On June 11, 2026, CAFII held its June Reception Event, following the June Board meeting. The event, hosted by BMO in Toronto, ON, began with a welcome from new Board Chair Julie Gaudry, who then presented plaques to departing EOC and Board Chairs, Karyn Kasperski and Val Gillis, in appreciation of their contributions to CAFII. Afterwards, Board Member Tracey Klodt gave a land acknowledgement. She then spoke about BMO, its history, and its top priorities. She introduced Dexter John, CEO of FSRA, the keynote speaker for the evening.
Dexter John thanked CAFII and BMO for this opportunity. Life and health insurance is a sector that touches the lives of millions of Canadians and provides security when life doesn’t go as planned. This is why confidence in this sector and regulation matters. He then spoke about some of the challenges that this sector faces and will continue to face over the next ten years. These challenges shape FSRA’s priorities.
Once the conversation focused on rules; now it is about outcomes. Are consumers being treated fairly? Are the regulations and requirements producing the outcomes needed to ensure security, innovation, and success? Good outcomes do not happen by accident. They come from evolving markets and consumer satisfaction. Outcomes must be measured. Regulators and industry alike need data and evidence to support their claims. This requires data governance and a strong understanding of consumer outcomes.
The regulatory question concerns accountability and clarity throughout the distribution chain, and whether consumers are protected at every level. The same is true when considering emerging technologies. AI can transform this sector, but without proper supervision, this could be detrimental.
Customers do not experience services one at a time. Data does not stop at provincial borders. Regulations, however, continue to reflect a fragmented reality. This fragmentation carries costs, stifling innovation and increasing them. This is why harmonization is the most important question for regulators.
Harmonization conversations often start around rules. This, however, needs to change to focus on outcomes. Collaboration is essential for harmonization. If regulators cannot see the market through a common lens, it becomes harder to manage. Harmonization matters not because regulators are seeking uniformity but because consumers deserve clarity. Harmonization cannot happen without dialogue. Good harmonization is rarely developed in isolation. Regulators need to understand consumer behaviour, which is fine through stakeholder engagement.
The pace of change is accelerating. Regulatory burden and operational resilience need to recognize that yesterday’s systems are not necessarily the best at responding to today’s risks and issues.
Mr. John concluded his speech by explaining that FSRA is working to achieve success in today’s and tomorrow’s landscape. This requires collaboration, conversation, and innovation.
Ms. Gaudry then opened the floor for audience questions. Ms. Gillis asked whether there had been any early discussions about collaboration. She also asked about data. Mr. John responded that FSRA has made a concerted effort to harmonize and collaborate with other jurisdictions. A few initiatives will be announced in the coming months that speak to this.
CAFII’s Executive Director, Keith Martin, asked about AI and regulatory responsibilities. Mr. John said that, internally, FSRA has its own regulatory processes, but for industry, FIs are trusted unless they show otherwise. FSRA, for the most part, trusts the industry to handle its guardrails and governance.
An audience member asked about what is to come in the next 20 years. Mr. John replied that he hopes FSRA is in a unique position regarding consumer protection and innovation, but that fraud is a concern. As long as there are guardrails in place to protect consumers and industry, then he will be happy.
Are there other markets or regulated industries that have harmonization? FSRA looks to Australia and the US for collaboration. The issue, however, is politics and legislation, which take time to change. People want to eliminate obstacles; it just takes time and effort.
Ms. Gaudry thanked Mr. John before concluding the evening with drinks and hors d’œuvres.
CEO CAFII Reception Remarks
Good evening, everyone. Thank you to CAFII for the invitation, and to BMO for hosting us this evening. It is a pleasure to be here with leaders from across Canada’s life and health insurance sector. This is a sector that touches the lives of millions of Canadians. It helps families manage uncertainty, it provides security when life does not go according to plan, and it plays a critical role in helping Canadians protect what matters most. That is why confidence in this sector matters, and it is why the way we regulate this sector matters.
This evening, I would like to offer a few reflections on what I believe is one of the defining challenges facing financial services regulation in Canada over the next decade. The challenge is not simply how regulators respond to change. The challenge is how we build regulatory systems that can adapt to change while continuing to deliver strong consumer outcomes, resilient markets, and a competitive environment that supports innovation and growth. At FSRA, that challenge is shaping many of our priorities today, and it is increasingly shaping our thinking about harmonization across Canada.
For many years, regulatory conversations focused primarily on rules. Today, I think the more important conversation is about outcomes. As regulators, we are ultimately accountable for outcomes. Are consumers receiving suitable advice? Are products being distributed fairly? Are firms managing conflicts appropriately? Are vulnerable consumers being treated fairly? Are markets functioning effectively? Is the sector resilient? And perhaps most importantly—how do we know?
I believe one of the most significant shifts taking place in regulation today is the continued evolution toward principles-based and outcomes-focused supervision. Historically, regulators often focused on whether prescribed requirements had been met. Today, we are increasingly asking a different question: Are those requirements producing the outcomes they were intended to achieve? That requires a different regulatory mindset. It requires regulators to be more evidence-based and data-driven, more forward-looking, more risk-focused, and more disciplined in how we collect, govern, analyze, and use information. At FSRA, our commitment to principles-based regulation and risk-based supervision is grounded in that approach.
Good outcomes do not happen by accident. They depend on understanding where risks are emerging, how markets are evolving, and whether consumers are experiencing the outcomes we collectively expect. That is why data is becoming one of the most important strategic assets available to regulators. Not because we need more information for its own sake, but because outcomes cannot simply be asserted. They must be measured. If we say consumers are receiving suitable advice, how do we know? If we say conflicts are being managed appropriately, what evidence supports that conclusion? If we say a sector is resilient, which indicators tell us whether resilience is strengthening or weakening? These are increasingly the questions regulators must answer, and they can only be answered through stronger data governance, better data quality and analytics, and a clearer understanding of both consumer and sector outcomes.
In many respects, the future of supervision will be defined by the quality of our insights, not the quantity of our rules. That reality is reflected in many of FSRA’s priorities. Whether we are modernizing licensing processes, strengthening market conduct supervision, improving operational resilience, or examining the implications of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity risks, the underlying objective is the same: To become a more effective, more agile, and more outcomes-focused regulator. Consider the evolution of MGA distribution models. As distribution networks have become more sophisticated, the regulatory question is no longer simply whether individual requirements are being met. The more important question is whether accountability is clear throughout the distribution chain and whether consumers are receiving consistent protections regardless of how they access products and advice. That is fundamentally an outcomes question. It requires regulators to understand how the system is functioning in practice…not simply how it is designed on paper. The same is true when we think about emerging technologies.
Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform financial services. It also raises important questions. How do we ensure transparency? How do we identify bias? How do we preserve data lineage? How do we maintain accountability as decision-making becomes increasingly automated? These are not questions that stop at provincial borders. They are questions that regulators across Canada and around the world are grappling with together. This brings me to a second observation.
As our markets become increasingly interconnected, regulation itself must become more connected. For many of you in this room, your businesses do not operate one province at a time. Your customers do not experience financial services one province at a time. Technology platforms do not stop at provincial borders. Data does not stop at provincial borders. Innovation certainly does not stop at provincial borders. Yet too often, regulatory frameworks continue to reflect a more fragmented reality. To be clear, provincial regulators have distinct mandates and responsibilities, and there will always be circumstances where different approaches are appropriate. But we should also recognize that fragmentation carries costs. It creates complexity. It can increase compliance burden. It can slow implementation. It can make innovation more difficult, and ultimately, those costs can find their way back to consumers.
That is why I believe harmonization represents one of the most important opportunities facing regulators in Canada over the coming decade. Not harmonization for its own sake, and not uniformity at all costs, but thoughtful harmonization focused on outcomes. Too often, harmonization discussions begin and end with rules. I would suggest a different starting point. The more important question is whether regulators are pursuing similar outcomes. If regulators across Canada are trying to achieve fair treatment of consumers, suitable advice, strong governance, operational resilience, and market confidence, then we should continually ask where greater consistency can help us achieve those goals more effectively. That requires collaboration. It requires trust among regulators, and increasingly, it requires common approaches to information, intelligence, and risk.
In my view, the future of harmonization is not only about aligning rules; it is also about aligning how we understand risk, how we measure outcomes, how we identify emerging issues, and how we share insights across jurisdictions. Because if regulators cannot see the market through a common lens, it becomes much harder to supervise an increasingly national marketplace effectively. We can already see this dynamic in areas such as segregated funds. Consumers benefit from transparency and clear information about the products they purchase, including the costs associated with those products. But consumers also benefit when regulatory expectations are as consistent as possible across jurisdictions. That is why harmonization matters. Not because regulators are seeking uniformity, but because consumers and firms increasingly operate in a national marketplace and deserve greater clarity, comparability, and confidence. At FSRA, we see significant opportunities to continue advancing collaboration with our regulatory counterparts across Canada. Not because it is easy, but because it is increasingly necessary. And while harmonization is important, it cannot happen without dialogue.
One of the lessons I have learned throughout my career is that good regulation is rarely developed in isolation. Regulators need to understand how markets function in practice. We need to understand operational realities. We need to understand consumer behaviour, and we need to understand how innovation is changing the way products and services are delivered. That is why stakeholder engagement remains a critical priority for FSRA.
Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to participate in discussions with members of FSRA’s Sectoral Advisory Committee on Life and Health Insurance. One theme emerged repeatedly throughout the discussion: the pace of change is accelerating. Whether the conversation focused on technology, distribution models, consumer expectations, regulatory burden, or operational resilience, there was broad recognition that yesterday’s approaches will not always be sufficient for tomorrow’s challenges. That is precisely why ongoing dialogue between regulators and industry is so important. The best regulation is informed regulation, and informed regulation depends on evidence, engagement, and a willingness to learn from one another.
As we look ahead, I believe the Canadian financial services sector is exceptionally well positioned. We have strong institutions. We have talented professionals. We have sophisticated markets, and we have a regulatory community that is increasingly committed to modernization and collaboration. The challenge before us is ensuring that our regulatory frameworks continue to evolve at the pace of the markets we oversee. That means embracing innovation while maintaining confidence. It means protecting consumers while supporting competitiveness. It means preserving provincial accountability while advancing national collaboration, and it means remaining relentlessly focused on outcomes.
At FSRA, that is the balance we are working to achieve. A regulatory approach that is evidence-based, risk-based, forward-looking, collaborative, and focused on delivering measurable value for consumers and the sectors we regulate. Because ultimately, the success of regulation should not be measured by the number of rules we create. It should be measured by the confidence we help build.
Thank you. I look forward to continuing the conversation this evening.
