The Unseen Risk: Why Canadian Homeowners Are Falling Short on Insurance

On January 30, 2025, The Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance (CAFII) held its first webinar of 2025 – Insurance Innovation in Ontario: A Conversation on FSRA’s Innovation Office Partnership with Fintech Cadence to Support Fintech Innovation in Ontario. CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, moderated the webinar. He was joined by Stephanie Appave, Director of Innovation at the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA), and Layial El-Hadi, Executive Director at Fintech Cadence.
Many representatives from CAFII’s 15 member companies and 9 Associates attended the webinar, as did representatives from allied industry associations such as the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, or CLHIA; the Travel and Health Insurance Association, or THIA; and the Canadian Banker Association, or CBA; and the Canadian Association of Direct Relationship Insurers. Many insurance and financial services regulators and policy-making authorities attended as well, including the following government organizations:
 
The Insurance Council of British Columbia;
The Government of Alberta;
Québec’s Authorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF; and,
The Financial Services Regulatory of Ontario, or FSRA.
 
K. Martin began the webinar by introducing the two speakers – Stephanie Appave and Layial El-Hadi. S. Appave (FSRA) has led FSRA’s Innovation Office since March 2023, where she has driven business development and engagement opportunities across the broader financial ecosystem. She has increased awareness and strengthened perceptions of FSRA as a regulator that supports innovation. L. El-Hadi is the Executive Director of Fintech Cadence, an organization that aims to create and support start-ups focused on solving Ontario’s financial industry’s problems through technology integration. Before turning the webinar over to the panellists for their respective presentations, K. Martin quickly introduced CAFII’s Research Analyst, Robyn Jennings, who prepared a few questions for the panellists.
 
S. Appave presented first, explaining FSRA’s innovation mandate, the Innovation office, and Ontario’s regulatory sandbox. Over the last few years, FSRA has been focused on a principles-based and outcomes-focused approach to regulation. Innovation is one of FSRA’s statutory objects. Encouraging and supporting innovation and experimentation is, thus, a foundational part of the regulator’s mandate. In fact, the Innovation Office was established to help FSRA deliver on this mandate. FSRA supports innovation across Ontario through exemptive authority granted to FSRA’s CEO by the Government of Ontario, which allows it to exercise discretionary powers, amongst other associated tools. Thanks to the Innovation Office, FSRA can facilitate innovation across regulated sectors by providing support, advice, and guidance to both regulated and unregulated entities.
 
In terms of public resources, FSRA released an Innovation Framework that outlines the strategy and guiding principles for how FSRA supports responsible innovation. The regulator also launched its Test and Learn Environment (TLE), otherwise known as a regulatory sandbox. TLEs are open to all market participants, including incumbents registered with FSRA and unregulated firms. FSRA’s TLEs provide a safe space for experimentation while ensuring consumer protection. TLEs, or regulatory sandboxes, are dedicated spaces that support the safe testing of innovative products, services, and business models in the real market. In short, TLEs provide companies with the opportunity to test activities that would be otherwise prohibited under the current regulatory framework. TLEs also act as a safeguard for consumer protection during testing. This allows regulators, like FSRA, to monitor potential impacts to the marketplace, businesses, and consumers these otherwise untested products, services, and business models could inflict. This kind of controlled testing provides insight into the viability and risks of the products or services in question. If risks do arise, FSRA then works with the company to mitigate and manage any issues. Currently, FSRA has two active TLE projects – Direct Access Model TLE and Territories TLE. The former, launched in August 2023, is testing a novel way to distribute commercial insurance products. The latter, which launched in 2024, allows auto insurers to propose and test territory rate changes within the Greater Toronto Area. There are currently 11 auto insurers participating in the Territories TLE.
 
TLEs should be viewed as an opportunity. It is a chance to test and refine an innovation in the real world while accessing resources like the Innovation Office or FSRA’s regulatory sector experts. Participating companies will have access to real-time insights into their innovation as well as guidance on regulatory expectations. Regulators also benefit. They can receive insight to inform future regulatory activities.
 
In relation to innovation, one of FSRA’s top priorities is collaboration. Because FSRA knows that innovation requires community, the Innovation Office is always looking for opportunities to work with others. It continuously engages with a wide range of stakeholders, partners, and industry experts. These engagements have resulted in three opportunity reports that reflect discussions about innovation within the insurance sector, mortgage broker sector, and the credit union sector. FSRA has also partnered with various innovation hubs to host pitch meetings, lunch-and-learns, and office hours. This includes FSRA’s partnership with Fintech Cadence.
 
L. El-Hadi began her presentation by quickly speaking about Fintech Cadence and its work in general. Fintech Cadence is the largest fintech incubator in Canada. Its mission and the core focus of its work is advancing the financial system to better serve all Canadians. To achieve this, Fintech Cadence works closely with the financial sector, entrepreneurs, regulators, government, and academia to ensure excellent products are available to Canada, Canadian consumers, small businesses, and businesses alike.
 
Fintech Cadence believes the financial ecosystem develops because of education, collaboration, and support. Education allows for talent to learn more about the industry. Fintech Cadence works with universities and academia on curriculum advocacy to ensure that fintech programs are being integrated into academic programs. Collaboration also focuses on research commercialization and integration within industry. Fintech Cadence collaborates with researchers, PhDs, and master students to see if their ideas can be commercialized and where they can bring value to the industry. Next, collaboration focuses on creating partnerships with stakeholders operating in the ecosystem to solve fintech challenges. Fintech Cadence identifies the challenges startups are having and asks how the innovation ecosystem can be complementary to the innovation rather than oppositional. Finally, support allows for the creation and care of early-stage fintech startups. As an incubator, these support efforts are focused entirely on early-stage fintech startups.
To address gaps in the fintech ecosystem, Fintech Cadence developed a fine-tuned pipeline to allow fintech startups to thrive. The pipeline asks if talent, whether that’s university students or industry, knows that fintech solutions are needed in the market. Are they building those solutions? Are they working with industry to solve the challenges? Is the business growing and scaling? Is the business following an integrated model that can be scaled?
 
Fintech Cadence works with startups tackling problems across a number of verticals, including payments, Wealthtech, Insurtech, crowdfunding, blockchain, remittance, PFM, cybersecurity, ESG, and more.  Canada’s strongest verticals are payment technology, lending tech, investment tech, and Wealthtech. For the purpose of today’s webinar, L. El-Hadi focused on Insurtech solutions. By nature of the industry, Insurtech is also another very strong fintech vertical in Canada, and it is only continuing to grow.  Fintech Cadence believes that, if the industry continues to move in its current direction, Canada will be one of the strongest Insurtech countries globally.
 
What does the fintech sector look like in Canada? Fintech Cadence estimates that over 1,500 to 2,200 fintech companies are currently operating in Canada. Ontario is one of the leading provinces for fintech, with Quebec as a very strong second. There is also a lot of growth coming out of British Columbia. Alberta has also begun investing heavily in its fintech space, including insurtech. But what is it that makes an insurtech sector strong? Fintech Cadence believes it depends on the following variables and their interaction:
Financial Institutions: Are the FIs engaged? Are they working with startups? Are they eager to engage in this work?
Talent: Do we have talent? Canada is demonstrably strong in this area, as evidenced by its innovations in artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies.
Support: Do the startups have the necessary support to succeed? Again, Canada is very strong in this area.
Capital: Is there capital to enable startups? Canada has a strong venture capital investor and angel network that supports startups.
Tech: Are there the appropriate and necessary technologies available to startups to enable their success?
 
L. El-Hadi concluded her presentation by noting how artificial intelligence will impact everything, including the ways in which traditional service providers will need to adapt to it and consumers’ changing expectations for products and services. 
 
K. Martin asked the panellists if they could discuss further the partnership between FSRA and Fintech Cadence, which was launched in September 2024. S. Appave began, commenting that FSRA feels the partnership was a critical first step to supporting financial innovation in the fintech sector, thereby, making FSRA an active partner in the ecosystem. Furthermore, the partnership highlights the regulator’s approach to responsible innovation while utilizing Fintech Cadence’s innovation expertise and industry connections. L. El-Hadi added that the work each entity does – FSRA’s focus on regulation, and Fintech Cadence’s focus on innovation – is complimentary to one another, which makes for a strong partnership. S. Appave explained that FSRA hopes to achieve three key objectives with the partnership. They are:
Establishing stronger connections between FSRA and the innovation ecosystem and fintech startups;
Better understanding of the regulatory barriers and challenges to innovation;
Bringing new and different insights and perspectives to inform FSRA’s approach to and activities within the innovation space; and,
Increasing awareness of FSRA and its innovation mandate.
 
L. El-Hadi echoed S. Appave’s objectives, adding that, at times, founders and entrepreneurs don’t understand the regulatory components or how to build relationships with a regulatory agency. Fintech Cadence and this partnership aim to break down those barriers in knowledge so that startups can establish direct lines of communication and understand the regulatory environment and hurdles.
 
Two core features of the partnership are increasing awareness and engagement. Fintech Cadence has made great efforts to embed the innovation office into its programming and events to help increase the regulator’s awareness. It has also done a great job of curating educational and engagement opportunities. The partnership provides FSRA with new opportunities to share information on how the regulator supports innovation and experimentation through the TLEs and other regulatory tools. It also allows FSRA to identify companies that could be potential participants in the TLE environments. In short, this partnership makes interacting with a regulator less intimidating for startups.
 
Turning to the value proposition, K. Martin asked the panellists why the partnership is important, how it will help companies develop their innovative ideas, and how it is different from other partnerships. S. Appave replied that this partnership is a unique opportunity to showcase how a regulator and an innovation hub can work together to support responsible innovation. Identifying and understanding regulatory barriers and challenges is essential for FSRA to support fintech innovation and understand and track emerging trends. This partnership will provide important insights. S. Appave added that it is really uncommon to see regulators partnering with innovation hubs. Another way this partnership is unique is that it is not a one-off event; there is direct and ongoing engagement in a number of different ways, like the lunch-and-learns, office hours, FSRA’s presence at Fintech Cadence’s events, etc. L. El-Hadi jumped in to comment that one of the biggest challenges when it comes to launching a fintech startup is regulatory compliance. Many startups don’t know when they should speak to a regulator, thereby hindering their compliance and halting their deployment into the market. Thus, through this partnership, startups will now have a direct line of access to FSRA. Lastly, L. El-Hadi noted that not many regulators are willing to have these kinds of conversations, so the fact that FSRA is not only willing but actively integrating itself into the ecosystem and industry conversations is proof of the regulator’s commitment to building a stronger market.
 
K. Martin asked S. Appave if FSRA has received any pushback for the lighter regulatory oversight that comes with the TLEs, particularly from companies that are subject to full regulatory oversight. She explained that when working with a company to design a specific TLE for a specific product, innovation, or business model, it is for a very limited time. Plus, it depends on which angle you’re looking at the market from. Traditional insurers that are already regulated have some advantages in the market, like size, customer base, etc. On the flip side, startups face barriers when it comes to compliance or finding partnerships or customers. S. Appave explained that the TLEs are open to both incumbents and unregulated sectors.
K. Martin asked both panellists to discuss Fintech Cadence’s programming and events, as well as target regulatory sandboxes and TLE participants. He inquired what the industry can expect to see over the next year. S. Appave explained how, for FSRA and the Innovation Office, regulatory sandboxes are about fostering collaboration. Thus, the regulator wants to encourage more firms to experiment and innovate without the fear of inadvertently breaching regulation. Sandboxes also allow regulators to see opportunities to adapt and adjust while maintaining consumer protection. L. El-Hadi commented that, across industry, all entities are increasingly interested in collaboration but don’t know where to begin. Plus, many entities are concerned about how data can be shared securely. Fintech Cadence provides its consumers with visibility so that they can understand how this collaboration will work, why it will help your product, and how it can be used to understand the potential harms or outcomes to consumers a product might have.
 
For those on the webinar wondering how my team can collaborate with or bring in fintechs, L. El-Hadi encouraged folks to simply begin the conversation. If your company has been discussing innovation but doesn’t know where to begin, contact FSRA and/or Fintech Cadence; they can and want to help.
 
K. Martin commented that many of the projects in question must be quite commercially or competitively sensitive. He asked how FSRA and Fintech Cadence manage confidentially to ensure the security of a company’s product or idea. S. Appave explained that confidentiality is built into the parameters of the TLEs and the TLE development process.
 
R. Jennings jumped in and asked the panellists if they could speak further about Ontario’s fintech innovation landscape, including the emerging trends and challenges. L. El-Hadi explained that, when looking at a fintech ecosystem, the easiest way to identify a thriving one is by looking at the financial sector. This means looking at insurance, all major banks, credit unions, etc. By nature of its size, economic development, and history, Ontario has many strong, established financial institutions. Quebec is also a strong region, especially when it comes to insurance. Western Canada has a strong credit union landscape. Atlantic Canada has very community-based financial systems. Because Ontario is strong in the financial sector, by default, its fintech sector is also strong thanks to the access and direct relationship between institutions. There is access to investment in capital. Plus, thanks to the population and number of universities, there is also a lot of talent. L. El-Hadi did put a caveat, though, that there are still other regions in Canada that are growing and strong in their respective segments, but, by and large, Ontario is one of the strongest.
 
Looking at trends and challenges within Ontario’s fintech sector, the following sectors have experienced considerable growth recently: the payment space, insurance, wealth tech and wealth management, neo-banks and neo-products, and prop tech (real estate and property management). One of Ontario’s most significant challenges has been and remains the amount of capital allocated to founders. Ontario investors are not adventurous. Investors are looking for investments with almost zero risk, especially when compared to American investors, who seem a bit more brazen and willing to incur some risk. Another challenge is the relationship between the financial sector and the fintech sector. While the two have a strong relationship, it can be challenging for fintechs to approach financial institutions (FIs) or break into the financial sector. Often, FIs will question the strength of fintech’s regulatory compliance or its value in terms of consumer retention. Finally, the last major challenge that many startups face is regulatory barriers. The partnership between Fintech Cadence and FSRA wants to address this.
R. Jennings asked L. El-Hadi if there are any generational differences in interest in neo-banks and neo-products. L. El-Hadi replied that Canada tends to have conservative consumers; approximately 80% of consumers will stay with the same bank their whole lives. These newer products and innovations do tend to lean towards younger generations, but that isn’t to say that the wealth tech fintech sector is only for that cohort. There is a massive wave of solutions coming to market geared toward the baby boomers. These focus on wealth management and investment, wealth transitioning, retirement planning, etc.
 
The Ontario fintech ecosystem is clearly dynamic. Where does relationship building fit within this, and how important is it to the innovation landscape? L El-Hadi commented that there is a running joke at Fintech Cadence that you cannot build a fintech without some form of relationship with an FI or with the financial sector, whether this means building a sales relationship, a partnership, or a consumer testing relationship. Relationship building is, therefore, essential; fintechs will not be able to scale their businesses without it. That being said, the ecosystem is still trying to figure this out, given the challenges. FIs want to work with fintechs but don’t always know how or where to begin, and vice versa. S. Appave echoed what L. El-Hadi said, adding that a strong partnership like the one between Fintech Cadence and FSRA allows for a broader reach across industry.
 
R. Jennings then asked S. Appave if she could discuss FSRA’s relationship with other regulators across Canada. She replied that, generally, all regulators face similar challenges associated with the rapid rate of new and emerging technologies. All Canadian regulators are now trying to figure out and assess the impacts of this evolving tech on the financial sector while trying to stay current.  S. Appave explained that FSRA does engage with its counterparts and peer regulators to share information, identify and share priorities, and maintain awareness of similar initiatives. For example, FSRA is aware that Alberta launched a regulatory sandbox in 2022 or that the AMF and OSC published a discussion paper on AI in 2023. FSRA can learn important things from other regulators, so sharing information is essential. What is important to remember that approaches and programming or initiatives are highly tailored to that environment; therefore, what occurs in one province may not be applicable to Ontario.
 
While FSRA maintains relationships with regulators across Canada, does it do so globally? The UK, Australia, and Singapore have all developed federal-level regulatory sandboxes for fintechs; do these international jurisdictions influence FSRA at all? S. Appave commented that, while all the aforementioned jurisdictions are more established regulators with national-level sandboxes, FSRA does learn from them regarding best practices. Considering that FSRA is comparatively early in its journey, looking at these more established jurisdictions can help to understand how sandboxes can act as a bridge between innovation and regulation.
 
K. Martin asked a few final questions before closing the webinar. He mentioned that one of the product features offered by CAFII members is that an insurer often underwrites them but actually offers them to the client through a distributor, like a bank or credit union. In many cases, a fintech innovation would require collaborating with two separate organizations that are partners but still wholly separate companies with different technologies and legacy systems. K. Martin asked if FSRA or Fintech Cadence had encountered this type of challenge and if either had any suggestions regarding moving forward with that slightly more complex business model. S. Appave commented that, from a TLE perspective, FSRA has not encountered that arrangement or any arrangement of that type yet. She added that nothing is out of the realm of possibility so that FSRA could encounter this opportunity in the future. If a fintech is thinking about something in that realm, she encouraged them to contact FSRA and the Innovation Office, who can provide sector experts and other people across the organization to create a path forward. L. El-Hadi added that if a fintech is servicing, as per K. Martin’s example, it needs to understand the whole lifecycle of that product and its service. When fintechs bring in other stakeholders as part of the process, issues around regulatory components or work navigation can arise. She also explained that one of the challenges in Canada is that insurance regulation is handled provincially, which means fintechs are not only building a product that needs to appeal to various stakeholders but also needs to comply with those stakeholders’ different regional regulations. Balancing this is a skill set entrepreneurs in this space need to have. This is why FSRA’s TLEs are so crucial because they provide support and safety for fintechs.
 
K. Martin remarked that this issue of provincial insurance regulation is one that CAFII often raises with regulators, mainly since many of its members operate across Canada. This is why harmonization, consistency, and collaboration are so important. L. El-Hadi agreed and added that complying with multiple regional regulations is expensive for a new company. For example, suppose a company is building and distributing its products in Ontario, where capital may already be limited, and wants to expand into Alberta. In that case, it will need more capital to scale the company, and it will have to hire a lawyer who understands Alberta’s regulatory compliance landscape. She remarked that if regulators want innovation, they need to think about how they can lower the cost barriers as much as possible to support startups. FSRA’s TLEs are an excellent way to do this.
 
On the topic of success, trying something new almost always comes with risk; it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the innovation projects FSRA takes on will be viable. This isn’t a bad thing, but rather a reality. K. Martin asked S. Appave if FSRA must articulate this to companies to stop them from using the wrong gauge to identify success. S. Appave replied that there are several different things companies need to consider when considering testing with FSRA’s TLE. First, companies will receive many insights into the viability of their product or business model. They will be able to see whether there’s the desired consumer uptake. These insights can, in a way, validate the potential for success. Secondly, companies will better understand the regulatory pieces impacting their products or technologies. L. El-Hadi mentioned that, as per FSRA’s findings, 8 or 9 out of 10 tech startups will not succeed. This can be an intimidating statistic for entrepreneurs. This is why we need more innovation and innovation monitoring to gauge whether this failure rate is declining each year. It is a tough sector to be in, no doubt about it; therefore, regulators and FIs need to do what they can to make it easier and more navigable.
 
The webinar concluded with a few final words from each panellist thanking CAFII and encouraging all audience members to contact FSRA or Fintech Cadence if they’d like to continue the discussion. K. Martin thanked the panellists and all attendees and terminated the webinar.

CAFII held its Annual End-of-Year Holiday Reception in Toronto. The event, hosted by Chubb Life, began with drinks and hors d’oeuvres and concluded with a speech from Price Waterhouse Coopers’ (PWC) Keegan Iles, who spoke about GenAI in insurance.

Mr. Iles began his talk by declaring that, though great progress has been made, GenAI is far beyond what we know it to be. Its capacities are greater than what we can currently imagine.

He then discussed the current climate around GenAI. In short, from its conception, GenAI has been and remains a tool for solving problems. This capability will only continue to grow, which matters for Canadian insurers because Canada has tremendous AI capabilities. He asked, with this information, where does this leave us in the hype cycle? Arguably, GenAI is at the peak; it is talked about or referenced nearly constantly. Being at the peak does not mean it is about to decline in prominence or importance; rather, it simply means that it is becoming ubiquitous within the zeitgeist of today. An example of this is the sheer quantity of money being funnelled into GenAI. It is estimated that $1 trillion will be spent supporting AI in the coming years.

Everyone is, indeed, talking about GenAI, but this does not always translate to implementation or adoption. Here are a few eye-opening statistics.

• 70% of CEOs believe GenAI will significantly change the way their companies create, deliver and capture value.
• 28% of CEOs expect GenAI to enhance performance and productivity by freeing capacity to focus on higher-value tasks.
• 78% of insurers are not prepared to implement AI properly.
• Under 20% of insurers are actually developing AI models, resulting in misalignment with customer expectations.

Despite CEOs’ claims, 66% of companies are still planning to implement GenAI despite their lack of readiness. So, whether folks are ready or not, GenAI is coming. Some insurers have been experimenting with AI to make it work towards operationalization. The following are the key areas insurers are focused on improving:

• Operation efficiency and knowledge management;
• Enhanced customer support and engagement;
• Risk assessment and underwriting.

GenAI’s superpower is its ability to consume large amounts of data and create new content or expand on existing content. The key, then, is to have a framework that connects these patterns to solve business challenges, particularly fraud detection. GenAI and its data consumption will also help track trends to better determine successful product design. GenAI’s uses are endless.

While there are myriad negative stories of GenAI, Mr. Iles concluded his presentation by encouraging people to focus on patterns instead of use cases. Early GenAI adoption was like trial and error; mistakes and errors were bound to happen, but this should not prevent people from working with or expecting GenAI to have an impact. He explained that engaging with shareholders is one of the main factors for success.  

On November 14, 2024, The Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance (CAFII) held its sixth webinar of 2024 – A Conversation on Travel and Travel Insurance: A CAFII Virtual Fireside Chat with Andrea Stuska, Annelaure Masson, and Sheila Burns. CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, moderated the webinar. Three travel insurance experts joined him to discuss the state of travel insurance in Canada. They were

• Andrea Stuska (Senior Manager of Environmental, Government, and Industry Relations in Life and Health, TD Insurance);
• Annelaure Masson (Compliance Manager and Privacy Officer, TuGo); and,
• Sheila Burns (Director of Health and Disability Policy, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA)).

Many representatives from CAFII’s 15 member companies and 9 Associates attended the webinar, as did representatives from allied industry associations such as the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, or CLHIA; the Travel and Health Insurance Association, or THIA; the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO); and the Conference Board of Canada. Many insurance and financial services regulators and policy-making authorities attended as well, including the following government organizations:

• The Insurance Council of British Columbia;
• The Government of Alberta;
• The Alberta Insurance Council;
• Québec’s Authorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF;
• The Financial Services Regulatory of Ontario, FSRA;
• The Financial and Consumer Services Commission of New Brunswick, or FCNB; and,
• The OmbudService for Life & Health Insurance, OLHI.

After K. Martin introduced the panellists, he asked them if Canadians are travelling more, less, or the same relative to recent years. Sheila Burns answered that, from the insurance side, it seems that Canadians are getting back to pre-pandemic levels of travel. 2023 was a high travel year thanks to what was dubbed “revenge travel,” or travel specifically to make up for lost time because of the pandemic. There are a few locations that have not seen an increase in interest from Canadians, specifically parts of Asia and Russia. This has been largely attributed to geopolitical concerns. Annelaure Masson jumped in, agreeing with S. Burns’ statement. She added that she doesn’t feel Canadians are travelling more per se. Rather, what is happening is a shift in how Canadians travel, including changing destinations. This is, yes, due to geopolitics, but also because the Canadian dollar has been low. Andrea Stuska agreed with both S. Burns and A. Masson, commenting that while it may seem like Canadians are travelling more, in actuality, Canada is simply returning to pre-pandemic levels. Therefore, despite the inflationary pressures seen in the last few years, Canadians are still planning to travel; however, this travel may now look different. Duration, location, and/or the reason for travel are all shifting; where once Canadians may have been travelling for exploration, now they may be travelling for leisure. A trip that may have been two weeks pre-pandemic may now be 10 days.

K. Martin polled the audience to determine if they were planning on travelling more in the coming 12 months compared to the last 12 months. The majority (56%) said they would be travelling less in the next year compared to the last. A. Masson commented that this may be due to inflation, which remains an issue for Canadians, but it also may be because of geopolitical issues around the world. She still expressed her surprise at the poll results, expecting a higher number for travel. A. Stuska agreed, commenting that she was surprised as well. She acknowledged that many are likely cost-conscious; however, she still firmly believes that a lot of Canadians are reducing discretionary spending in order to save for travel. She does think geopolitical events are likely to influence people’s desire to travel.

K. Martin then asked S. Burns how Canadians compare to other countries in terms of travel frequency. Canada is a cold country, which has caused many to depart during the winter months. Does this result in Canadians being more frequent travellers than most? She replied that, though she isn’t sure, she thinks so because Canadians travel during both the summer and winter months, whereas other countries may just travel during summer. Canada does have the “snowbird” effect, which sees many Canadians fleeing the cold climate for warmer weather. But Canadians also travel in the summer because that is typically vacation time. Furthermore, Canadians are likely the biggest group travelling to the U.S. because of its proximity to Canada. With the recent US election, however, this may change. A. Stuska disagreed, commenting that most Canadians get an average of 10 vacation days per year. In contrast to European countries, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, Canadians get shorter vacation time. In fact, some European countries close for all of August, thereby allowing more time for travel. Thus, comparing Canada to other countries, she argues that Canadians travel less. A. Masson added that it is hard to compare and quantify Canadians to Europeans due to Europe’s geographical proximity and their travel infrastructure, like the train systems. 

Since the pandemic, travel and travel insurance have changed. Awareness of health risks has increased. K. Martin asked how the market has shifted post-COVID-19. A. Masson agreed that there is more consumer awareness around travel insurance on both the medical and financial side. Baggage insurance became very popular post-pandemic. Consumers have also become a bit more inquisitive and demanding. Canadians are looking to protect their investment, in this case, their trip, and will say as much. However, travel insurance is still seen as a luxury for many. A. Stuska agreed with A. Masson, adding that she’d like to see more Canadians utilizing different types of travel insurance coverages. This has not always been the case. Lately, more claims have been made under embedded benefit coverages from travellers’ credit cards. Something important to consider is unforeseen circumstances, which are rarely, if ever, included in people’s travel budgets. S. Burns explained that as certain topics gain prominence in industry, misinformation tends to follow. For example, lately, the media has questioned why trip cancellation is necessary if the flight in Canada already covers it. She explained that many other things are involved in trip cancellation insurance other than a flight. The lack of information or the spread of misinformation can really hurt travellers looking to protect themselves.

Continuing that line of thinking, K. Martin inquired how insurance packages are changing, how the travel insurance sector is evolving, and what insurers are doing to answer consumers’ shifting demands. S. Burns replied that a few things come to mind. Group products, for example, which were typically medical products, have begun to offer other forms of coverage and insurance options. In terms of the changing travel insurance sector, she explained how collaborative the industry became during and post-COVID. Insurers came together in response to consumer questions and concerns, and suggestions from the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR), all in an effort to make travel insurance digestible and comprehensible. K. Martin remarked that he has seen progress in this area post-pandemic since the CCIR emphasized consistency in terminology across vendors. S. Burns agreed, noting the uniformity in the description of pre-existing conditions and stability clauses. A. Stuska added that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach; with travel trends changing, competitors respond with new offers. New products enter the market because of evolving consumer demands. She agreed with S. Burns about the need for better consumer education. Therefore, insurers should continue talking about their products. There are a lot of different types of coverage offered to consumers, but knowledge and foresight may be the barrier to access. While A. Masson agreed with both panellists, she did comment that travel insurance products may not be fundamentally changing but are instead being tweaked to better respond to consumer demands.

Diving deeper into the topic of uninsured, thus unprotected, travellers, K. Martin asked how insurers can reach Canadians planning on travelling without insurance without engaging in scaremongering. A. Masson commented that consumers are more aware of travel insurance and what it can do for them. However, they are also often misled about what it can do for them. Thus, many who do buy travel insurance are under the impression that it can do more for them than is the case, thereby causing disappointment and frustration at the time a claim is made. Many of these people then go to social media and complain. This issue is on the industry; insurers need to ensure consumers understand what they are buying and the limitations of these products.  A. Stuska agreed, remarking on the need for balanced educational initiatives. She added that often many travellers assume they won’t need travel insurance because they have an “it-won’t-happen-to-me” mindset. Insurers can do more to combat this, like using accessible language or engaging in specific partnerships. She mentioned Global Affairs Canada, which puts out travel advisories. There is always room for improvement. Social media is one such area in which insurers could better access and educate Canadians consumers.

K. Martin remarked that, during COVID, some countries did not let people travel there unless they could prove they had a travel insurance policy. Therefore, government could play some role in reminding people of the risks of uninsured travel. S. Burns said that this is an option for Canada. While no one wants to engage in fearmongering, people still need to know the risks. Risks aside, Canadians need to be aware of the financial burden an uninsured injury could cost them if they, for example, travelled to the U.S. and hurt themselves. While the “snowbirds,” or the older generations, do know about travel insurance and buy it, younger generations seem to often forgo this expense. S. Burns explained that it is the younger generations that insurers need to appeal to, and one way to do this is through social media and online platforms.

One major challenge for the travel insurance industry is the lack of hospital beds available during repatriation. S. Burns explained that awareness of this issue seems to grow every year because new stories are circulated across media platforms. This has been such a challenge that, over the summer, the Ministry of Health in Ontario reached out to the CLHIA for help. Ministry representatives met with the members of CLHIA’s travel insurance committee to hear some key points, including some identified “glitches” in Ontario’s repatriation process. CLHIA’s members put together a document describing the whole process, including the “glitches” and recommendations on how to fix these.

How insurers work with hospitals is different across Canada; some provinces and hospitals have better systems than others. Part of the issue is that, even if a Canadian is safe and being cared for in a bed abroad, they may want to be repatriated. This could be for a myriad of reasons, from preference to personal responsibilities. Repatriation not only impacts insurers and the healthcare system, but it often involves a degree of support from family members and/or friends.  A. Stuska agreed with S. Burns, adding that understanding the healthcare system is already frustrating and complicated for many Canadians, so it’s likely the last thing they want to think about in advance of a trip. Unfortunately, though, space cannot be made where there isn’t any, meaning that if a Canadian is injured abroad, repatriation may take them outside their home province or city. This is a reality that Canadians need to consider when travelling, even if it is complicated. She encouraged people to research all destination areas before travelling. This won’t solve the problem, but it can help keep Canadians informed. A. Masson remarked that many travellers are unaware of the reality of injuries. They do not necessarily understand the impact of foreign hospitalization and repatriation because they assume their insurer will fly them home and put them in a bed in their local hospital. This is not always the case. Canadians need to understand that this process takes time. She stressed the importance of familiarizing yourself with your policies and learning what needs to be done in case of emergency, like who needs to be contacted and when. This is to safeguard against time delays and complications in the event of an emergency. This is actually a part of THiA’s Bill of Rights – know your health, know your rights, and know your policies. This means you do have rights, but you also have a responsibility to be informed.

K. Martin polled the audience and found that a strong majority are planning on travelling internationally in the next few months. Building on this, with the rise of thematic or experience-oriented travel, he asked the panellists what policies they offer and if they have been required to modify or build custom policies in response. A. Masson remarked that certain types of travel have grown with different demographics. The younger generations tend to prioritize budget or adventure travel. The industry has responded in turn by gearing its policies towards these, arguably, higher-risk activities. Experiential travel is another growing theme, as is ecotourism. For all these trends, the market responds with new offerings. That being said, some travel remains popular with certain age groups, like cruising for the older generations. Products are not the only thing changing to fit the market; benefits and services are evolving. S. Burns agreed and emphasized the need to know your policy and its benefits. A. Stuska added that there had been a lot of delays with natural disasters like hurricanes. People do not think about insurance in relation to this, but she encouraged Canadians to consider purchasing coverage that is appropriate to their destination and travel duration.

K. Martin gave the panellists a scenario on the coordination of benefits: a Canadian is travelling outside of Canada. They have embedded credit card insurance in the card that booked the travel, employee benefit travel insurance through work, and a purchased stand-alone coverage. How does this Canadian coordinate the numerous coverage and benefit plans in the event of an injury? A. Stuska explained that when someone has multiple benefit plans, these plans work together to pay the claim, provided that the consumer is actually claiming all the coverages. There are scenarios to determine which policy goes first, but usually, this is determined by looking at the claim itself to see what is being requested. There is no reimbursement under all the plans that would cover more than 100% of the claim. A. Masson added that the CLHIA has guidelines for the coordination of benefits, which most insurance providers follow, that identify which is the primary policy, the excess policy, and the sequence of who pays what. What is complicated is there isn’t a universal process; each provider has its own process. THiA has a claims committee that is looking at this issue to try and determine how the process can be improved for both consumers and insurers.

With the recent American election, it now looks like the Canadian-American border will be less open, and there could also be significant refugee pressures. Some American officials are under the impression that terrorists are entering their country through the Canadian border, which is factually incorrect. K. Martin asked the panellists how this would potentially impact travel and travel insurance and if these greater risks could result in different packages and premiums. A. Stuska commented that she thinks the anticipated measures across the border are worrisome. She gave the example of the measures in place during the pandemic. She explained how they became problematic because of the additional work they required. This could become the case for travel insurance and the border post-election. There may not be immediate changes to travel insurance coverage because those packages offered across the industry are fairly comprehensive. Instead, Canadians should prepare for an increase in delays and trip cancellations. A. Stuska encouraged Canadians to keep up with destination advisories and stay informed. A. Masson said that, though she doesn’t foresee any substantial changes to travel insurance, there is a lot of uncertainty about what could happen. Certain policies will be put in place, which may have a trick-down effect on travel and, possibly, travel insurance. If the Canadian dollar continues to drop, travel to the U.S. may dwindle. The U.S. is the travel destination for Canadians, so seeing how this may change will be interesting.

Canada has a growing aging population. As people age and accrue more money and time, they ironically become less eligible for travel insurance, regardless of health. K. Martin asked the panellists to comment on this reality and whether industry will begin to do more to cover those folks. A. Masson explained that the reality is that while those aging Canadians do have coverage, elderly travellers have higher premiums because they are at a higher risk of ailment, injury, or health issues. It is the sad reality. There has been an increase in product options, like products that cover pre-existing conditions. However, aging Canadians still need to do the research to understand what they are buying and how they are covered. A. Stuska agreed with A. Masson, adding that, regardless of age, insurance is a pooled rating. This means some folks will be healthier than others. It is wonderful that aging Canadians are trying to travel more; they just need to budget for the right coverage.

K. Martin thanked the panelists and concluded the webinar.