Life Insurance Sector Consultation (LISC ) 2013 2013

Transcription

Contract number: 59017-130043/001/CY
Requisition Reference #: 59017-13-0043
Call-up date: 2013.06.07
Life Insurance Sector Consultation (LISC) 2013-14
Report of Qualitative Research Findings
Prepared for
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)
http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca
[email protected]
st
Delivery Date: March 31 , 2014
Prepared by
The Strategic Counsel
21 St. Clair Ave E., Ste. 1100
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1L9
Tel: (416) 975-4465 Fax: (416) 975-1883
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.thestrategiccounsel.com
Table of Contents
I.
Executive Summary / Sommaire ...................................................................................... 1
A.
B.
A.
B.
C.
C.
II.
Background and Research Objectives ............................................................................................ 2
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 2
Contexte et objectifs de recherche .................................................................................................. 2
Méthodologie ................................................................................................................................... 2
Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 3
Principales conclusions ................................................................................................................... 3
Research Objectives and Methodology ......................................................................... 12
A. Background ................................................................................................................................... 13
B. Research Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 13
C. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 13
III. Overall Impressions of OSFI........................................................................................... 15
IV. OSFI Strengths ................................................................................................................ 22
V.
Impressions of OSFI Staff ............................................................................................... 39
VI. Opportunities for Improvement and Broader Sector-Related Concerns ..................... 47
VII. Communication of International Activities and Representation of Canadian
Interests Internationally .................................................................................................. 52
VIII. Appendix A: Interview Guides (English and French) .................................................... 55
IX. Appendix B: Recruitment Specifications and Execution of Fieldwork ........................ 96
A. Recruitment Specifications ............................................................................................................ 97
B. Execution of Fieldwork .................................................................................................................. 97
Final Report – 2013-2014 Life Insurance Sector Consultation
I.
Executive Summary / Sommaire
1
A. Background and Research Objectives

The primary objective of the research is to explore
impressions of OSFI in the discharge of a number of
key elements of its mandate as a prudential
regulator of life insurance companies, including
regulations and guidance, supervisory activities and
the approvals process.
A. Contexte et objectifs de recherche

L’enquête visait principalement à recueillir les
impressions laissées par le BSIF lors de l’exécution de
certains aspects importants de son mandat
d’organisme de réglementation prudentielle des
sociétés d’assurance-vie, comme les activités
relatives aux règlements et aux consignes, les
activités de surveillance et le processus d’agrément.
B. Methodology

Findings are based on a total of 44 one-on-one in
person and telephone interviews completed among
CEOs, CFOs and other senior executives of life
insurance companies. Of these interviews, 40 were
conducted in English and 4 were conducted in
French. Interviews were undertaken from
September to December, 2013. The average
interview length was 60 minutes.
Qualitative Research Caution: Qualitative research
cannot be generalized to the wider population of life
insurance companies. Findings from one-on-one
interviews should be interpreted as tentative hypotheses
about the issues explored rather than as quantitative
data. This is inherent in the nature of most research
conducted with small samples of participants. In
considering the findings from this research, the reader
should bear in mind that the interviews were qualitative
and exploratory in nature. These findings are intended to
provide direction and ideas as opposed to the definitive
findings that a quantitative study would provide.
B. Méthodologie

Les constatations sont tirées d’un total de
44 entrevues téléphoniques ou en personne
réalisées auprès de présidents et chefs de la
direction, de chefs des services financiers et d’autres
cadres supérieurs de sociétés d’assurance-vie. De ce
nombre, 40 ont été menées en anglais et 4 en
français. Les entrevues ont eu lieu entre septembre
et décembre 2013. Chacune a duré 60 minutes en
moyenne.
Mise en garde au sujet des études qualitatives : Les
résultats d’études qualitatives ne peuvent être étendus à
l’ensemble des sociétés d’assurance-vie. Les constatations
issues des entrevues individuelles doivent être
considérées comme des hypothèses provisoires au sujet
des questions à l’étude plutôt que comme des données
quantitatives. Cette restriction est inhérente à la nature
de la plupart des recherches menées auprès de petits
échantillons de participants. Au moment d’interpréter les
constatations, le lecteur se rappellera que les entrevues
étaient de nature qualitative et exploratoire. Les
constatations servent à dégager une orientation et des
idées. Elles diffèrent en cela des résultats fermes d’une
étude quantitative.
2
C. Key Findings
C. Principales conclusions
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
IMPRESSIONS GÉNÉRALES
EFFECTIVENESS IN DISCHARGING ITS MANDATE
EFFICACITÉ DANS L’EXÉCUTION DE SON MANDAT


Overall satisfaction with OSFI is very strong and is
attributed to perceptions of how OSFI interacts with
those it regulates. OSFI is perceived to:
–
–
Be willing to engage in dialogue with both
individual companies and the industry;
Have established good communications with the
Life insurance industry, through consultation,
regular meetings with some companies, and
participation in presentations and seminars;
–
Be professional in its dealings with Life
insurance companies; and,
–
Focus on appropriate areas of risk for the most
part.
CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

Consistent with previous consultations, OSFI is
perceived to have contributed, in conjunction with
the financial institutions themselves, to overall
public confidence in the financial services industry.
–
OSFI’s prudential approach is the main reason
for this perception;
–
This is supported by the performance of the
industry through the financial crisis and beyond.
OSFI COMPARED TO OTHER REGULATORS

OSFI is viewed to be among the best-in-class
regulators worldwide for a number of reasons:
–
Its efforts to consult with the industry on the
development of guidance;
–
Its principles-based approach to regulation; and,
–
Generally, it is seen as fair and reasonable to
Le niveau de satisfaction générale à l’endroit du BSIF
est très élevé grâce à la perception de son
interaction avec les entités qu’il réglemente. Le BSIF
est perçu comme :
–
étant ouvert au dialogue avec les sociétés et
avec l’ensemble du secteur;
–
ayant établi de bons rapports avec le secteur de
l’assurance-vie grâce à la consultation, à la
tenue de rencontres périodiques avec les
représentants de certaines sociétés, et à la
participation à des présentations de même qu’à
des colloques;
–
faisant preuve de professionnalisme dans ses
rapports avec les sociétés d’assurance-vie;
–
ciblant essentiellement les facteurs de risque
pertinents.
CONTRIBUTION À LA CONFIANCE DU PUBLIC

Conformément aux résultats de consultations
antérieures, le BSIF est perçu comme ayant
contribué, de concert avec les institutions
financières elles-mêmes, à accroître la confiance
générale du public dans le secteur des services
financiers.
–
Cette perception s’explique principalement par
l’approche prudentielle qu’adopte le BSIF.
–
Le rendement du secteur au cours de la crise
financière et par la suite justifie également cette
impression.
3
deal with.
OSFI STRENGTHS
LE BSIF PAR RAPPORT AUX AUTRES ORGANISMES
DE RÉGLEMENTATION

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF REGULATIONS AND
GUIDANCE


Most participants believe that OSFI’s guidance is
effective in providing an indication of OSFI’s
expectations.
Favourable impressions of OSFI on this issue are
largely driven by perceptions that:
–
Guidance is clearly written; and,
–
OSFI is willing to engage in dialogue when
companies bring forward questions concerning
regulations and guidance.
Plusieurs raisons font que le BSIF est considéré
comme l’un des meilleurs organismes de
réglementation de sa catégorie à l’échelle du globe :
–
la consultation dynamique du secteur préalable
à l’élaboration de consignes;
–
une méthode de régulation fondée sur des
principes;
–
la perception selon laquelle, de façon générale,
il entretient des rapports équitables et
raisonnables.
POINTS FORTS DU BSIF
EVALUATIONS OF GUIDELINE-RELATED
COMMUNICATIONS
IMPRESSIONS GÉNÉRALES À PROPOS DE LA
RÉGLEMENTATION ET DES CONSIGNES


La plupart des participants estiment que les
consignes du BSIF communiquent efficacement ses
attentes.

Les impressions favorables à ce sujet procèdent
largement des perceptions selon lesquelles :
Evaluations of OSFI communication of expectations
related to the Corporate Governance Guideline are
generally positive.
–
–

Communications are seen as having been
proactive, and OSFI is viewed as having taken
into consideration much of the industry
feedback.
–
les consignes sont clairement rédigées;
–
le BSIF est ouvert au dialogue lorsque des
sociétés soulèvent des questions à propos de la
réglementation et des consignes.
However, some express concern that the
guidance is too intrusive, theoretical, and
difficult to interpret.
Many see the value of the QIS exercises and believe
that the QIS process has improved significantly since
inception.
–
–
ÉVALUATION DES COMMUNICATIONS RELATIVES
AUX LIGNES DIRECTRICES

Overall evaluations of the QIS tend to be
positive. Positive evaluations stem from
perceptions that OSFI’s expectations have
become more clear, OSFI responds promptly to
questions or requests for information and is
open to discussion in addressing issues of
concern.
Some believe that the QIS process could be
improved were OSFI to provide more context
about how OSFI will be viewing and using the
results, and by changing the timing of the QIS to

De façon générale, l’évaluation de la communication
des attentes du BSIF relatives à la ligne directrice sur
la gouvernance d’entreprise est positive.
–
Les répondants estiment que les
communications ont été proactives, et que le
BSIF a tenu compte d’une bonne partie de la
rétroaction du secteur.
–
Certains croient toutefois que les consignes sont
trop dirigistes, théoriques et difficiles à
interpréter.
Bon nombre de sociétés reconnaissent la valeur des
4
a period that does not coincide with year-end.

études d’impact quantitatives (EIQt) et sont d’avis
que le processus s’est nettement amélioré depuis
son instauration.
When asked to evaluate OSFI ‘s communications
regarding the A-4 Guideline, responses tend to focus
more on interpretation of the guidance.
–
While some commentary suggests that
exchanges with OSFI about the interpretation of
this guidance have been constructive and
helpful, some feel that this guideline has
required excessive time to understand and
conform to OSFI’s expectations.
–
L’évaluation globale des EIQt tend à être positive
en raison des perceptions selon lesquelles les
attentes du BSIF sont maintenant plus claires, ce
dernier répond rapidement aux questions et aux
demandes de renseignements, et il est disposé à
discuter des préoccupations.
–
D’aucuns estiment que le processus des EIQt
pourrait être amélioré si le BSIF expliquait
mieux comment il considérera et utilisera les
résultats, et si l’exercice avait lieu à un autre
moment qu’en fin d’exercice.
COMMUNICATIONS AND FEEDBACK REGARDING
SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

In the evaluation of OSFI’s regulation and guidance,
several themes emerge as concerns within the Life
insurance sector:
–
–
The first is that OSFI tends to take a one-size
fits-all approach to the application of guidance.
There is a perception among some that OSFI is
improving and is making efforts to communicate
and take into account “proportionality” in the
interpretation of guidance in the sector.
However, particularly among smaller
companies, some believe that OSFI is not taking
a case-by-case approach in its response to
company-specific concerns regarding the
implementation of guidance.
The second is that OSFI’s approach to regulation
of the Life insurance sector is often informed by
a banking perspective.

Les réponses aux questions sur l’évaluation de la
ligne directrice A-4 tendent à porter davantage sur
l’interprétation des consignes.
–
COMMUNICATIONS ET RÉTROACTION VISANT
CERTAINES LIGNES DIRECTRICES

Plusieurs questions préoccupent le secteur de
l’assurance-vie en ce qui touche l’évaluation de la
réglementation et des consignes du BSIF :
–
Premièrement, le BSIF tend à appliquer les
consignes selon une approche universelle.
Certains ont l’impression que le BSIF s’améliore,
qu’il s’efforce de communiquer et de faire place
à la proportionnalité dans l’interprétation des
consignes sectorielles. En revanche, d’autres –
surtout des sociétés de plus petite taille –
estiment que le BSIF ne répond pas au cas par
cas aux préoccupations de chaque société à
propos de la mise en œuvre des consignes.
–
Deuxièmement, l’approche du BSIF à l’égard de
la réglementation du secteur de l’assurance-vie
semble souvent guidée par une perspective
bancaire.
APPROVALS

Evaluations of OSFI’s approvals process are highly
positive among those who have sought approval for
an application.

Consistent with findings from the DTISC
consultation, OSFI is characterized as being highly
responsive to requests for approvals. Further, OSFI is
seen to be open to discussion prior to coming to a
conclusion.

Among those with an opinion, most feel that OSFI’s
effectiveness in processing applications has
Même si, d’après certains commentaires, les
échanges avec le BSIF à propos de
l’interprétation de ces consignes ont été
constructifs et utiles, certains disent qu’il a fallu
mettre trop de temps pour comprendre les
attentes du BSIF et s’y conformer.
5
improved compared to a few years ago.
AGRÉMENT
SUPERVISION


Both large and small companies find OSFI to be
effective in monitoring and supervising their
companies.
–
Most participants feel their company has an
opportunity to discuss issues of concern with
OSFI prior to OSFI coming to a conclusion and
believe that OSFI is responsive to concerns
raised.
–
Most evaluate OSFI’s written correspondence
positively. It is generally viewed as clear, timely
and consistent with oral communications.
Among smaller companies, one issue of concern
arises consistently: RM turnover. Companies that
have experienced this find the lack of continuity to
be disruptive.

Ceux qui ont soumis une demande d’agrément sont
très satisfaits du processus employé par le BSIF.

Tout comme l’indiquent les résultats des
consultations auprès du secteur des institutions de
dépôts, les répondants estiment que le BSIF répond
très bien aux demandes d’agrément. Il est aussi
considéré comme étant ouvert à la discussion avant
de tirer des conclusions.

La plupart des répondants qui ont exprimé une
opinion croit que le BSIF traite les demandes plus
efficacement qu’il y a quelques années.
SURVEILLANCE

Tant les grandes sociétés que les petites jugent que
le BSIF les surveille efficacement.
–
La plupart des répondants estiment que leur
société peut discuter de ses préoccupations
avec le BSIF avant que celui-ci tire des
conclusions, et que le BSIF est sensible aux
préoccupations soulevées.
–
La plupart ont une opinion positive de la
correspondance écrite du BSIF; elle est
généralement considérée comme étant claire,
opportune et fidèle aux échanges oraux.
IMPRESSIONS OF OSFI STAFF MEMBERS
RELATIONSHIP MANAGERS

Most participants offer positive comments about
their Relationship Managers.
–
–
Particularly among larger companies, RMs are
found to be knowledgeable about the industry
and to have developed a strong understanding
of the companies to which they are assigned.
Among smaller institutions, impressions are
much more muted. This is driven by frustrations
with RM turnover.


A number of companies report frequent RM
turnover with the result that the new RM
does not necessarily have a strong grasp of
the company.
Further, there is a perception that some
RMs tend to be less experienced, with less
sector experience than those assigned to
larger institutions.
SPECIALIST SUPPORT GROUPS


Awareness of, and interaction with specialist support
Les sociétés de plus petite taille soulèvent
systématiquement la question du roulement de
personnel parmi les gestionnaires des relations. Les
sociétés qui ont été confrontées au problème jugent
que ce manque de continuité perturbe les activités.
IMPRESSIONS À PROPOS DU PERSONNEL
DU BSIF
GESTIONNAIRES DES RELATIONS (GR)

Les commentaires de la plupart des répondants à
propos de leur GR sont positifs.
–
Les sociétés de plus grande taille surtout
estiment que leur GR connaît bien le secteur et
comprend bien la situation des sociétés qui lui
6
sont confiées.
groups, other than the Actuarial Division, is generally
low.
–

–
Awareness is lowest for CMRAS, RSA and
RMAAS.
Generally, comments about the specialist support
groups tend to be positive.
–
–
These evaluations most often focus on the
Actuarial Division, as this is the group with
which most with an opinion report having had
dealings in the past 12 months.
The one theme that emerges in commentary
about the Actuarial Division is its strength of
expertise.
Les impressions des institutions de plus petite
taille sont nettement plus réservées en raison
de la frustration causée par le roulement des
GR.

Certaines sociétés signalent de fréquents
changements de GR, de sorte que le
nouveau GR n’en a pas nécessairement une
connaissance poussée.

Des répondants ont aussi l’impression que
certains GR tendent à être moins
expérimentés et à avoir moins d’expérience
du secteur que ceux affectés aux
institutions de plus grande taille.
GROUPES DE SOUTIEN SPÉCIALISÉ
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

RESPONDING IN A TIMELY MANNER TO MARKET
CHANGES AND INDUSTRY SUGGESTIONS

OSFI is perceived to have been slow to respond to
input from the industry and as slow to release
guidance on certain issues.

Examples given are:
–
Release of the ORSA guidance;
–
Clarity regarding OSFI’s position on capital
requirements for segregated fund guarantees;
and,
–
Completion of the capital regime review.
La connaissance des groupes de soutien spécialisé et
l’interaction avec eux – à l’exception de la Division
de l’actuariat – sont généralement limitées.
–

Dans l’ensemble, les commentaires à propos des
groupes du soutien spécialisé tendent à être
favorables.
–
Le plus souvent, ces évaluations ciblent la
Division de l’actuariat puisqu’il s’agit du groupe
avec lequel la plupart des répondants ayant une
opinion disent avoir eu des rapports au cours
des 12 dernier mois.
–
Le thème qui ressort des commentaires à
propos de la Division de l’actuariat est la solidité
de son expertise.
STRIKING AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN
PRUDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE NEED TO
COMPETE

Many of the issues raised in response to this
question reflect concerns about both current and
future capital requirements for Life insurance
companies.
–
Many of the Life insurance companies express
concerns about OSFI’s review of the capital
regime and its implication for the MCCSR.
–
Smaller companies, in particular, believe that
what they perceive to be ever-increasing capital
requirements have a disproportionately
La connaissance est à son plus bas dans le cas
des Services d’évaluation des risques liés aux
marchés financiers, de la Division des risques,
de la surveillance et de l’analyse et des Services
d’évaluation des mesures et des analyses des
risques.
7
negative effect on their ability to compete
effectively in the Canadian insurance
marketplace compared to larger companies.
–
–
Across both large and small companies, there is
concern that OSFI is adopting international
regulatory initiatives in advance of other
jurisdictions. Canadian companies are believed
to be at risk of being disadvantaged
internationally as a result.
POSSIBILITÉS ET DÉFIS
RÉAGIR EN TEMPS OPPORTUN AUX CHANGEMENTS
QUI SE PRODUISENT SUR LES MARCHÉS OU AUX
SUGGESTIONS DU SECTEUR

Le BSIF est perçu comme ayant tardé à réagir aux
suggestions du secteur et à diffuser des consignes
sur certaines questions.

Exemples :
Some believe that unnecessarily high capital
requirements imposed by OSFI are negatively
affecting the ability of Canadian Life insurance
companies to develop and offer a broader range
of products.
–
Publication des consignes sur le dispositif
d’évaluation interne des risques et de la
solvabilité (ORSA);
–
Clarté de la position du BSIF au sujet des
exigences de capital des garanties de fonds
distincts;
–
Achèvement de l’examen du régime de capital.
ORSA GUIDELINE

Many feel the release of the E-19 Guideline in
December 2013 was too late in the year in light of
OSFI’s expectation that companies be in compliance
by January 2014.
BROADER SECTOR-RELATED ISSUES
PROACTIVE IN DEALING WITH EMERGING ISSUES

Among some, there is concern that OSFI is simply
adopting international regulatory thinking and
initiatives without sufficient consideration of
whether they are appropriate in the Canadian
framework. Many expect OSFI to place greater focus
on ensuring that regulatory change driven by global
initiatives is first vetted for its appropriateness in the
Canadian context, and then, if the decision is taken
to implement it, that it be refined as necessary to
reflect the Canadian Life insurance sector.
TROUVER LE JUSTE ÉQUILIBRE ENTRE LES
PRÉOCCUPATIONS D’ORDRE PRUDENTIEL ET LA
NÉCESSITÉ POUR LES INSTITUTION DE FAIRE FACE
À LA CONCURRENCE

Bon nombre des points soulevés en réponse à cette
question traduisent des préoccupations à propos des
exigences de capital existantes et futures des
sociétés d’assurance-vie.
–
Nombre de sociétés d’assurance-vie soulèvent
des préoccupations au sujet de l’examen du
régime de capital par le BSIF et de son impact
sur le Montant minimal permanent requis pour
le capital et l’excédent (MMPRCE).
–
De façon plus particulière, les sociétés de plus
petite taille estiment que ce qu’elles considèrent
comme des exigences de capital sans cesse
croissantes ont un effet démesurément négatif
sur leur capacité d’exercer une concurrence
efficace sur le marché canadien de l’assurance
par rapport aux sociétés de plus grande taille.
–
Quelle que soit leur taille, les sociétés craignent
que le BSIF soit en train d’adopter des initiatives
de réglementation internationale avant d’autres
administrations. Les sociétés canadiennes
risqueraient donc d’être pénalisées sur la scène
internationale.
BROADER SECTOR-RELATED CHALLENGES

Concerns are raised about a number of other issues
not addressed directly in the consultation:
–
Some voice concerns regarding the pace of
regulatory reform in the Life insurance sector.
There is a perception that with the introduction
of a variety of new guidelines (e.g., corporate
8
governance, ORSA), the ongoing QIS exercises,
anticipated changes to MCCSR, and the impact
of IFRS, the insurance industry may be more
susceptible to unintended risk. Some describe
this as “regulatory risk”.
–
–
In tandem with this concern is the perception,
particularly among smaller companies, that the
industry is suffering from regulatory
overburden.
–
LIGNE DIRECTRICE SUR LE DISPOSITIF ORSA

IFRS, and concerns about its potential negative
impact on the Canadian Life insurance sector, is
one of the key themes emerging from the
consultation.

In fact, in response to the consultation
question probing the risk areas upon which
participants believe OSFI should focus over
the next couple of years, IFRS is mentioned
more often than any other issue.
PROACTIVITÉ FACE AUX NOUVEAUX ENJEUX
LOOKING FORWARD AND INTERNATIONAL
ACTIVITIES
LOOKING FORWARD
Impressions of OSFI’s proactivity in dealing with
emerging issues are muted relative to other areas in
this consultation.

Small companies, more than large, hold favourable
impressions of OSFI on this issue.

Positive views of OSFI are in part driven by the
perception that the regulator is well informed about
issues, both as a result of consultation with Canadian
industry stakeholders and through participation in
international regulatory bodies. This allows OSFI to
be proactive.

Some who see OSFI as doing a fair job believe OSFI is
reacting to international regulatory initiatives and
allowing them to drive its regulatory agenda,
assuming that international approaches are
appropriate for the Canadian Life insurance industry.

A number pinpoint OSFI’s response to the issue of
Bon nombre de répondants estiment que la parution
de la ligne directrice E-19, en décembre 2013, a été
trop tardive, comme le BSIF s’attendait à ce que les
sociétés s’y conforment dès janvier 2014.
ENJEUX SECTORIELS DE PORTÉE PLUS
GÉNÉRALE


Certains croient que les exigences de capital
inutilement élevées qu’impose le BSIF nuisent à
la capacité des sociétés canadiennes
d’assurance-vie de prendre de l’expansion et de
proposer une gamme plus étendue de produits.
Certains craignent que le BSIF ne fasse que souscrire
à la position des organismes de réglementation
étrangers et à leurs initiatives sans chercher
suffisamment à déterminer si elles conviennent au
cadre canadien. Beaucoup s’attendent à ce que le
BSIF s’assure davantage que les changements de
réglementation issus des initiatives internationales
soient d’abord examinées pour déterminer si elles
conviennent au contexte canadien puis, si tel est le
cas, qu’il les peaufine dans la mesure nécessaire
pour tenir compte de la réalité du secteur canadien
de l’assurance-vie.
DÉFIS SECTORIELS DE PORTÉE PLUS GÉNÉRALE

Certains répondants soulèvent des préoccupations
dont les consultations ne traitent pas directement :
–
D’aucuns s’inquiètent du rythme des réformes
de la réglementation dans le secteur de
l’assurance-vie. Ils ont l’impression que, à cause
de la mise en œuvre de diverses nouvelles lignes
directrices (gouvernance d’entreprise, dispositif
ORSA, etc.), de la poursuite des EIQt, des
modifications prévues du MMPRCE et de
l’impact des IFRS, le secteur de l’assurance-vie
peut être davantage exposé à un risque fortuit
qualifié parfois de « risque réglementaire ».
9
segregated fund guarantees as an example of being
reactive rather than proactive.
–
À cela s’ajoute la perception, surtout parmi les
sociétés de plus petite taille, selon laquelle le
secteur supporte un fardeau de réglementation
excessif.
–
Les normes IFRS et les préoccupations à propos
de leurs répercussions potentiellement
négatives sur le secteur canadien de
l’assurance-vie constituent l’un des principaux
thèmes qui ressortent des consultations.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Many of the insurance companies report an interest
in receiving some, or more information from OSFI
about international activities and developments in
the sector.

Commentary on this issue suggests that some of the
companies may not be aware of OSFI’s current
efforts to provide this type of information, nor the
means by which OSFI is doing so.

There is a perception among others that OSFI is
providing this information effectively, particularly
through its email updates and through
presentations, seminars and conferences which it
sponsors or in which it participates.


While participants generally believe that OSFI is
effective in representing the interests of the
Canadian financial services industry in international
fora, some express concern about OSFI’s approach to
incorporating international regulatory initiatives into
the Canadian marketplace.
There is a perception that OSFI is well respected
internationally.
–
Further, some participants hold the impression
that OSFI “has a voice” at the international table
and is considered to be a leader.

En fait, les IFRS sont mentionnées plus
souvent que tout autre facteur en réponse
à la question à propos des facteurs de
risque qui devraient constituer une priorité
pour le BSIF ces prochaines années.
PROACTIVITÉ ET ACTIVITÉS
INTERNATIONALES
PROACTIVITÉ

Les impressions du niveau de proactivité dont le BSIF
fait preuve à l’égard des nouveaux enjeux sont
réservées comparativement à d’autres volets des
consultations.

Les petites sociétés sont plus portées que les
grandes à avoir une impression favorable de la
proactivité du BSIF.

Les opinions favorables à l’endroit du BSIF découlent
en partie de la perception selon laquelle le
régulateur est bien au fait des enjeux, résultat des
consultations auprès des intervenants sectoriels
canadiens et de la participation aux travaux
d’organismes de réglementation internationaux. Cela
permet au BSIF d’être proactif.

Parmi ceux qui estiment que le BSIF fait un travail
passable, certains croient qu’il réagit aux initiatives
de réglementation internationales et les laisse
guider son propre programme réglementaire,
présumant que les approches de la communauté
internationale conviennent au secteur canadien de
l’assurance-vie.
10

Un certain nombre citent la réponse du BSIF à la
question des garanties de fonds distincts comme
exemple de son attitude réactive plutôt que
proactive.
ACTIVITÉS INTERNATIONALES

Bon nombre de sociétés d’assurances aimeraient
obtenir du BSIF des renseignements sur les activités
internationales ou les changements dans le secteur,
ou être mieux informées à ce propos.

D’après les commentaires, certaines sociétés ne sont
peut-être pas au courant des efforts que déploie le
BSIF pour fournir ce genre de renseignements ou des
moyens qu’il prend pour les communiquer.

D’autres ont l’impression que le BSIF fournit ces
renseignements de manière efficace, surtout grâce à
des communications par courriel, à des
présentations, à des colloques ou à des conférences
qu’il parraine ou auxquelles il participe.

Même si les répondants estiment généralement que
le BSIF représente bien les intérêts du secteur des
services financiers du Canada sur la scène
internationale, certains ont des réserves à propos de
la façon dont il intègre les initiatives de
réglementation internationales au marché canadien.

Les répondants sont d’avis que le BSIF jouit du
respect de la communauté internationale.
-
Certains estiment que le BSIF a voix au chapitre
dans l’arène internationale et qu’il est considéré
comme un leader.
11
II.
Research Objectives and
Methodology
12
Research Objectives and Methodology
A. Background
In 2013 OSFI commissioned The Strategic Counsel as an independent research firm to undertake a process of
consultation with key stakeholders in order to explore perceptions of OSFI and the current insurance company sector
marketplace. The consultation comprised a series of confidential interviews with senior executives from Life
insurance companies regulated by OSFI.
B. Research Objectives
The primary objective of the research is to obtain perspectives concerning the discharge of key elements of OSFI’s
mandate as a federal regulator of Life insurance companies.
Specific objectives are to investigate overall impressions of OSFI as well as to explore perceptions of OSFI’s
performance on key elements of its role as a prudential regulator as it relates to:

Regulations and Guidance;

Supervision; and,

Approvals Process.
C. Methodology

Findings are based on a total of 44 one-on-one in person and telephone interviews completed among CEOs, CFOs
and other senior executives. Of these interviews, 40 were conducted in English and 4 were conducted in French.
Interviews were undertaken from September to December, 2013. The average interview length was 60 minutes.

The table below defines short forms used in the report to describe various sub-populations of the total sample. It
also indicates the total number of participants within each sub-group and the population of active companies
from which they were drawn.
HEADING
Total Sample
Institution Asset
Size
TOTAL NUMBER OF
PARTICIPANTS
INTERVIEWED
NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS IN
POPULATION FROM WHICH
PARTICIPANTS WERE DRAWN
All those who participated in the
consultation
44
62
Large – Participants at institutions with
assets of at least $1 billion
26
34
Small – Participants at institutions with
assets under $1 billion
18
28
SEGMENT DESCRIPTION
It should be noted that multiple interviews may have been undertaken among some large institutions.
13
Research Objectives and Methodology
NOTES ABOUT SMALL SAMPLE SIZES

The sample sizes for this consultation are relatively small. The findings should therefore be considered qualitative.

The small sample sizes allow only limited scope for subgroup analysis. However, thematically consistent
differences are noted.
NOTES ABOUT TABLES

Results presented in tables should still be considered directional.

Some tables may add to slightly more, or less, than 100% due to rounding issues associated with small sample
sizes.

When the number of responses is insufficient to support analysis this is indicated with an “n/a” (not available).
NOTES ABOUT NON-RESPONSES

For a number of questions, significant proportions of participants did not feel that they had sufficient knowledge
to provide an opinion.

Results have been recalculated to exclude those participants who answered “don’t know” or who did not offer a
response.

Where such a recalculation has been made it is noted on the table.
14
III.
Overall Impressions of OSFI
15
Overall Satisfaction with OSFI as the Principal Prudential Regulator and Supervisor
Q.1/Q.2: Overall, how satisfied are you with OSFI as the principal prudential regulator and supervisor of Canada’s financial
services industry? Why do you offer that response?

Overall satisfaction with OSFI is high. Participants are almost universal in reporting that they are “very” or
“somewhat satisfied” with OSFI as the regulator and supervisor of Canada’s financial services industry.

Intense satisfaction (“very satisfied”) with OSFI’s overall performance appears stronger among smaller insurance
companies than among the large companies. This finding is consistent with findings from the 2012/13 DepositTaking Sector Consultation (under separate cover – 2013).

Positive evaluations stem from perceptions of how OSFI interacts with those it regulates:

–
OSFI is viewed as being professional and collaborative in its interaction with the Life insurance industry;
–
Some comment on the openness of the dialogue between OSFI and Canada’s Life insurance companies.
While it is pointed out that OSFI does not always change its stance, there is a perception that OSFI is willing
to listen to issues of concern identified by companies and the sector;
–
A number of participants identify that, overall, OSFI’s communications with the industry and individual
institutions are good;
–
Some comment favourably on the accessibility of staff members; and,
–
Among some, there is a perception that OSFI is on top of issues.
OSFI is viewed by some to be better than other regulators (both within and outside Canada) in:

–
Its knowledge of the sector and sector issues; and,
–
Its willingness to discuss issues with institutions.
There is positive commentary about the tone and approach that the Superintendant has set in dealings
with Life insurance companies:
–
Participants find the Superintendent to be balanced in her dealings, willing to listen and engage in dialogue,
and open to change based on industry feedback should it be in keeping with OSFI’s prudential mandate.
Further, her public comments are seen as measured and appropriate.
Q.1: THOSE WITH AN OPINION
%
Very Satisfied
37
Somewhat Satisfied
59
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied
2
Somewhat Dissatisfied
2
Very Dissatisfied
-
Base:
Those with an opinion (n=44)
16
Overall Satisfaction with OSFI as the Principal Prudential Regulator and Supervisor (cont’d)

While views are generally positive, some concerns are raised at the outset and echoed throughout the
consultation:
–
Some believe OSFI applies a “one-size fits all” approach to regulation. This issue is more prevalent among
smaller institutions and reflects a concern that OSFI’s application of the regulatory framework does not take
into account sufficiently the distinct product line characteristics of individual companies, and that it places an
undue burden on the resources of these companies.
–
Canada’s capital regime is perceived to be increasingly conservative with the consequence that this places
companies who compete internationally at a competitive disadvantage.
–
While overall satisfaction is high, some raise concerns about the pace of change in Canada’s Life insurancerelated regulatory regime. This pace is deemed to have several averse outcomes:
–


Particularly among smaller companies, it is perceived to be placing an undue burden on company
resources, diminishing the ability to focus on day-to-day management and the success of the company.

With the number of new pieces of regulation being considered and implemented, some believe the
result will be unintended risk as not enough time is being spent by OSFI or the industry to consider the
implications of the changes.
Another issue of concern is the perception that OSFI is too strongly influenced by international regulators in
its development of Canada’s capital regime and other areas of regulation.
Some believe that OSFI adopts international regulatory approaches without sufficient consideration of the extent
to which they are appropriate in the Canadian context.
17
OSFI’s Performance in Contributing to Public Confidence
Q.3/Q.4: How would you rate OSFI’s performance in terms of contributing to public confidence in Canada’s financial services
industry? Is OSFI’s performance ... Why do you offer that response?

OSFI is viewed almost universally as having played a strong positive role in contributing to public confidence in
Canada’s financial services industry.
–

Both large and small institutions appear to have similar perceptions of OSFI in this respect.
Strong public confidence is linked with Canada having fared better than other jurisdictions during and after the
financial crisis.
–
Consistent with previous consultations, many believe that OSFI’s prudential regulatory approach is key to the
Life insurance sector’s performance over the crisis and post-crisis period.
–
Some participants believe that the effective internal management of Canada’s Life insurance companies has
also been a critical factor underlying the public’s strong confidence.

OSFI is perceived to have established a regulatory model that is well regarded internationally and that this also
contributes to public confidence.

Some observe that the tone and content of OSFI’s public communications have been appropriate.
%
Very Good
72
Good
26
Fair
2
Poor
-
Very Poor
-
Base:
18
Extent to Which OSFI is Perceived to Focus on Appropriate Areas of Risk
Q.5/Q.6: How would you rate OSFI on the extent to which OSFI focuses on the appropriate areas of risk in the Life insurance
sector? Why do you offer that response?

This area of exploration raises varying opinions.

Some companies believe that on a macro-level OSFI has been focusing on appropriate areas of risk. Examples
given include:
–
MCSSR
–
Interest rate environment
–
ORSA
–
Corporate governance

Some observe that OSFI is able to identify and respond to areas of risk because it has a solid understanding of the
sector.

While the evaluations of OSFI are quite positive in this area of exploration, some broad concerns are brought
forward:
–
In some cases, there is concern that OSFI is out in front of other jurisdictions in implementing regulations and
guidance. Some believe this places the Canadian sector at a competitive disadvantage because it drives the
need for higher capital levels for Canadian companies than for those in other jurisdictions.
–
OSFI’s introduction of some new regulations and guidance is believed to be driven by the expansion and
deployment of a global regulatory framework. However, OSFI is perceived to be passing down global
initiatives to the Canadian insurance sector without establishing whether those initiatives have value in a
Canadian insurance market and whether they need to be tailored to the Canadian context.
%
Very Good
23
Good
48
Fair
29
Poor
-
Very Poor
-
Base:
19
Impressions of OSFI`s Capital-Related Focus
Q.24/25: Overall, how satisfied are you that OSFI is focussing on the appropriate capital-related issues? Why do you offer that
response?

As this area of exploration directly follows the questions which delve into perceptions of QIS, it appears that a
number of participants tend to remain focused on the QIS in their responses.

For many, there is a perception that OSFI is focused on appropriate areas of capital. However, the intensity of
positive commentary appears to be more muted for this line of investigation compared to others in the
consultation.

While there is a general belief that OSFI is focusing on appropriate issues, some have concerns that moving
forward the capital requirements for Canadian Life insurance companies will be unreasonably onerous.

Those with more negative evaluations raise concerns about OSFI’s position on lapse risk. They feel that OSFI has
not listened to the industry’s representations on this issue.

Other concerns are more disparate and include comments each made by several companies:
–
How OSFI will address interest rates;
–
A one-size-fits-all approach to evaluating capital requirements; and,
–
The pace of change in the introduction of new guidance. Again, concern is raised that the condensed period
during which a number of new pieces of guidance are being introduced, along with the increasingly onerous
regulatory requirements, may lead to unintended risks for the industry.
%
Very satisfied
18
Somewhat satisfied
70
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
7
Somewhat dissatisfied
5
Very dissatisfied
-
Base:
20
Perceived Risk Areas That OSFI Should Make Priorities
Q.65: What one or two risk areas do you believe should be priorities for OSFI in the next couple of years pertaining to
institutions in the Life insurance sector?

Participants identify a number of risk areas that they feel should be priorities for OSFI.

Two potential risk areas are mentioned most frequently:


–
The effect of IFRS on the Canadian Life insurance industry
–
The effect of increasing capital requirements on the ability to compete
A variety of other areas are also cited, although in each case by fewer participants than those raising the issues
above:
–
Low interest rates and their effect on capital
–
ORSA
–
Regulatory overburden
–
Corporate governance
–
Technology risk
The following risks are mentioned by only a few participants:
–
Lapse capital
–
Segregated funds
21
IV.
OSFI Strengths
22
OSFI Strengths: Regulations and Guidance
Guidance which Provides an Indication of OSFI’s Expectations
Q.11/12: Overall, how effective do you think OSFI’s guidance is in providing an indication of OSFI’s expectations? Why do you
offer that response?

Almost universally, participants believe OSFI’s guidance is at least somewhat effective in providing an indication of
OSFI’s expectations.
–
Larger companies tend to be more likely to evaluate OSFI as very effective on this issue relative to small
insurance companies.

Favourable impressions of OSFI on this issue appear to be driven largely by the perception that guidance is
written clearly.

Particularly among smaller companies, there is a perception that in some cases OSFI’s guidance is vague.
However, there is a balancing perception that OSFI is a principles-based regulator and so its guidance allows
companies to adapt guidance to their particular situation.
–
“Their guidance tends to be very high-level, and then we as a company have to figure out how to implement
it. They say ‘do it as it pertains to your company’ which is good. And they give leeway to smaller companies.
But it is still a challenge.”
–
“The guidance will indicate that the expectation "can be sized". This is the challenge however...trying to figure
out how to size the guidance so that it is appropriate for us.”
–
“OSFI produces in-depth, thorough guidelines that cover everything very well and lay out the expectations.
OSFI is principle-based so there tends to be leeway, but sometimes we would like them to better lay out the
points so we know what to follow.”
%
Very effective
41
Somewhat effective
57
Neither effective nor ineffective
2
Somewhat ineffective
-
Very ineffective
-
Base:
23
Developing Guidance that is Clear and Easy to Understand
Q.13/14: How would you rate OSFI with respect to developing regulations and guidance that are clear and easy to understand?
Why do you offer that response?

Most participants find OSFI’s guidance clear and comprehensible.

Open-ended commentary in support of favourable impressions simply reiterates that OSFI’s guidance is clear.
–
“The issues may be complex, but they are well articulated by OSFI.”
–
“Don’t always agree on the content, but they are clear. Little confusion.”

The issue of principles-based regulation is raised again in response to this area of exploration. Some participants
observe that due to the principles-based nature of OSFI’s guidance, sometimes “clarity suffers”.

Where there is uncertainty, there is a perception that OSFI is approachable, responsive,
and willing to discuss the appropriate application of the guidance.
–
“Where the issuance of guidance generates questions, they generally publish a Q&A.”
–
“There are many consultations and there are seminars with the industry. Those combined
with the documents make it such that in the end we are at ease with what is there.”
%
Very Good
26
Good
58
Fair
14
Poor
2
Very Poor
-
Base:
24
Responding to Questions Concerning Regulations and Guidance
Q15/16: Overall, how would you rate OSFI with respect to responding to questions your company has brought forward
concerning OSFI regulations and guidance? Why do you offer that response?

Nine of the participants did not provide a response to this area of exploration, some of whom report that they
simply have had no questions for OSFI or that they do not have sufficient direct interaction with OSFI (i.e., other
individuals within a company would be responsible for contacting OSFI) to bring forward questions.

There is a contingent who have strongly positive views of OSFI in this area. Positive comments tend to focus on
OSFI’s responsiveness and willingness to engage in dialogue:

–
“Sometimes guidelines are not clear because they are written for the industry. OSFI will respond to questions
by attempting to understand our organization and the marketplace.”
–
“Don’t like the answers always, but they have a good relationship with the industry.”
–
“We always get answers when we call. We have quick access to their experts.”
Those who provide “fair” or “poor“ responses are disparate in their evaluations:
–
Several indicate that they feel that OSFI takes a “one-size fits all” approach in its feedback to companies not
taking into account company-specific issues that may be faced in attempting to adapt regulations and
guidance.
–
Several identify concerns that the inexperience of the RMs makes it difficult for them to provide a nuanced
response to questions. Instead, the responses are often simply a reiteration of the guidance.

“They simply go back to reading the guidance. I think it is the fear factor
due to lack of expertise.”
%
Very Good
48
Good
20
Fair
26
Poor
6
Very Poor
-
Base:
25
Communication of Expectations Regarding Corporate Governance Guideline
Q.17/18: How effective has OSFI been in communicating its expectations to the Life insurance industry regarding corporate
governance (e.g., as set out in the Guideline; as communicated via presentations and training following the release of the
Guideline)? Why do you offer that response?

A number of participants have not provided feedback to this area of exploration. In some cases, this is because
they represent a branch and feel that due to the limited applicability of the guidance to their entities they could
not provide nuanced responses. In other cases, the reason was a lack of knowledge specifically about this
guidance.

Those providing positive responses focused on a number of themes:

–
Overall, the communications regarding the guidance are viewed as having been proactive;
–
OSFI has taken into account industry feedback in the final guidance;
–
Expectations were made clear both in the lead-up to dissemination of the draft guidance and in the final
guideline; and,
–
OSFI conducted a number of seminars/meetings which were helpful in the lead-up to introduction of the
guideline.
While the focus of the question was OSFI’s effectiveness in communicating expectations, some concerns about
the substance of the guidance itself have been raised with these comments reflecting a number of themes:
–
A number raise concerns that the guideline is too theoretical in nature and does not reflect a sufficiently
good understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of management and board members in
Canada;
–
Some express concern that the guidance is too intrusive in determining how boards and management
interact; and,
–
Some small companies, in particular, find the guidance challenging to interpret and apply to their companies.
%
Very effective
29
Somewhat effective
47
19
5
Very ineffective
-
Base:
26
Communicating Expectations Regarding Company Requirements for Quantitative Impact
Studies (QIS)
Q.19/20: Between 2011 and 2013, OSFI requested several Quantitative Impact Studies (QIS) from Canadian Life insurance
companies in relation to developing a future standardized approach for regulatory capital requirements. How effective was
OSFI in communicating its expectations regarding what was required by your company to complete the Quantitative Impact
Studies? Why do you offer that response?

Evaluations of OSFI’s effectiveness in communicating its expectations regarding the QIS are generally positive.
–

Many indicate that they see the value of the QIS exercises and their importance in driving the MCCSR changes.
–

Positive evaluations appear stronger among larger companies compared to small companies.
A number of participants have commented that there has been constructive dialogue with OSFI in order to
improve the process moving into the fifth QIS.
Some observe that the process has improved significantly and that the QIS instructions and OSFI’s expectations
have become much clearer.
–
Some of these companies appreciate that OSFI has produced and published Q&A documents for QIS #5 in
response to queries raised by the industry. A few also mention the benefits of the examples that OSFI has
provided in the Q&A documents and seminars.

However, on the issue of clarity, perceptions are not consistent. A number of companies (both large and small)
note that instructions associated with QIS give rise to many questions – so in that regard, perceptions among
some are that OSFI’s expectations are not particularly clear.

QIS is perceived to be a time-consuming and resource intensive undertaking. For this reason, there is frustration
among some about the timing of QIS #5. Some request that OSFI adjust the timing of these studies so that they
do not coincide with year-end.
%
Very effective
34
Somewhat effective
53
5
8
Very ineffective
-
Base:
27
Responding to Questions or Requests for Information Regarding QIS
Q.21/22: How would you rate OSFI with respect to responding to questions or requests for information regarding the QIS? Why
do you offer that response?

A number of participants do not provide evaluations of OSFI on this issue. In many cases, this is because they had
neither questions nor a need for information related to QIS. A further few because they have not participated in
QIS.

Most of those with an opinion on this issue evaluate OSFI positively.
–
OSFI is seen to respond promptly; and,
–
OSFI is perceived to be open to discussion related to issues raised when questions are brought forward.
%
Very Good
24
Good
62
Fair
14
Poor
-
Very Poor
-
Base:
28
Proposed Improvements to Communications Regarding QIS
Q.23: What could OSFI do to improve its communication with your company regarding the QIS?

Responses to this area of inquiry are varied.

In addressing this question, a number of participants reiterate that the QIS process has improved.

A number of participants would like to see OSFI change the timing of the QIS. With the most recent QIS study
submissions due on January 31, 2014, some companies feel that it puts undue stress on companies.
–
–
Often linked to timing, smaller companies feel that QIS places significant pressure on their resources.

“Also, with regards to timing, year end isn’t great. It adds additional, unnecessary stress during year end
and reporting which means that we are putting ourselves at risk.”

OSFI should take into account the industry’s time constraints in the establishing of the deadline to submit
results. A January or February deadline poses a problem for smaller companies.”
One participant suggests that smaller companies should not be required to complete the QIS, but be given
the opportunity to comment.

It is believed that OSFI could improve the QIS process if it provided more context about how OSFI will be viewing
and using the results. Companies will then be better able to judge the way in which they should be delivering the
information.

Some participants recommend that instructions and templates for the QIS should be sent out in advance of the
study. This is seen as providing two benefits:

–
It would provide an opportunity for early detection of potential changes that may need to be made (e.g., to
templates). A few participants note that corrections made during the QIS process can make the process
even more challenging.
–
It would allow companies to prepare in advance.
Some would like OSFI to report back to the industry on the results.
29
Communications Regarding Internal Capital Ratio for Insurance Companies (Current A-4)
Guideline
Q.26/27: How would you rate the quality of OSFI’s communication with your company concerning the current A-4 Guideline:
Internal Target Capital Ratio for Insurance Companies (e.g., responding to requests for information or interpretation of the
guideline, providing feedback on the process developed by your company)? Why do you offer that response?

This is an area of exploration on which opinion is somewhat divided.
–
Smaller companies are more likely to hold highly positive perceptions of OSFI on this issue.

Much of the commentary does not focus on the communications, but rather on ease of interpretation of the
Guideline itself.

Some evaluate OSFI positively on this issue because they found no difficulty in applying the Guideline.
–

If questions have arisen about interpretation among those who evaluate OSFI positively, there is a perception
that exchanges with OSFI have been constructive and helpful.
By contrast, a number of participants feel that the Guideline is unclear.
–
This group of participants feels that an excessive amount of time has been required to understand and
conform to OSFI ‘s expectations.
%
Very Good
14
Good
58
Fair
11
Poor
14
Very Poor
3
Base:
30
OSFI Strengths: Approvals
Overall Satisfaction with OSFI in Processing Applications
Q.33/Q.34: What is your overall level of satisfaction with OSFI in processing applications from your company? Why do you offer
that response?

Fourteen participants do not provide an answer to this question because their company has not had a recent
approval or they personally have not been exposed directly to OSFI’s approvals process.

Among those with an opinion, there is strong positive feedback about OSFI’s processing of their applications. This
is an area in which impressions of OSFI are particularly positive.

Overall, larger companies are more likely than smaller companies to provide positive commentary regarding
OSFI’s processing of applications. (Those with more negative evaluations tend to be smaller companies.)
–
The larger companies view OSFI as timely and responsive in the processing of approvals.
–
Some of the smaller companies comment that the approval process is slow.
–
Several smaller companies indicate that, in processing applications, OSFI asks questions which demonstrate a
lack of understanding about the company and the nature of the approval submission. This concern is not
shared by the larger companies.
%
Very satisfied
60
Somewhat satisfied
30
3
4
Very dissatisfied
3
Base:
31
How Well OSFI Application Decisions are Understood
Q.35/36: How well do you understand the basis on which OSFI makes decisions about your company’s applications? Why do you
offer that response?

Among those with an opinion, the majority of companies report that they understand the basis on which OSFI
makes decisions about the company’s applications.
–
The commentary from the smaller companies on this area of investigation suggests that the participants do
not always agree with the basis on which OSFI makes decisions, but that they understand the criteria used to
assess the application.
%
Very well
48
Somewhat well
26
Neither well nor poorly
10
Somewhat poorly
16
Very poorly
Base:
-
32
Incidence of Requests for Regulatory Approval and Perceived Responsiveness of OSFI to
Requests for Status Updates on Applications
Q37: Has your company made a request for a regulatory approval or ruling in the past 1-2 years?

Almost one-half of participants report that their company has not made a request for a regulatory approval or
ruling in the past 1-2 years. As such, their opinions were not sought in further exploration about the approvals
process.
%
Yes
52
No
48
Base:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinking about request(s) for a regulatory approval or ruling your company has submitted in the past 1-2 years, how would you
rate OSFI with respect to…
Q.38/Q.39: Responding to your company’s requests for updates on the status of applications?
Why do you offer that response?
Q.40/41: Providing an opportunity for your institution to discuss issues of concern with OSFI prior to OSFI coming to a
conclusion? Why do you offer that response?

The vast majority of those who have made a request and have an opinion on this topic are satisfied with OSFI’s
responsiveness to requests for updates.

As previously mentioned, the larger companies express satisfaction with the responsiveness of OSFI.

Some smaller companies note a lack of timeliness with regard to OSFI’s responsiveness to their company’s
requests for updates.

About the same proportion also believe OSFI is “very good” or “good” at providing an opportunity for discussion,
prior to coming to a conclusion.
Q.38: THOSE WHO HAVE MADE A REQUEST
FOR A REGULATORY APPROVAL OR RULING
IN PAST 1-2 YEARS AND HAVE AN OPINION
Q.40: THOSE WHO HAVE MADE A REQUEST
FOR A REGULATORY APPROVAL OR RULING
IN PAST 1-2 YEARS AND HAVE AN OPINION
Very Good
58
Very Good
60
Good
16
Good
20
Fair
21
Fair
15
Poor
5
Poor
5
Very Poor
-
Very Poor
-
Base: Those who have made a request
and offered an opinion (n=19)
Base: Those who have made a request and
offered an opinion (n=20)
33
OSFI’s Overall Effectiveness in Processing Applications Compared to a Few Years Ago
Q.42/Q.43: Compared to a few years ago, would you say that OSFI’s overall effectiveness in processing applications from your
company is now … ? Why do you offer that response?

Over half of participants did not provide a response to this question.

Participants report positive perceptions of OSFI’s overall effectiveness in processing applications compared to a
few years ago.

Frequently, those who evaluate OSFI’s performance as, “the same as a few years ago” observe that OSFI was also
effective several years ago, and in that vein, “same” is a positive rating.
%
Much more effective
13
Somewhat more effective
56
The same
31
Base:
Somewhat less effective
-
Much less effective
-
34
OSFI Strengths: Supervision
OSFI’s Overall Effectiveness in Monitoring and Supervising Institutions
Q.44/45: Overall, how effective do you think OSFI is in monitoring and supervising your company? Why do you offer that
response?

The vast majority of participants believe OSFI to be effective in monitoring and supervising their company.
–
There are no major differences between large and small institutions.

Positive feedback focuses on regular contact and communication from Relationship Managers.

Commentary suggests that OSFI pays close attention to the results and operations of institutions. OSFI is cited as
knowledgeable and on top of important issues, and is also viewed as exercising common sense.

Frustrations, however, are expressed about Relationship Manager turnover.
–
This commentary tends to come from smaller institutions.
–
Participants find the lack of continuity in supervisory staff disruptive.
–
Related to this issue, some express frustration about the level of knowledge of RMs.
%
Very effective
34
Somewhat effective
54
10
Base:
-
Very ineffective
2
35
Providing an Opportunity to Discuss Issues of Concern in the Supervisory Process
Q.46/47: How would you rate OSFI with respect to providing an opportunity for your company to discuss issues of concern with
OSFI prior to OSFI coming to a conclusion? Why do you offer that response?

Most participants rate OSFI as ‘very good/good’ at providing an opportunity for dialogue.

Providing an opportunity to talk is perceived by many to be a strength of OSFI’s.

Negative commentary underscores the importance companies place on having a verbal discussion with OSFI prior
to receiving the written review.
%
Very Good
35
Good
38
Fair
17
Poor
10
Very Poor
Base:
-
36
Written Correspondence – Clarity, Timeliness and Consistency with Oral Communications
How would you rate OSFI with respect to:
Q.48: The clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence (e.g., Management Reports and Supervisory Letters) outlining issues of
concern?
Q.49: The timeliness of OSFI’s written correspondence (e.g., Management reports and Supervisory Letters) outlining issues
of concern?
Q.50: Consistency between OSFI’s written and oral communications?

OSFI’s written correspondence is generally viewed as clear, timely and consistent with oral communications.

When asked how communications could be improved, only one issue emerges as a theme, although it is
mentioned by relatively few institutions:
–

Some feel that the written letters go beyond what is discussed with an institution during the review process.
A few participants suggest that it would be valuable if companies had the opportunity to review the Supervisory
Letter in advance of it being finalized in order to discuss any issues of concern with OSFI.
Q.48
%
Q.49
%
Q.50
%
Very Good
46
32
50
Good
47
53
30
Fair
7
15
20
Poor
-
-
-
Very Poor
-
-
-
(n=41)
(n=40)
(n=40)
THOSE WITH AN OPINION
Base:
Those with an opinion
37
Opportunities for Improvement in Oral and Written Communications
Q.51: How could OSFI’s oral and written communications be improved?

All participants were invited to provide suggestions for ways in which OSFI’s oral and written communications
could be improved.

The open-ended commentary suggests that many participants do not feel there is any need for improvement
here.

However, those who do have suggestions tend to focus on the issue of inconsistency between written and oral
communications:
–
Although the numbers are few, some observe that it is important that there be no surprises in the written
reports.
–
Further, some suggest that once OSFI commits its review to writing, it will not be changed. As such it is very
important that there be consistency between the written report and the conversations that preceded it.
38
V.
Impressions of OSFI Staff
39
Impressions of OSFI Staff: Relationship Managers
Impressions of Relationship Manager Knowledge
How would you rate the knowledge level of your OSFI Relationship Manager in the following areas?
Q.53: Legislation, OSFI guidelines, regulatory policy and supervisory practices
Q.54: Life insurance sector issues and risks
Q.55: Your company

Six of the consultation participants report that they have not had contact with an RM in the past year.

Many of the remaining companies offer positive comments about their Relationship Manager.
–
In particular, large companies report that their RMs have a strong knowledge of the industry and the
companies for which they are responsible.

However, it appears that positive impressions of RMs are more muted among smaller institutions than among
larger institutions. The concern is that the RM does not necessarily have a strong grasp of the company and this is
often attributed to the short tenure of the RM, and the extent of turnover of RMs.

It should be noted that most of those expressing frustrations about their RM attribute the RM’s limited
knowledge of the company not to RM competency, but to tenure in their engagement with the company.
–
A number of participants suggest that it takes several years (at least) for an RM to fully grasp the intricacies of
most insurance companies. As such, frequent turnover makes it difficult to have in-depth knowledge of a
company.
Q.53
%
Q.54
%
Q.55
%
Very Good
47
39
42
Good
33
39
28
Fair
14
17
25
Poor
6
5
5
Very Poor
-
-
-
Q.53-55: THOSE WITH AN OPINION
Base:
Those who have dealt with RM in past
year and offered an opinion
(n=36)
(n=36)
(n=36)
40
Recommendations for Improvement in Relationship Manager Knowledge
Q.56: Thinking about the knowledge of your Relationship Manager what, if anything, do you believe needs to be improved?

Consistent with the overall positive ratings of RMs, there are a number of comments suggesting general
satisfaction with RM knowledge.

The bulk of recommendations focused on the need to reduce RM turnover. Again, this recommendation was
most often expressed by small companies.

A limited number of participants offered suggestions for how RMs could improve their knowledge.
–
One suggestion offered by a number of participants is for some RMs to obtain a deeper understanding of the
insurance sector. Some feel that their RMs have come from banking backgrounds and require a greater
depth of knowledge of insurance issues in order to be more effective in their role.
41
Efforts of Relationship Manager in Coordinating the Activities of OSFI’s Supervisory Teams
Q.57/Q58: How would you rate the efforts of your Relationship Manager in coordinating the activities of OSFI’s specialist teams
such as those dealing with credit, capital markets, anti-money laundering, compliance, operational risks, actuarial matters or
corporate governance? Why do you offer that response?

Fourteen of the companies that have had dealings with an RM in the past year have not provided feedback in
response to this area of exploration because they report that there has been little, if any, need for the RM to
coordinate activities with the specialist support groups.

Most of the remaining participants with an opinion have positive impressions of their Relationship Manager’s
efforts in coordinating the activities of OSFI’s specialist support groups.

Open-ended commentary suggests that:
–
RMs are responsive where there is a need to engage specialist support groups on an issue;
–
Further, many speak to the RM’s ability to ensure that the appropriate people from OSFI are brought
together to address issues that may arise.
%
Very good
42
Good
37
Fair
21
Poor
-
Very Poor
-
Base:
42
Impressions of OSFI Staff: Specialist Support Groups
Awareness of, and Interaction with Specialist Groups
Q.59: Please indicate whether you are aware of the following OSFI specialist support groups and which of these groups you
have dealt with over the past 12 months?

Almost all participants report that they are aware of the Actuarial Division.

Awareness of other specialist support groups is lower. In particular, awareness of the Capital Markets Risk
Assessment Services (CMRAS), Risk, Surveillance, and Analytics Division (RSA) and Risk Measurement and
Analytics Assessment Services (RMAAS) appears to be weakest.

Smaller institutions are consistently less likely to report awareness of the specialist support groups explored in
the consultation.

Interaction with any of the support groups explored appears to be limited, with the exception of the actuarial
division. Most companies report some dealings with this division in the past year.

Some participants believe it is likely that they have dealt with some of these specialty support groups but simply
do not recognize the titles used in the interview guide.
%
Aware
%
Dealt with in past
year
Actuarial Division
93
64
Corporate Governance Division (CGD)
68
30
AML and Compliance Division (AMLC)
68
27
Operational Risk Division (ORD)
57
30
Credit Risk Division (CRD)
48
21
Capital Markets Risk Assessment Services (CMRAS)
41
14
Risk, Surveillance, and Analytics Division (RSA)
41
18
41
18
Risk Measurement and Analytics
Assessment Services (RMAAS)
Base: Those with an opinion (n=44)
43
Overall Satisfaction with OSFI Specialist Support Groups
Q.60/Q.61: Overall, how satisfied are you with the OSFI specialist support groups you have dealt with in the past 12 months?
Why do you provide that response?

Eighteen participants did not provide an opinion with respect to dealing with specialty groups, with most
reporting that they simply have not had direct or recent dealings with any of the groups identified.

Most of those with an opinion report that they are satisfied with the OSFI specialist support groups they have
dealt with over the past 12 months, although satisfaction levels appear more likely to fall into the “somewhat”
satisfied category than “very satisfied”.

The evaluations provided are often focused on the Actuarial Division, as this is the group with which most with an
opinion report having had dealings in the past 12 months.
–
The one theme that emerges in commentary about the Actuarial Division is their level of expertise:


There is no further consistency to the feedback about specialist support groups. Issues raised by at least a few
participants include:
–
There is concern that a lack of experience among more junior staff has negative implications for companies in
that it leads to unnecessary work for a company, or assumptions about how guidance should be applied
which are not in line with a company’s characteristics.

Base:
“A good level of competence, expertise and experience. We have good contacts and exchanges with
these folks because of their knowledge and experience.”
“Marks for the special support group would be more variable because of variable skill level across
industry sectors. Lack of experience can result in individuals not knowing what they are looking for which
causes us to spend more time than is necessary.”
–
A few suggest that specialist support groups take a “one-size-fits all” approach.
–
A few report frustration with the slow response by some specialist groups.
%
Very Satisfied
31
Somewhat Satisfied
54
11
4
Very Dissatisfied
-
Those who dealt with at least one specialist support
group and who offered an opinion (n=26)
44
Recommendations for Improvement among OSFI Specialist Support Groups
Q.62: Thinking about your dealings with OSFI’s specialist support groups, what, if anything, do you believe needs to be
improved?

The comments here are limited, and disparate.
–
Fewer than half of participants provide a comment.
–
These non-responses are in part driven by a lack of contact with specialist support groups.

Other participants had no suggested improvements to offer.

There is no consistency in the improvements that are suggested.
45
Impressions of OSFI Staff: Capacity to Interact In Official Language of
Choice
Satisfaction with OSFI’s Capacity to Interact in Official Language of Choice
Q.70: Thinking about your dealings with OSFI’s staff on any supervisory or regulatory matter, how satisfied are you with OSFI’s
capacity to interact with you in the official language of your choice (i.e., English or French)?
Q71: Which of the following are areas in which you are dissatisfied?
Q.72: Please explain why you are dissatisfied.

Almost all participants report that they are very satisfied with OSFI’s capacity to interact in the official language of
their choice.

Open-ended commentary suggests that satisfaction on this measure is dependent on providing bilingual
representation across not only the Relationship Managers but also the specialist support groups.

As only those who had negative perceptions of OSFI’s capacity here were asked to provide reasons
for their opinion, there is insufficient sample to support analysis of open-ended commentary.
%
Very Satisfied
88
Somewhat Satisfied
10
2
-
Very Dissatisfied
-
Base:
46
VI.
Opportunities for Improvement and
Broader Sector-Related Concerns
47
Opportunities for Improvement: Regulations and Guidance
Responding in Timely Manner to Market Changes and Industry Suggestions
Q.7/Q.8: How would you rate OSFI with respect to responding in a timely manner to market changes or to industry suggestions
that regulations and guidance need updating? Why do you offer that response?

OSFI’s rating are comparatively much weaker on this measure, with large companies tending to drive these more
muted evaluations.

Among those holding positive impressions, a number feel that OSFI has been timely in responding to, and
addressing global regulatory initiatives (e.g., development of ORSA and an updated corporate governance
guideline).

A number of those who evaluate OSFI less positively find that OSFI has been slow to respond to input from the
industry or has been slow to release guidance on certain issues. Examples given are:
–
Release of the ORSA guidance;
–
Clarity regarding OSFI’s position on capital requirements for segregated fund guarantees; and,
–
Completion of the capital regime review.

Some smaller institutions observe that while OSFI may be slow to produce guidance or respond to industry
concerns, OSFI nonetheless expects institutions to then implement changes rapidly once OSFI takes a position.
This is perceived to place a disproportionally heavy burden on smaller institutions that may not have the same
depth of resources that larger companies do.

There is allowance made by some for what they perceive to be OSFI’s slowness in responding to market changes.
They acknowledge that the complexity of an issue, or the requirement to obtain stakeholder views sometimes
contributes to that slowness.
%
Very Good
14
Good
34
Fair
52
Poor
-
Very Poor
-
Base:
48
Perceptions of Consultation Process for Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) E-19
Guideline
Q.28/29: Overall, how satisfied are you with the consultative process OSFI has followed to date in the development of Guideline
E-19: Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)? Why do you offer that response?

A number of participants have not provided a response to this line of inquiry. The reasons given are that the
participant’s company was not engaged in the consultation process or that their company is not affected by ORSA.

While the consultation process is the focus of the question, a number of participants provide a response that
focuses on the timing of the release of the guidance.
–
The interviews for this consultation were undertaken over 4 months (September through December 2013).
Only a few of the interviews were conducted after the ORSA Guideline was released.
–
Some complain about the guidance only being released at the end of 2013, yet companies are expected to
have put ORSA in place beginning in January 2014.

Some of the positive commentary focuses on the process used to inform Life insurance companies regarding
OSFI’s expectations for ORSA. Seminars, presentations and webcasts are all mentioned as effective means
employed by OSFI to engage the industry.

Some of those who provided a more neutral evaluation report that they do not believe that OSFI had yet
provided feedback from the consultation process.
%
Very satisfied
14
Somewhat satisfied
46
31
6
Very dissatisfied
3
Base:
49
Developing Regulations and Guidance that Strike an Appropriate Balance
Q.9/Q.10: How would you rate OSFI with respect to developing regulations and guidance that strike an appropriate balance
between prudential considerations and the need for companies to compete? Why do you offer that response?

Overall impressions of OSFI in this area of exploration tend towards the moderate rather than the positive.

Positive perceptions are often linked to OSFI’s efforts to consult with the industry on issues including capital
requirements (e.g., QIS and MCCSR capital ratios).

Among those with more moderate to negative opinions, a number of issues are identified:
–
Smaller companies express frustration regarding what are perceived to be ever-increasing capital
requirements. These requirements are viewed as having a disproportionately negative effect on the ability of
smaller companies to compete in the Canadian marketplace.

This suggests to some that OSFI is taking a “one-size-fits all” approach to regulation and that, in doing so,
it is failing to address effectively the need for “proportionality” when applying guidance.
–
Some small companies also suggest that the level of regulation (or over-regulation) is making it more difficult
for smaller entities to enter into and/or survive in the current marketplace.
–
Across both large and small companies, there is concern that OSFI is adopting international regulatory
initiatives without taking into consideration whether they are an appropriate fit in the Canadian framework.
This issue arises throughout the consultation, not solely in response to this particular question.

–
Some suggest that OSFI is attempting to be seen as a leader among international regulatory bodies
which in part means implementing regulations and guidance in advance of other jurisdictions. Canadian
companies are believed to be at risk of being disadvantaged internationally as a result.
Some believe that unnecessarily high capital requirements imposed by OSFI are negatively affecting the
ability of Canadian Life insurance companies to develop and offer a broader range of products.

A few participants take this concern one step further, suggesting that a limited product environment has
the potential to introduce a measure of risk into the marketplace.
%
Very good
12
Good
26
Fair
52
Poor
10
Very poor
Base:
-
50
Opportunities for Improvement: Looking Forward
Being Proactive in Dealing With Emerging Issues
Q.63/Q.64: How would you rate OSFI with respect to how proactive it is in dealing with emerging issues pertaining to the Life
insurance sector? Why do you offer that response?

Impressions of OSFI’s proactivity in dealing with emerging issues are muted relative to other areas in this
consultation.

Small companies, more than large, hold favourable impressions of OSFI on this issue.

Positive views of OSFI are in part driven by the perception that the regulator is well informed about issues, both
as a result of consultation with Canadian industry stakeholders and through participation in international
regulatory bodies. This allows OSFI to be proactive.

Some who see OSFI as doing a fair job believe OSFI is reacting to international regulatory initiatives and allowing
them to drive its regulatory agenda, assuming that international approaches are appropriate for the Canadian Life
insurance industry.

A number pinpoint OSFI’s response to the issue of segregated fund guarantees as an example of being reactive
rather than proactive.
Base:
Q. 63: THOSE WITH AN
OPINION
%
Very Good
29
Good
32
Fair
34
Poor
5
Very Poor
-
51
VII.
Communication of International
Activities and Representation of
Canadian Interests Internationally
52
International Activities
Effectiveness in Communicating International Activities and Developments
Q.66: How effective is OSFI in communicating international activities and developments to the Life insurance sector? Why do
you offer that response?
Q.67: Moving forward, what is the best way for OSFI to communicate international developments to your institution?

Many of the insurance companies report an interest in receiving information about international activities and
developments in the sector.

There is a perception among some that OSFI is providing this information effectively, particularly through its email
updates and through presentations, seminars and conferences which it sponsors or in which it participates.

Commentary on this issue suggests that the industry is looking for OSFI to provide this type of information, but
may not be aware of the means by which OSFI is communicating this information.
–

Some of the participants who are less positive about OSFI’s current effectiveness suggest that OSFI should
hold regular updates or produce regular bulletins to keep the industry informed of developments.
There is a small contingent who seek this type of information from the CLHIA or other sources and do not expect
to this type of information to come from OSFI.
%
Very Effective
5
Somewhat Effective
57
Neither Effective Nor Ineffective
27
Somewhat Ineffective
11
Very Ineffective
Base:
-
53
International Activities
OSFI’s Effectiveness in Representing Canadian Financial Services Industry in International
Fora
Q.68/Q.69: How effective do you believe OSFI is in representing the interests of the Canadian financial services industry in
international fora (e.g., International Association of Insurance Supervisors, International Accounting Standards Board, Joint
Forum)?

Among those with an opinion, most believe OSFI effectively represents the interests of the Canadian financial
services industry in international fora.

Those with positive impressions believe that OSFI is well respected internationally. Further, participants hold the
impression that OSFI “has a voice” at the international table and is considered to be a leader.

Those who have more muted impressions of OSFI on this issue cite a number of issues, although none is cited by
more than several participants:
–
OSFI has not effectively represented Life insurance companies on the issue of IFRS.
–
OSFI is seen to follow international regulator initiatives.
–
It is not OSFI’s role.
Q. 68: THOSE WITH AN
OPINION
%
Very Effective
22
Somewhat Effective
50
Neither Effective Nor Ineffective
12
Somewhat Ineffective
16
Very Ineffective
Base:
-
54
VIII.
Appendix A: Interview Guides
(English and French)
55
Life Insurance Sector Consultation (LISC)
2013
56
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Part 1: Overall Impressions
4
Part 2: Regulations and Guidance
5
Part 3: Approvals
11
Part 4: Supervision
13
Part 5: Emerging Issues and Looking Forward
17
Part 6: International Activities
18
Part 7: Final Comments
19
57
Introduction
The Strategic Counsel has been retained by OSFI to conduct this
survey with senior executives of Life insurance companies and their
professional advisors.
Since 1998, OSFI has commissioned consultations with senior
members of the financial community and their professional
advisors to obtain their assessment of its effectiveness as a
supervisor and regulator. OSFI is committed to monitoring how
well it is achieving its strategic objectives, both to be accountable
to stakeholders and to help improve effectiveness. It is for these
reasons that we are asking your company to participate in this
research.
You can be assured that The Strategic Counsel, as an independent
third party, will hold your comments in strict confidence. OSFI will
not know who was interviewed or what specific companies have
said about it.
As a standard industry practice, The Strategic Counsel has put in
place secure communication and usage procedures to ensure that
confidentiality is maintained at all times.
The Strategic Counsel will provide OSFI with a full report
aggregating the findings from this survey, which will be
posted on OSFI’s website.
58
Part 1 - Overall Impressions
1. Overall, how satisfied are you with OSFI as the principal prudential regulator and supervisor of
Canada’s financial services industry?
Very
Dissatisfied
1
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
2
Neither Satisfied
nor Dissatisfied
3
Somewhat
Satisfied
4
Very
Satisfied
5
Don’t Know
9
2. Why do you offer that response?
3. How would you rate OSFI’s performance in terms of contributing to public confidence in
Canada’s financial services industry? Is OSFI’s performance ...?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
5. How would you rate OSFI on the extent to which OSFI focuses on the appropriate areas of risk
in the Life insurance sector?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
59
Part 2 – Regulations and Guidance
From time to time, OSFI develops Regulations and Guidance for companies in the Life
insurance sector.
7. How would you rate OSFI with respect to responding in a timely manner to market changes or
to industry suggestions that regulations and guidance need updating?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
9. How would you rate OSFI with respect to developing regulations and guidance that strike an
appropriate balance between prudential considerations and the need for institutions to compete?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
60
11. Overall, how effective do you think OSFI’s guidance is in providing an indication of OSFI’s
expectations?
Very
Ineffective
1
Somewhat
Ineffective
2
Neither Effective
nor Ineffective
3
Somewhat
Effective
4
Very
Effective
5
Don’t Know
9
13. How would you rate OSFI with respect to developing regulations and guidance that are clear
and easy to understand?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
15. Overall, how would you rate OSFI with respect to responding to questions your company has
brought forward concerning OSFI regulations and guidance?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
Not
Applicable
99
61
In January 2013, OSFI introduced a revised Guideline on Corporate Governance. This
Guideline had not been reviewed or updated since its original publication in 2003. The
revised guideline sets out OSFI’s expectations with respect to corporate governance at
federally-regulated financial institutions.
17. How effective has OSFI been in communicating its expectations to the Life insurance industry
regarding corporate governance (e.g. as set out in the Guideline; as communicated via
presentations and training following the release of the Guideline)?
Very
Ineffective
1
Somewhat
Ineffective
2
Neither Effective
nor Ineffective
3
Somewhat
Effective
4
Very
Effective
5
Don’t Know
9
The next set of questions (19-25) focus specifically on activities and guidance relating to
Capital matters.
Between 2011 and 2013, OSFI requested several Quantitative Impact Studies (QIS) from
Canadian Life insurance companies in relation to developing a future standardized
approach for regulatory capital requirements.
19. How effective was OSFI in communicating its expectations regarding what was required by
your company to complete the Quantitative Impact Studies?
Very
Ineffective
1
Somewhat
Ineffective
2
Neither
Effective nor
Ineffective
3
Somewhat
Effective
4
Very
Effective
5
Don’t Know
9
Not
Applicable
99
62
21. How would you rate OSFI with respect to responding to questions or requests for information
regarding the QIS?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
Not
Applicable
99
23. What could OSFI do to improve its communication with your company regarding the QIS?
24. Overall, how satisfied are you that OSFI is focussing on the appropriate capital-related issues?
Very
Dissatisfied
1
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
2
Neither Satisfied
nor Dissatisfied
3
Somewhat
Satisfied
4
Very
Satisfied
5
Don’t Know
9
63
The next two questions focus on OSFI’s communication and interaction with Life insurance
companies specifically as it relates to the existing (current) June 2011 A-4 Guideline:
Internal Target Capital Ratio for Insurance Companies (and not the December 2012 draft
version for comment).
26. How would you rate the quality of OSFI’s communication with your company concerning the
current A-4 Guideline: Internal Target Capital Ratio for Insurance Companies (e.g.,
responding to requests for information or interpretation of the guideline, providing feedback on the
process developed by your company)?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
In December 2012, OSFI issued a Draft Guideline, E-19: Own Risk and Solvency Assessment
(ORSA), for comment by the insurance sector.
28. Overall, how satisfied are you with the consultative process OSFI has followed to date in the
development of Guideline E-19: Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)?
Very
Dissatisfied
1
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
2
Neither Satisfied
nor Dissatisfied
3
Somewhat
Satisfied
4
Very
Satisfied
5
Don’t Know
9
64
NOTE: NEXT TWO QUESTIONS TO BE APPLIED ONLY IF E-19 FINAL GUIDANCE AND
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK IS RELEASED PRIOR TO OR DURING SURVEY PROCESS.
OSFI received approximately 15 stakeholder submissions in response to draft Guideline E-19:
Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA). With the release of the final version of Guideline E19: Own Risk and Solvency Assessment, OSFI also included a summary of comments and an
explanation of how OSFI dealt with these issues in the final Guideline.
30. Were you aware that OSFI provided a summary of stakeholder comments and an explanation
of how OSFI dealt with these issues in the final Guideline?
 Yes  No
31. Thinking about the final Guideline E-19: Own Risk and Solvency Assessment, how effective
has OSFI been in communicating its expectations to the industry regarding Own Risk and
Solvency Assessment (ORSA) as set out in Guideline E-19?
Very
Ineffective
1
Somewhat
Ineffective
2
Neither
Effective nor
Ineffective
3
Somewhat
Effective
4
Very
Effective
5
Don’t Know
9
Not
Applicable
99
65
Part 3 – Approvals
As you know, the Superintendent, and in some cases, the Minister of Finance, must
approve certain initiatives which companies in the Life insurance sector wish to take. The
following questions pertain to OSFI’s approvals process as it relates to your company.
33. What is your overall level of satisfaction with OSFI in processing applications from your
company?
Very
Dissatisfied

Somewhat
Dissatisfied

1
Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
2

3
Somewhat
Satisfied

4
Very
Satisfied

5
Don’t Know

9
Not
Applicable

99
35. How well do you understand the basis on which OSFI makes decisions about your company’s
applications?
Very Poorly

Somewhat
Poorly
1

2
Neither Well
nor Poorly

3
Somewhat
Well

4
Very
Well

5
Don’t Know

9
Not Applicable

99
36. If “very poorly”/”somewhat poorly”: why do you offer that response?
37. Has your company made a request for a regulatory approval or ruling in the past 1-2 years?
Yes
1
No
2
If no, go to question 44
66
Thinking about request(s) for a regulatory approval or ruling your company has submitted
in the past 1-2 years, how would you rate OSFI with respect to…….
38. Responding to your company’s requests for updates on the status of applications?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
Not Applicable
99
40. Providing an opportunity for your company to discuss issues of concern with OSFI prior to
OSFI coming to a conclusion?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
42. Compared to a few years ago, would you say that OSFI’s overall effectiveness in processing
applications from your company is now … ?
Much Less
Effective
1
Somewhat Less
Effective
2
The Same
3
Somewhat More
Effective
4
Much More
Effective
5
Don’t Know
9
67
Part 4 – Supervision
The following questions pertain to OSFI’s supervision as it relates to your company.
44. Overall, how effective do you think OSFI is in monitoring and supervising your company?
Very
Ineffective
1
Somewhat
Ineffective
2
Neither Effective
nor Ineffective
3
Somewhat
Effective
4
Very
Effective
5
Don’t Know
9
46. How would you rate OSFI with respect to providing an opportunity for your company to discuss
issues of concern with OSFI prior to OSFI coming to a conclusion?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
68
How would you rate OSFI with respect to ...
48. The clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence (e.g., Management Reports and Supervisory
Letters) outlining issues of concern?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
49. The timeliness of OSFI’s written correspondence (e.g., Management Reports and Supervisory
Letters) outlining issues of concern?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
50. Consistency between OSFI’s written and oral communications?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
51. How could OSFI’s oral and written communications be improved?
52. Have you had any dealings with your Relationship Manager over the past 12 months?

Yes

No
1
2
If you have not dealt with your Relationship Manager in the past 12 months, please skip to
Q. 59
69
How would you rate the knowledge level of your Relationship Manager in the following
areas?
53. Legislation, OSFI guidelines, regulatory policy and supervisory practices
Very Poor
1
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
Poor
2
54. Life insurance sector issues and risks
Very Poor
1
55. Your company
Very Poor
1
56. Thinking about the knowledge of your Relationship Manager what, if anything, do you believe
needs to be improved?
57. How would you rate the efforts of your Relationship Manager in coordinating the activities of
OSFI’s specialist teams such as those dealing with credit, capital markets, anti-money laundering,
compliance, operational risks, actuarial matters, or corporate governance?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Don’t Know
9
70
59. Please indicate whether you are aware of the following OSFI specialist support groups and
which of these groups you have dealt with over the past 12 months?
No, am not aware of
this group

Yes, am aware but
have not dealt with
in the past 12
months

Yes, have dealt with
in past 12 months

Operational Risk Division (ORD)



Credit Risk Division (CRD)



Corporate Governance Division (CGD)



Capital Markets Risk Assessment
Services (CMRAS)



Risk, Surveillance, and Analytics Division
(RSA)



Risk Measurement and Analytics
Assessment Services (RMAAS)



Actuarial Division



AML and Compliance Division (AMLC)
If you have not dealt with any of the specialist support groups in the past 12 months,
please skip to Q. 63
60. Overall, how satisfied are you with the OSFI specialist support groups you have dealt with over
the past 12 months?
Very dissatisfied
1
Somewhat
dissatisfied
2
Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
3
Somewhat
satisfied
4
Very satisfied
5
Don’t Know
9
71
62. Thinking about your dealings with OSFI’s specialist support groups, what, if anything, do you
believe needs to be improved?
72
Part 5 – Emerging Issues and Looking Forward
63. How would you rate OSFI with respect to how proactive it is in dealing with emerging issues
pertaining to the Life insurance sector?
Very Poor
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very
Good
5
Don’t Know
9
65. What one or two risk areas do you believe should be priorities for OSFI in the next couple of
years pertaining to companies in the Life insurance sector?
73
Part 6 – International Activities
66. How effective is OSFI in communicating international activities and developments to the Life
insurance sector?
Very
Ineffective

1
Somewhat
Ineffective

2
Neither Effective
nor Ineffective

3
Somewhat
Effective

4
Very
Effective

5
Don’t Know

9
67. Moving forward, what is the best way for OSFI to communicate international activities and
developments to your company?
68. How effective do you believe OSFI is in representing the interests of the Canadian financial
services industry in international fora (e.g., International Association of Insurance Supervisors,
International Accounting Standards Board, Joint Forum)?
Very
Ineffective
1
Somewhat
Ineffective
2
Neither Effective
nor Ineffective
3
Somewhat
Effective
4
Very
Effective
5
Don’t Know
9
74
Part 7 – Final Comments
70. Thinking about your dealings with OSFI’s staff on any supervisory or regulatory matter, how
satisfied are you with OSFI’s capacity to interact with you in the official language of your choice
(i.e., English or French)?
Very
Dissatisfied
1
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
2
Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
3
Somewhat
Satisfied
4
Very
Satisfied
5
Don’t Know
9
Not Applicable
99
If “very” or “somewhat” dissatisfied:
71. Which of the following are areas in which you are dissatisfied? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
a. OSFI’s capacity to speak to me in my official language of choice, e.g., in meetings,
over the phone.
b. OSFI’s capacity to write to me in my official language of choice, e.g., in emails, letters.
c. OSFI’s capacity to read materials I send to them in my official language of choice, e.g.,
institution-specific documents, letters.
d. None of the Above
72. Please explain why you are dissatisfied.
73. Are there any other comments or suggestions for improvements you would like to make
concerning the issues raised in this questionnaire, or concerning any other issues you feel are
particularly relevant at this time?
75
Consultation auprès du secteur
de l’assurance-vie (CSAV)
2013
76
TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Page
Partie 1 – Impressions globales
4
Partie 2 – Règlements et consignes
5
Partie 3 – Agréments
11
Partie 4 – Surveillance
13
Partie 5 – Nouveaux enjeux et regard vers l’avenir
17
Partie 6 – Activités internationales
18
Partie 7 – Observations finales
19
77
Introduction
Le BSIF a chargé le cabinet The Strategic Counsel de mener le présent
sondage auprès des cadres supérieurs des sociétés d’assurance-vie et de
leurs conseillers professionnels.
Depuis 1998, le BSIF commande des consultations auprès de dirigeants des
milieux financiers et de leurs conseillers professionnels pour s’enquérir de leur
opinion au sujet de son efficacité à titre d’organisme de réglementation et de
surveillance. Le BSIF s’est engagé à faire le point sur son rendement par
rapport à ses objectifs stratégiques de manière à pouvoir en rendre compte à
ses interlocuteurs et à accroître son efficacité. Voilà pourquoi nous sollicitons
la participation de votre société à ce sondage.
Nous vous assurons que The Strategic Counsel, à titre de tiers indépendant,
protégera la confidentialité de vos observations. Le BSIF ne saura pas qui a
participé au sondage ni quelles observations ont été faites par une société en
particulier.
Conformément à l’usage dans le domaine des enquêtes d’opinion, The
Strategic Counsel a adopté des procédures de communication et d’utilisation
sécurisées visant à préserver en tout temps la confidentialité de l’information
transmise.
The Strategic Counsel remettra au BSIF un rapport complet regroupant
les résultats du présent sondage, qui sera affiché sur le site Web de
l’organisme.
78
Partie 1 – Impressions globales
1. Dans l’ensemble, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait du BSIF en tant que principal
organisme de réglementation et de surveillance prudentielle du secteur des services financiers du
Canada?
Très insatisfait
1
Plutôt insatisfait
2
Ni satisfait ni
insatisfait
3
Plutôt satisfait
4
Très satisfait
5
Je ne sais pas
9
2. Veuillez expliquer votre réponse.
3.
Quelle cote donneriez-vous à la contribution du BSIF à la confiance que témoigne le public au
secteur canadien des services financiers?
Très faible
1
4.
5.
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Veuillez expliquer votre réponse.
Quelle cote attribueriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est de faire porter ses efforts sur les
facteurs de risque pertinents du secteur de l’assurance-vie?
Très faible
1
6.
Faible
2
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
79
Partie 2 – Règlements et consignes
Au besoin, le BSIF élabore des règlements et des consignes à l’intention des sociétés
d’assurance-vie.
7.
Quelle cote donneriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est de réagir en temps opportun aux
changements qui se produisent sur les marchés ou aux suggestions du secteur selon lesquelles
les règlements et les consignes ont besoin d’être mis à jour?
Très faible
1
8.
9.
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Quelle cote donneriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est d’élaborer des règlements et des
consignes qui permettent de trouver le juste équilibre entre les préoccupations d’ordre prudentiel
et la nécessité pour les institutions de faire face à la concurrence?
Très faible
1
10.
Faible
2
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
80
11.
Dans l’ensemble, dans quelle mesure estimez-vous que les consignes du BSIF sont un moyen
efficace de communiquer ses attentes?
Très inefficace
1
12.
13.
15.
Très efficace
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Quelle cote donneriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est d’établir des règlements et des consignes
qui sont clairs et faciles à comprendre?
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Dans l’ensemble, quelle cote donneriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est de répondre aux
questions de votre société sur les règlements et les consignes de l’organisme?
Très faible
1
16.
Plutôt efficace
4
Très faible
1
14.
Ni efficace ni
inefficace
3
Plutôt inefficace
2
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Sans objet
99
81
En janvier 2013, le BSIF a fait paraître une version révisée de la ligne directrice
Gouvernance d’entreprise. Cette ligne directrice n’avait pas été examinée ou révisée
depuis sa publication en 2003. La version révisée présente les attentes du BSIF à l’égard
de la gouvernance des institutions financières fédérales.
17.
Dans quelle mesure jugez-vous efficaces les efforts faits par le BSIF pour communiquer au
secteur de l’assurance-vie ses attentes relatives à la gouvernance d’entreprise (p. ex., telles que
les présente la ligne directrice ou telles qu’elles ont été exposées au cours de présentations ou de
formation après la publication de la ligne directrice)?
Très
inefficaces
1
18.
Plutôt
inefficaces
2
Ni efficaces ni
inefficaces
3
Plutôt efficaces
4
Très efficaces
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Les prochaines questions portent expressément sur les activités et les consignes en
matière de capital.
Entre 2011 et 2013, le BSIF a demandé aux sociétés canadiennes d’assurance-vie de
participer à plusieurs études d’impact quantitatives (EIQt) dans le but d’élaborer une
approche standard qui servirait à fixer des normes de capital réglementaire.
19.
Dans quelle mesure jugez-vous efficaces les efforts faits par le BSIF pour communiquer à
votre société la marche à suivre pour participer aux études d’impact quantitatives?
Très
inefficaces
1
20.
Plutôt
inefficaces
2
Ni efficaces ni
inefficaces
3
Plutôt
efficaces
4
Très efficaces
5
Je ne sais
pas
9
Sans objet
99
82
21.
Quelle cote donneriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est de répondre aux questions ou aux
demandes de renseignements sur les EIQt?
Très faible
1
22.
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Sans objet
99
23.
Que pourrait faire le BSIF pour améliorer la communication avec votre société concernant les
EIQt?
24.
Dans l’ensemble, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait du fait que le BSIF fait porter ses
efforts sur les aspects les plus pertinents du dossier du capital?
Très insatisfait
1
25.
Plutôt insatisfait
2
Ni satisfait ni
insatisfait
3
Plutôt satisfait
4
Très satisfait
5
Je ne sais pas
9
83
Les deux questions suivantes portent sur la communication et l’interaction du BSIF avec
les sociétés d’assurance-vie en ce qui a trait expressément à la ligne directrice A-4, Ratio
cible interne de capital des sociétés d’assurances, de juin 2011 dans sa forme actuelle (et
non à la version à l’étude de décembre 2012 soumise à vos commentaires).
26.
Quelle cote donneriez-vous à la qualité de la communication entre le BSIF et votre société au
sujet de la ligne directrice A-4, Ratio cible interne de capital des sociétés d’assurances,
dans sa forme actuelle (prenez en considération, par exemple, les réponses du BSIF aux
demandes de renseignements sur la ligne directrice ou d’interprétation de celle-ci et les
observations offertes sur le processus élaboré par votre société)?
Très faible
1
27.
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
En décembre 2012, le BSIF a soumis une version à l’étude de la ligne directrice E-19,
Évaluation interne des risques et de la solvabilité (dispositif ORSA) aux commentaires du
secteur des assurances.
28.
Dans l’ensemble, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait du processus de consultation suivi
par le BSIF au cours de l’élaboration de la ligne directrice E-19, Évaluation interne des risques et
de la solvabilité (dispositif ORSA)?
Très insatisfait
1
29.
Plutôt insatisfait
2
Ni satisfait ni
insatisfait
3
Plutôt satisfait
4
Très satisfait
5
Je ne sais pas
9
84
NOTA : LES DEUX QUESTIONS SUIVANTES NE S’APPLIQUERONT QUE SI LA VERSION FINALE DE
LA LIGNE DIRECTRICE E-19 ET LES COMMENTAIRES DES INTÉRESSÉS SONT PUBLIÉS AVANT OU
PENDANT LE SONDAGE.
Le BSIF a reçu une quinzaine de mémoires de parties intéressées en réponse à la version
provisoire de la ligne directrice E-19, Évaluation interne des risques et de la solvabilité
(dispositif ORSA). La version finale de la ligne directrice publiée par le BSIF était
accompagnée d’un sommaire des commentaires des parties intéressées et d’une
explication de la façon dont le BSIF en avait tenu compte au cours de la rédaction de la
version finale.
30.
Saviez-vous que la version finale de la ligne directrice comprenait un sommaire des
commentaires des parties intéressées et une explication de la façon dont le BSIF en a tenu
compte au cours de la rédaction de la version finale?
Oui
31.
Non
En ce qui concerne la version finale de la ligne directrice E-19, Évaluation interne des risques
et de la solvabilité (dispositif ORSA), dans quelle mesure jugez-vous efficaces les efforts faits par
le BSIF pour communiquer au secteur ses attentes concernant l’évaluation interne des risques et
de la solvabilité (dispositif ORSA) telles que les présente la ligne directrice E-19?
Très inefficaces
1
32.
Plutôt
inefficaces
2
Ni efficaces ni
inefficaces
3
Plutôt efficaces
4
Très efficaces
5
Je ne sais pas
9
85
Partie 3 – Agréments
Comme vous le savez, le surintendant et parfois le ministre des Finances doivent
approuver des initiatives proposées par les sociétés d’assurance-vie. Les questions qui
suivent portent sur le processus d’agrément du BSIF en ce qu’il a trait à votre société.
33.
Dans l’ensemble, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait de la façon dont le BSIF traite les
demandes d’agrément présentées par votre société?
Très
insatisfait
1
34.
35.
Plutôt satisfait
4
Très satisfait
5
Je ne sais
pas
9
Sans objet
99
Dans quelle mesure comprenez-vous le fondement des décisions que prend le BSIF en
réponse aux demandes d’agrément présentées par votre société?
1
37.
Ni satisfait ni
insatisfait
3
Très mal
36.
Plutôt
insatisfait
2
Plutôt mal
2
Ni bien
ni mal
3
Plutôt bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Sans objet
99
Si vous avez répondu « Très mal » ou « Plutôt mal », veuillez expliquer votre réponse.
Votre société a-t-elle soumis une demande d’agrément réglementaire ou de décision au cours
de la dernière année ou des deux dernières années?
Oui
1
Non
2
Si la réponse est non, passez à la question 44.
86
En ce qui concerne les demandes d’agrément réglementaire ou de décision que votre
société a présentées au cours de la dernière année ou des deux dernières années, quelle
cote attribueriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est de…
38.
…répondre aux questions de votre société concernant l’état de ses demandes?
Très faible
1
39.
40.
42.
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Sans objet
99
…donner à votre société la possibilité de discuter de ses préoccupations avec lui avant qu’il
tire des conclusions?
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Par rapport à il y a quelques années, diriez-vous qu’en général le traitement des demandes
que présente votre société au BSIF est maintenant…
…beaucoup
moins efficace?
1
43.
Passable
3
Très faible
1
41.
Faible
2
…légèrement
moins efficace?
2
…inchangé?
3
…légèrement
plus efficace?
4
…beaucoup
plus efficace?
5
Je ne sais pas
9
87
Partie 4 – Surveillance
Les questions qui suivent portent sur la surveillance que le BSIF exerce sur votre société.
44.
Dans l’ensemble, dans quelle mesure la supervision et la surveillance que le BSIF exerce sur
votre société sont-elles efficaces?
Très inefficaces
1
45.
46.
Ni efficaces ni
inefficaces
3
Passablement
efficaces
4
Très efficaces
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Quelle cote attribueriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est de donner à votre société la possibilité
de discuter de ses préoccupations avec lui avant qu’il tire des conclusions?
Très faible
1
47.
Plutôt
inefficaces
2
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
88
Quelle cote attribueriez-vous au BSIF pour ce qui est de…
48.
…la clarté de la correspondance écrite (p. ex., les rapports de gestion et les lettres de
surveillance) dans laquelle le BSIF décrit ses préoccupations?
Très faible
1
49.
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
…la rapidité avec laquelle le BSIF achemine la correspondance écrite (p. ex., les rapports de
gestion et les lettres de surveillance) dans laquelle il décrit ses préoccupations?
Très faible
1
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
50. …la cohérence entre ses communications orales et écrites?
Très faible
1
51.
52.
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Que pourrait faire le BSIF pour améliorer ses communications orales et écrites?
Avez-vous eu des rapports avec le gestionnaire des relations de votre institution au cours des
12 derniers mois?
1
Oui
2
Non
Si vous n’avez pas eu de rapports avec votre gestionnaire des relations au cours des 12
derniers mois, veuillez passer à la question 59.
89
Quelle cote attribueriez-vous au niveau de connaissance de votre gestionnaire des
relations dans les domaines suivants?
53.
Les mesures législatives, les lignes directrices du BSIF, la politique de réglementation et les
pratiques de surveillance
Très faible
1
54.
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Les enjeux et les risques du secteur de l’assurance-vie
Très faible
1
55.
Faible
2
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Votre société
Très faible
1
56.
En ce qui concerne les connaissances de votre gestionnaire des relations, quels points, selon
vous, devraient être améliorés, s’il y a lieu?
57.
Comment évalueriez-vous la qualité des efforts déployés par votre gestionnaire des relations
pour coordonner les activités des équipes de surveillance du BSIF, par exemple celles chargées
du crédit, des marchés financiers, de la lutte contre le recyclage des produits de la criminalité, de
la conformité, des risques opérationnels, de l’actuariat ou de la gouvernance d’entreprise?
Très faible
1
58.
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bien
4
Très bien
5
Je ne sais pas
9
90
59.
Parmi les groupes de soutien spécialisé suivants du BSIF, veuillez indiquer ceux dont vous
connaissez l’existence et préciser si vous avez eu des rapports avec eux au cours des 12 derniers
mois.
Non, je ne
connais pas
l’existence de
ce groupe
Oui, je connais
l’existence de ce
groupe, mais je
n’ai pas eu de
rapports avec lui
au cours des 12
derniers mois
Oui, j’ai eu des
rapports avec ce
groupe au cours des
12 derniers mois
Division de la lutte contre le recyclage des
produits de la criminalité et de la conformité
(LRPCC)



Division du risque opérationnel (DRO)



Division du risque de crédit (DRC)



Division de la gouvernance d’entreprise (DGE)



Services d'évaluation des risques liés aux
marchés financiers (SERMF)



Division des risques, de la surveillance et de
l’analyse (DRSA)



Services d'évaluation des mesures et des
analyses du risque (SEMAR)



Division de l’actuariat



Si vous n’avez traité avec aucun des groupes de soutien spécialisé susmentionnés au
cours des 12 derniers mois, passez à la question 63.
60. Dans l’ensemble, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait des services des groupes de soutien
spécialisé du BSIF avec lesquels vous avez traité au cours des 12 derniers mois?
Très insatisfait
1
61.
Plutôt insatisfait
2
Ni satisfait ni
insatisfait
3
Plutôt satisfait
4
Très satisfait
5
Je ne sais pas
9
91
62.
En ce qui concerne vos rapports avec les groupes de soutien spécialisé du BSIF, quels points,
selon vous, devraient être améliorés, s’il y a lieu?
92
Partie 5 – Nouveaux enjeux et regard vers l’avenir
63.
Quelle cote donneriez-vous à la proactivité dont le BSIF fait preuve face aux nouveaux enjeux
dans le secteur de l’assurance-vie?
Très faible
1
64.
65.
Faible
2
Passable
3
Bonne
4
Très bonne
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Veuillez indiquer un ou deux secteurs de risque qui, selon vous, devraient constituer une
priorité pour le BSIF ces prochaines années en ce qui a trait au secteur de l’assurance-vie.
93
Partie 6 – Activités internationales
66.
Dans quelle mesure le BSIF est-il efficace pour ce qui est de faire connaître au secteur de
l’assurance-vie les activités et les faits nouveaux qui se produisent sur la scène internationale?
Très inefficace
1
Plutôt inefficace
2
Ni efficace ni
inefficace
3
Plutôt efficace
4
Très efficace
5
Je ne sais pas
9
67.
À l’avenir, quel serait le meilleur moyen pour le BSIF de communiquer à votre société les
activités et les faits nouveaux qui se produisent sur la scène internationale?
68.
Dans quelle mesure estimez-vous que le BSIF est efficace pour ce qui est de représenter les
intérêts du secteur des services financiers du Canada sur la scène internationale (p. ex., auprès
de l’Association internationale des contrôleurs d’assurance, de l’International Accounting
Standards Board, de l’Instance conjointe)?
Très inefficace
1
69.
Plutôt inefficace
2
Ni efficace ni
inefficace
3
Plutôt efficace
4
Très efficace
5
Je ne sais pas
9
94
Part 7 – Observations finales
70.
En songeant aux rapports que vous avez eus avec le personnel du BSIF au sujet de toute
question de surveillance ou de réglementation, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait de la
capacité du BSIF de s’entretenir avec vous dans la langue officielle de votre choix (c’est-à-dire, en
anglais ou en français)?
Très insatisfait
1
Plutôt
insatisfait
2
Ni satisfait ni
insatisfait
3
Plutôt satisfait
4
Très satisfait
5
Je ne sais pas
9
Sans objet
99
Si vous avez répondu « Très insatisfait » ou « Plutôt insatisfait » :
71.
Plus précisément, êtes-vous insatisfait de la capacité du BSIF… (CHOISISSEZ TOUTES LES
RÉPONSES PERTINENTES)
e. …de vous parler dans la langue officielle de votre choix à des réunions ou au
téléphone?
f. …de vous écrire des lettres ou des courriels dans la langue officielle de votre choix?
g. …de lire les documents que vous lui envoyez dans la langue officielle de votre choix,
p. ex. des documents propres à votre institution ou des lettres?
h. Aucune de ces réponses
72.
73.
Le cas échéant, veuillez expliquer pourquoi vous êtes insatisfait.
Avez-vous d’autres remarques ou suggestions à faire au sujet des points soulevés dans le
présent questionnaire ou au sujet de toute autre question jugée particulièrement pertinente à
l’heure actuelle?
95
IX.
Appendix B: Recruitment
Specifications and Execution of
Fieldwork
96
Appendix B: Recruitment Specifications and Execution of Fieldwork
A. Recruitment Specifications
Participants were recruited from a list of potential interviewees provided by OSFI. The list provided by OSFI included a
total of 62 life insurance companies.
B. Execution of Fieldwork
The following process was used in administering the interviews:

Selected potential interviewees were sent a package from The Strategic Counsel (TSC) containing an invitation
letter from OSFI, a cover letter from TSC inviting them to participate in the study and an advance copy of the
interview guide for review prior to the interview.

Invitation packages were followed up with a telephone call confirming the proposed interviewees’ willingness to
participate in the research process. Among those willing to participate, a date/time for an interview was
scheduled.

If a participant referred the interview to another senior executive (e.g., CCO or CRO), the interview was
undertaken with that designate.

If possible, interviews were undertaken on-site at the participant’s office. However, telephone interviews were
conducted if requested by the participant or the participant’s location made an in-person interview unfeasible
(i.e., outside of the Montreal or Toronto areas where the interviewers are located).
97

Life Insurance Sector Consultation (LISC ) 2013 2013

Transcription

Documents pareils

Life-EA Insert-FINAL.indd

Equimax Launch Flyer – February 2012

SGDI 086 Encart

Programme d`assurance collective automobile et habitation APNB

RPLY-025 - Medavie Blue Cross

RC Auto - AG Insurance

SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER AUTHORIZATION CARD

Travel Insurance / Assurance voyage

Mise en garde – Numéro 38 - Bureau du surintendant des

ANGLAIS TECHNIQUE DES BASES DE L`ASSURANCE