fair treatment of a wide range of consumers.

S. Agrawal Nevatia returned to the four core objectives mentioned previously, adding that there are three strategic themes that are paramount to understanding the IAIS. They represent key areas of focus, and are:

• Climate: the IAIS wants to strengthen supervisory response to climate change.
• Digital innovation and cyber risk: the IAIS is exploring the best ways the industry can adapt to increasing digital and cyber risks.
• Build resilience: the IAIS wants to support industry so that it can best deliver on its purpose of building resilience.

R. Jennings asked S. Agrawal Nevatia to explain how Canada and the Canadian regulatory landscape are affected by the IAIS’s work and strategic focus. She replied that, in Canada, when a regulator conducts any supervisory work, the guidance used is the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR) Fair Treatment of Customers (FTC) Guidance. This guidance is used at both provincial and national levels. It contains 12 principles that detail expectations for insurers and intermediaries, as well as the expected outcomes for consumers. This connects to the international world because the principles in CCIR’s FTC Guidance were derived directly from ICP-19. Thus, the basis of regulator reviews across Canada, nationally and provincially, is established upon the ICP-19 standards.

There are other linkages, however, between the Canadian regulatory landscape and the IAIS’ work. For example, while developing the application paper on the fair treatment of a wide range of consumers, FSRA and the IAIS identified multiple instances of consumer harm across jurisdictions in Canada. These insights, combined with insights from other regulators, helped shape the application paper. Since the paper is now finalized, the IAIS and FSRA are discussing how to implement the recommendations across Canada, through CCIR/CISRO, at a cooperative level. Lastly, S. Agrawal Nevatia noted that human greed does not vary by country; it is universal. The patterns of misconduct seen in Canada have been seen in multiple countries. When these jurisdictions share their findings and solutions, regulators can better understand and adapt their regulatory strategies. The fair treatment of consumers requires collaboration and information sharing.

R. Jennings asked S. Agrawal Nevatia to speak on how the IAIS conceptualizes accessibility and inclusion in relation to FTC. This included the approach it took and the examples it observed. S. Agrawal Nevatia explained that when the IAIS began considering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the primary question was what DEI means at a global level. In conversations with various regulators, the findings indicated that DEI was limited to the institutional level. The IAIS had a governance working group examining DEI at the corporate level to gauge a common understanding of what DEI should and does look like institutionally. However, when the discussion shifted to the market conduct working group level, many thought leaders asked why DEI is always considered through a governance lens. Why can it not be considered through a consumer perspective? Because consumers are diverse and so are their needs, the FTC needs to be discussed with this in mind. To do so, the IAIS asked members of the Market Conduct Working Group to examine their countries’ regulatory frameworks and provide examples of how consumers have been treated unfairly systemically. From the numerous examples compiled and examined, four common themes emerged:

• Targeting of vulnerable consumers: vulnerable consumers were targeted with relatively complex and unsuitable products, as well as aggressive sales practices. Vulnerability is not a set term; it could mean financially, situationally, etc.
• Limited comprehension: Many targeted consumers had gaps in knowledge, understanding, or were misinformed regarding their products. This was particularly relevant for consumers struggling in the digital environment. This was also evident when an insurer or intermediary lacked transparency in communication about certain practices, product properties, or risks.
• Lack of access to insurance: Underserved consumer groups who experience an insurmountable difficulty when trying to purchase insurance. The reasons can vary, from health concerns to environmental factors to political or cultural factors.
• Post-sales servicing: FTC must cover the entire product lifecycle and consumer journey. Many examples showed the opposite: claims were mishandled, potentially harming consumers.

The commonality that emerged from the numerous examples was the problem the IAIS’s application paper sought to solve.

Recently, CAFII conducted a survey of its members to gauge their commitment to DEI. It found that all have well-advanced and embedded DEI initiatives both internally and externally. R. Jennings mentioned this because while CAFII used the term DEI, the IAIS did not. In fact, when the paper consultation began, the IAIS did use the term DEI, but when it concluded, the final draft used the phrasing “a wide range of consumers.” R. Jennings asked why the IAIS changed its language. S. Agrawal Nevatia explained that when the paper began, the IAIS used the term “diverse consumers”; however, in the final paper, it used “a wide range of consumers.” Across both versions, the key concepts remain the same: 1) that the consumer populace is not homogenous, and 2) in order to conduct insurance business in a way that ensures FTC across all consumers, any activities conducted must take diversity into account. The IAIS decided to change the wording because it felt this was a better way to convey the two key concepts. This aligns with FSRA’s vulnerability framework, which, like the IAIS, focuses on ensuring fair outcomes for all consumers, including those with diverse needs and those at greater risk of harm.  

The application paper addresses proportionality and jurisdictional specifics, which are particularly relevant to CAFII because its members have parent companies and subsidiaries in the US. R. Jennings asked S. Agrawal Nevatia to elaborate more on this matter. Before doing so, S. Agrawal Nevatia acknowledged the IAIS’ members in its consultation process, which was conducted globally. There was significant support for the concepts of inclusivity and proportionality, which feature heavily in the paper. The IAIS made it clear that any recommendations given can be adapted to each jurisdiction’s legal framework. The recommendation does not override the legal frameworks in different jurisdictions. Regulators, insurance companies, and intermediaries can adapt it based on their market conditions, cultural factors, and consumer needs. The paper emphasizes respect for relevant laws and existing standards.

Proportionality and suitability are two key concepts within the paper, but what do they mean? Proportionality means that the implementation of recommendations is tailored to jurisdictional specificities. This includes specific legal structures, market conditions, and consumers. Supervisory intensity is adjusted accordingly, based on the risks observed in that jurisdiction. Suitability is related to local circumstances. The paper recognizes that local circumstances vary across jurisdictions, meaning consumer needs will differ; thus, the FTC may look different depending on location. For example, Japan has a very homogenous population; this is not the case for all countries.

There are two important principles preserved in this paper – risk-based pricing and insurer autonomy. Are there examples within the paper that show how these principles can be applied in ways that promote accessibility and fairness? S. Agrawal Nevatia explained that, as the IAIS worked through the paper’s consultations, insurers became nervous. They weren’t sure whether this meant eliminating risk-based pricing or removing insurer decision-making.  For this reason, the IAIS explicitly stated in the paper that it is not telling insurance companies or intermediaries that they should not follow the models they developed for their institutions. Insurers should and will retain their autonomy. What the IAIS is trying to do with the paper is ask industry to consider different ways to promote accessibility and fairness. This is about understanding the parameters of risk-based pricing and insurer autonomy. Can insurers reexamine how they operate, including the proxy measures they use, to ensure they are not introducing unfair biases? Can insurers monitor technology to ensure there are no algorithmic biases impacting consumers? Can insurers improve customer accessibility through language options or inclusive forms? These are just examples of the ways the IAIS wants insurers to question their processes.

An audience member asked S. Agrawal Nevatia, returning to the first principles mentioned, what is unique about the insurance sector that requires regulation to achieve FTC, and whether there are any market failures that prevent FTC mechanisms from working. She replied that, in her opinion, FTC should apply to all sectors. In fact, the information included in the IAIS’ paper is relevant across industries. Insurance is a complex and long-lasting product; consumers need to understand it before purchasing. It is important to regulate insurance in line with the themes and risks that emerge. Regarding market failures, S. Agrawal Nevatia noted that one such failure is the disconnect between design and sales. The strengthening of the intermediation chain and any loose linkages within it are failures that come to mind. The main failure is the notion of where a product started in terms of design and purpose, to where it ends up in terms of actuality, distribution, and sales. This is an example of a systemic issue.  

How does the paper apply the FTC principles in ICP-19 to practical steps across the full insurance product lifecycle? S. Agrawal Nevatia replied that, within the ICP-19 guidance, three principles stood out:

• ICP-19.1: Act with due skill, care, and diligence when dealing with customers.
• ICP-19.2: Establish and implement policies and processes on FTC.
• ICP-19.5: Take into account the interests of different types of consumers, either when developing or distributing products.

Based on these three principles, the IAIS divided its recommendations into four categories. S. Agrawal Nevatia could not go into detail due to time constraints; however, she recommended attendees watch the IAIS’ public discussion session on the application paper, which covers the topic in detail.

Another attendee commented that FSRA has published multiple observations made during the supervision of MGAs and insurers and asked whether there were any observations or examples of unfair practices that the IAIS found internationally but that FSRA did not capture during its supervisory efforts. Yes, S. Agrawal Nevatia answered. While Canada had examples, the one that came to her mind occurred in the Asia-Pacific and involved very severe surveillance techniques used before paying out a claim. This experience has not been seen in Canada, but it is just one example of unfair practices.

Another audience question asked: How do regulators assess insurers’ compliance with the FTC? Principles are broad, and it’s not always clear how to operationalize compliance at the ground level. S. Agrawal Nevatia explained that regulators struggle with this as well. When ICP-19 was launched, it was theoretically sound; however, in practice, it was abstract. To address this, regulators adopted ICP-19’s principles, the CCIR principles, and developed an audit program to clarify operationalization. FSRA has also published its approach to supervising against some of these guidance requirements. After FSRA conducts its supervision, to help the industry benchmark itself and understand what regulators mean by operationalization, it has also published its results in the marketplace. This is not to say it is perfect. The goal is transparency and adaptability.

When determining a product’s customer group, if insurers exclude a group, how can they ensure this is not perceived as discrimination? S. Agrawal Nevatia explained that an insurer should be able to justify why they have excluded a specific group. She mentioned recently learning about organizations in Canada that have decided to exclude certain vulnerable groups from selling certain complex products. This is a good decision because they are not suitable for that specific group. This is because they may not be able to maintain the product for long, or they may be satisfied with a simpler insurance product, such as a term policy. As long as there is a valid explanation for the exclusion, then it is acceptable. Sometimes, in fact, exclusion is an important part of FTC. Suitability needs to be considered, including denial.

For the final question, R. Jennings asked S. Agrawal Nevatia about financial literacy, specifically the balance between insurers’ responsibility to educate the public and the public’s responsibility to educate themselves. Did this dynamic arise at all during the creation of the paper? S. Agrawal Nevatia explained that there was no clear demarcation between insurer and public responsibility, but there was significant discussion around responsibility. In short, the conclusion was that no single player was responsible for all consumer education. Nor is it entirely on the consumers. The IAIS concluded that it must be a collaborative effort among regulators, insurers, intermediaries, and consumer representatives to improve understanding of products.

R. Jennings thanked S. Agrawal Nevatia before K. Martin concluded the webinar.

Date : October 9, 2025

On October 9, 2025, CAFII hosted a webinar titled CAFII Webinar on Pollara Segmentation Study  Findings: Credit Protection Consumer Profiles – an Exclusive Presentation by Pollara with Lesli Martin,  Senior Vice President of Pollara’s Strategic Insights. CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, opened the  webinar by thanking all attendees and introducing CAFII’s Research Analyst, Robyn Jenning. He explained  that, at the beginning of 2025, CAFII commissioned Pollara to conduct a survey of CPI owners and the  general populace’s sentiment towards this product; the webinar highlighted the key findings. R. Jennings  then introduced Lesli Martin, the lead for Pollara’s consumer insights and financial services divisions, as  well as the health affairs and reputation specialty practices. Prior to joining Pollara, L. 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 been featured in most Canadian newspapers  as well as Marketing Magazine. L. Martin holds a BA in Business Communication from Brock University. 

Before beginning the presentation portion of the webinar, 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, or CLHIA; the Travel and Health  Insurance Association of Canada, or THIA; from insurance research firm LIMRA; and, as well, from many  insurance and financial services regulator and policy-making authorities, including the following: 

• The Insurance Council of BC;
• The BC Ministry of Finance;
• The Insurance Council of Manitoba;
• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, or FSRA;
• Quebec’s Authorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF;
• The Government of Nova Scotia;
• The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC and,
• The federal Department of Finance, Government of Canada.

R. Jennings then asked L. Martin to speak about the research. L. Martin explained the study’s  methodology, which involved surveying 3,521 Canadians who have a mortgage or HELOC. This included  both CPI and non-CPI holders. The goal of the survey was to achieve a deeper understanding of Canadian  homeowners and their feelings towards CPI and life insurance in general.  

Pollara’s segmentation study identified six distinct groups among Canadian mortgage and HELOC holders,  with the first four being of particular interest: 

• The Confident Planner : Makes up a larger portion of the market and is likely to renew/purchase CPI.
• The Anxious Realist : Makes up a larger proportion of the market and could stand to benefit from CPI. 
• The Stretched Investor : Has CPI, feels positively about it, and makes up a substantial portion of the CPI customer base. 
• The Steady Planner : Some have CPI while others don’t. Those who have CPI are likely to renew.
• The Settled Saver : Does not have a perceived need for SPI and is unlikely to purchase it.
• The Comfortable Traditionalist : May consider CPI for convenience, but the likelihood of purchase is low.

The Confident Planner and Anxious Realist make up about half of the population (a total of 51% of the  Canadian mortgage/HELOC holders combined). The Stretched Investor and Steady Builder make up a  total of 13% of the population. Because both the Settled Saver and the Comfortable Traditionalist are  unlikely to purchase CPI, the webinar focused on the other four groups, as they are the people who  might need and benefit from credit protection. 

Delving deeper into the four groups, L. Martin personified the findings.  

Meet Kai; he is a Confident Planner. He is in his early 30s, married, and has a family (dependents). He  has high financial literacy and knows how to manage his household’s finances. He is already saving for  retirement. Kai is keeping up with his bills and managing mortgages for multiple properties; the  Confident Planner is more likely to have multiple properties. Kai has a larger-than-average investment  portfolio. The Confident Planner understands that things can change rapidly, which is why they own CPI. This group tends to be anxious about job loss, keeping up with bills, and economic uncertainty. Although  Kai feels confident, but he remains concerned about his employment and worried about the economy.  Kai accounts for 30% of the current customer base, with a 28% likelihood of renewal from this group.  

Meet Krystal; she is an Anxious Realist. She is the opposite of Kai. She is in her mid-40s, married, has  teenage dependents, and is navigating ongoing financial stress. Her anxieties include household bills,  credit card debt, job losses, and lack of confidence in her financial literacy. She is living paycheck to  paycheck; therefore, she is not saving for the future. Due to her limited financial knowledge, Krystal lacks  confidence in her ability to plan or invest effectively. When it comes to CPI, she wants it to be simple and  built into her mortgage. While Krystal does not want another bill, she understands that CPI offers  protection for her and her family in the event of a significant financial crisis. The Anxious Realist  represents the struggle between the protection that is needed and the protection that can be afforded. Krystal accounts for 19% of the customer base, with a likelihood of 15% retention. This means that some  loss may occur due to affordability and lifestyle considerations.  

Meet Michael; he is a Stretched Investor. He is balancing his many demands – kids, mortgage, HELOC,  and credit card debt. Money does feel stretched for Michael, but, unlike Krystal, he can still consider  long-term goals. Financial security is a priority. Michael is future-oriented. He manages his finances with  confidence, indicating that he possesses some financial literacy. Pollara found that 100% of this segment  already owns CPI. Michael accounts for 22% of the customer base, with a 6% likelihood of coverage  retention. The potential to cancel was only 4%. What is stopping the Stretched Investor from purchasing  or repurchasing comes down to affordability and value for money. Pollara found that this group does  have financial advisors, but rarely uses them to discuss insurance. Michael, and the Stretched Investor  group, need to understand that CPI offers good value for money and that this product is right for him and  his family.  

Meet Diljeet; he is a Steady Builder. He is the youngest of the segments. He is married, has young  children, and is balancing homeownership, debt management, and future planning. Although he is  younger, he is still planning for his retirement. Diljeet is confident in his financial knowledge, but he is pragmatic in his decision-making; he wants to be informed before making any major financial decisions.  The Steady Builder differs from the other groups in that half own CPI and half do not. While Diljeet does  not own CPI, his peers do. He is beginning to research and understand the product, but he feels he needs  more information before making a purchase. Where Krystal wanted as few details as possible, Diljeet  wants all the details so he can make an informed decision. The Steady Builder accounts for 12% of the  customer base, with an 11% retention rate.  

Meet Arthur; he is a Settled Saver. This segment is unlikely to consider CPI. Arthur is older, nearing his  60s. He has been married for over 20 years, and all his children now live independently. He is planning  for retirement. Arthur has investments totalling nearly half a million dollars; this affords him a  comfortable lifestyle. His biggest concerns are retirement adequacy and long-term care costs. He is also  concerned about economic uncertainty and the stability of his investments. This group is unlikely to  think CPI is beneficial; 56% said they were unlikely to obtain or renew CPI. Arthur makes up 5% of the  customer base, with a 3% retention. There is some room for growth with this group, but it is minimal.  

Meet Susan; she is a Comfortable Traditionalist. This group is unlikely to consider CPI. Susan is in her  early fifties. Her children are living independently. She owns her home and is beginning to think about  retirement. She is balancing work, saving, and bills. Susan is relatively confident in her financial  management, having some financial literacy. She remains cautious about the economy, particularly in  terms of job loss and market volatility. Susan is unlikely to purchase CPI, but she remains open to the  product if she feels it is practical and helpful. To put it another way, unlike Arthur, Susan is not adamantly  opposed to purchasing CPI. The Comfortable Traditionalist makes up 13% of the customer base, with a  9% retention rate.  

L. Martin proceeded to the next portion of the presentation, which included the survey’s findings.  

Financial vulnerability is widespread and growing. Canadian mortgage and HELOC holders are facing  significant financial stress, with half unable to manage even six months without income, and most  believing the country’s economic situation is worsening their financial standing.  

• Only 30% of Canadian mortgage/HELOC holders feel confident in their current financial situation.
• 44% report that the current economic situation is negatively impacting personal finances.
• 50% could only maintain their lifestyle for less than six months without their primary income.
• 50% would have serious problems paying bills if the primary earner were unable to work.

The Stretched Investor and Anxious Realist are particularly vulnerable, struggling with affordability while facing the highest exposure to financial shock. 

Job loss is a serious concern that Canadians are unprepared for. While Canadians worry about losing  their jobs, they lack plans to handle potential economic challenges. The Confident Planner, the Anxious  Realist, the Stretched Investor, and the Steady Builder are all concerned that losing their jobs could lead  them into financial peril.  

• 58% fear that someone in their household may lose their job in the next year. 
• 74% say that they couldn’t last more than one year if they lost their income, and 50% doubt they could even last 6 months.
• 50% would have serious problems paying at least some of their bills, with 28% saying they would have serious issues paying all of them.
• 37% feel knowledgeable when it comes to financially planning for the future.
• 33% regularly put money into savings.

Canadians lack confidence in their existing financial safety nets; only 38% are confident they could pay  their mortgage if the primary earner lost their income. Despite having insurance coverage, Canadians  exhibit a deep uncertainty about whether their protection is adequate, highlighting a critical gap  between having insurance and understanding it. 41% don’t know how long their insurance will last, while  44% believe it will last for less than 7 years. With 73% saying they feel they have sufficient life insurance,  Canadians’ financial confidence appears to be emotional rather than informed. In fact, only 35% know  how long a life insurance policy should last if needed. This uncertainty is particularly acute for the  Stretched Investor and the Anxious Realist.  

Even middle-range income households are feeling this financial anxiety. While lower-income households  face the most significant challenge, even those earning $120,000-$250,000 often share similar financial  anxieties, lacking a safety net to fall back on. A higher income doesn’t guarantee financial security or  better insurance coverage.  

Affordability and trust are the two main barriers to CPI adoption. While CPI holders view all aspects of  the product positively, their confidence in its affordability and trustworthiness is weaker than their  confidence in its convenience and efficacy. For non-holders, cost remains the primary barrier,  highlighting a broader credibility gap that extends beyond pricing alone. Non-holders are less sure that  CPI provides value for money. This coincides with non-holders who are less positive about their current  financial situation and less confident in their ability to manage their finances; this group is less sure of  CPI’s value.  

What are the life changes and/or economic triggers driving the purchase of CPI? This includes changes to  the financial situation that make paying bills more challenging or managing debt more difficult. This also  includes economic uncertainty or turmoil, the rising cost of living, and major life events such as marriage or having children. CPI’s features that resonate most are family protection, stress reduction, and  protection against unforeseen events. These triggers resonate across all the segments but are particularly relevant for the Anxious Realist, the Stretched Investor, and the Confident Planner.  

Limited awareness and understanding hinder the broader adoption of CPI; 61% of non-holders do not  recall being offered or informed about CPI, while only 39% recall being told about it as an option.  Additionally, 40% of non-holders don’t feel they need CPI: 23% did not see the need for it, and 13% cited  other coverage. Given concerns about safety, insufficient savings, and increasing financial stress, this is a  key finding: Canadians lack adequate coverage and do not see the necessity for it. In fact, only half of the  surveyed Canadians believe insurance is very important for protecting their families.  

CPI provides the opportunity to enhance the overall protection available to Canadian mortgage and  HELOC holders, particularly in the event of job loss.  

L. Martin concluded the presentation by explaining that Pollara found that financial institutions are the  primary distribution and influence channel when it comes to CPI ownership; 53% of holders purchase CPI  from a financial institution, like a bank or credit union.  

R. Jennings and K. Martin thanked L. Martin for her time and concluded the webinar.