CIA (e)Bulletin/(e)Bulletin de l'ICA

Canadian Institute of Actuaries/Institut canadien des actuaires

November 2016
Elliott Bauer
D.W. Simpson & Company
Eckler Ltd.
President's Update


By Dave Dickson, FCIA
CIA President

I recently installed Windows 10 on my computer and it has a feature called "Ask Me Anything" that allows users to talk to their computer and receive responses for almost any question. During my year as President-elect and part year as President, members have asked me numerous questions about those roles and the Institute itself. I thought an article answering some of those questions might be of interest. If you like the article and have additional questions, please send them along and I may do a repeat.

Q. With your new responsibilities how did you like moving to Ottawa and your office at the CIA Head Office?

A. I’m still living in Oakville and don’t have an office in Ottawa. I do visit Head Office periodically, but Presidents don’t move to Ottawa.

Q. How much salary do you get from the CIA?

A. The job is great but doesn’t pay very well since it’s a volunteer role. Salary zero.

Q. How much time do the roles of President-elect and President require?

A.This is the most common question I get. I estimate that for me it’s about a half-time job. But different Presidents have spent different amounts of time. In the last while we have had Presidents who maintained their full-time jobs. One told me his billing hours did not change, but he was spending more weekend time on work. So it does vary. I’m retired, so I have more free time than other Presidents we have had.

We do have an initiative to reduce the workload of the President, to make it easier for those who are working to take on the role. As an example, we routinely attend annual meetings of the three major U.S. actuarial organizations and in the past sometimes sent numerous representatives. This year we are sending just one of the three Presidents (President, Immediate Past President, and President-elect) to each meeting.

Q. Why did you run for President?

A. I’ve filled almost every other volunteer role and often thought about being President of the CIA but never pursued it. The year I ran, I had been approached by a few friends who suggested I do so. That year there were three candidates and I initially didn’t like the idea of campaigning and maybe losing. But I enjoyed contacting people within the CIA looking for votes. I touched base with people I hadn’t talked to for awhile and still need to set up a lunch or visit with them. Also, I worked with a number of past CIA Presidents and always admired them and am pleased to be in their company.

Q. What about the General List?

A. In my role I now read all the General List e-mails. When I started reading them all, there were a number of negative comments and my initial reaction was that we should get rid of it. But I changed my mind. The General List was first introduced to allow professional discussion among CIA members and such discussion is often the case, with good conversations about important topics. Negative comments do occur but I think they have lessened over the last couple of years. We are doing a better job encouraging polite discourse, and I think that helps. I also believe that it’s healthy to have disagreement and debate. If you are one of those members who withdrew from the list, I suggest you consider rejoining.

Q. What do you like best about the job?

A. I enjoy all parts of the job. My favourite, though, is representing the CIA when meeting with members, such as when presenting to Actuarial Clubs, and also when meeting with other actuarial organizations. I just returned from the North American Actuarial Council (NAAC) meetings in Montréal. Nine actuarial organizations attend: five U.S., three Mexican, and the CIA. In a few weeks I’ll be heading to the International Actuarial Association (IAA) meeting in Cape Town; I enjoy meeting with actuaries from all over the world. One of the first people I met at a previous IAA meeting was a woman who had been consulting in Central Africa for the last 20 years and I had a very interesting lunch with her.

Q. What does the President do and how does the role work with our Executive Director?

A. This is a good question. It took me awhile to understand this as well. It’s important to realize that the CIA Board makes important decisions for the CIA. Michel Simard, our Executive Director, reports to the Board and takes his directions from them. As President, I chair the Board meetings and work with Michel, President-elect Sharon Giffen, Immediate Past President Rob Stapleford, Secretary-Treasurer John Dark, and others to implement the Board’s decisions. I spend a lot of time talking to Michel about how we are going to do that. Michel then works with his staff, CIA leadership, and CIA volunteers to get things done. I also work directly with staff and volunteers on certain initiatives.

Q. Where do we stand with the management of the CIA’s public statement process?

A. Currently, the Public Positions Committee releases public positions in accordance with the Policy on the Approval of Public Positions. This policy is governed by Bylaws 19.01 and 19.02.

In the past year, the CIA has heard input from membership on two fronts:

  • Greater opportunities to provide input into the formulation of public statements are expected.
  • What is the limit on expressing opinions that is permitted by bylaws 19.01 and 19.02?

The Board agreed that greater member input on many topics is highly desirable, especially those that may be controversial. We also want to engage the CIA membership in the process to develop public policy input and to better align CIA research with the development of our public statements. A membership consultation is currently underway.

Q. Name the three biggest challenges or opportunities for the CIA.

A. Our three biggest challenges are also excellent opportunities for the CIA to become a stronger, more effective organization:

  1. The first is our corporate restructuring project. With the assistance of a consultant, we are taking an approach as if the CIA structure did not exist already and how we would build it from scratch. The process will be both a top-down and bottom-up approach, as we plan to involve staff and volunteers. It will result in a more efficient CIA and also better volunteer opportunities. At our recent Board meeting in September, the Board heard the consultant’s recommendations. We are doing some work with them and will bring a plan to the next Board meeting on December 8. This project will take a few years to complete but is very important for the future success of our organization.
  2. We have started a project to improve our communications and member engagement. This project is being led by two of our communication professionals, Les Dandridge (director, communications and public affairs) and Pascale Belleau (associate director, public affairs). For the first time, we have measured member engagement using factors such as serving on committees, attending meetings, voting, and so on. We now have a better picture of how well our members are engaged which helps us to focus our efforts on areas to improve. We also feel our communications can be better. Results from our recent communications survey of members should help us to better serve members by delivering the kind of communication materials they want to receive, in their preferred format.
  3. We have set up a new Volunteer Management and Development Committee chaired by Claire Bilodeau, with the mandate of better managing our volunteers. The committee plans to address such issues as how to get younger members more involved, creating volunteer positions on committees, filling volunteer positions, and creating a volunteer career path for interested volunteers. Our volunteers are the lifeblood of our organization and if we can improve their experience and how they are managed the CIA will be even greater.

That’s it for now. If you have any questions, contact me at I am happy to answer your questions, and we may even address some in a future article.

Dave Dickson, FCIA, is President of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.

In Focus


By Ty Faulds, FCIA

ASB Membership

The ASB is very pleased to welcome Mario Marchand to our Board and to thank Conrad Ferguson for all his support over the last several years. The current membership of the ASB includes Stephen Cheng, Ty Faulds (Chair), Jacqueline Friedland, Alexis Gerbeau, Edward Gibson, Mario Marchand, Josephine Marks, Geoffrey Melbourne, Dave Oakden, Catherine Robertson, and Tony Williams, and on an ex officio basis—Pierre Dionne, the Chair of the Practice Council, and Michel Simard, Executive Director of the CIA. Please feel free to approach any of us with any suggestions or questions you might have.

General Initiatives

The ASB has a number of ongoing general initiatives.

General Standards

The designated group’s (DG) proposed revisions to the General Standards (chaired by Paul Della Penna) was extensively discussed at our August meeting. While the intent of the DG was not to propose any changes to the intent of the standards, there were extensive changes resulting in a significant reduction in the length of this part of the standards. This was largely the result of removing elements that seemed to be more related to professional conduct, elements more suited to educational notes, and elements more appropriately dealt with in the practice-specific standards.

In light of the extent of the changes being proposed, the ASB approached the practice committees to consider the potential impact of these changes to their practice-specific section of the standards and/or educational notes to better understand the potential implications of proceeding with the proposals. After reviewing this feedback, the DG plans to bring the exposure draft back to the December meeting of the ASB for possible release early in 2017.

The Use of Models

The comment period on the Second Exposure Draft for Standards of Practice ─ Use of Models ended on August 31, 2016. The DG chaired by Bob Howard is in the process of reviewing the comments made and plans to bring the final standards to the December meeting for the approval of the ASB.

Mortality Improvements

The Task Force on Mortality Improvement chaired by Alexis Gerbeau was notified of a potential delay in the Statistics Canada publication of 2013 deaths. They are currently considering possible other sources of data in order not to further delay the publication of their cross-sector report, while still assessing the implications of the slowing down of mortality improvement trends observed in the UK and the U.S.

In the meantime, the DG for life insurance mortality improvement chaired by Dominic Hains continues to make progress on potential changes to the structure of the margins for adverse deviation given the expected change in structure of improvement scales. The ASB will consider any implications for the other practice areas as the experience is reviewed.

Pension Initiatives

The comment period on the Notice of Intent – Revisions to Subsection 3260 of the Practice-Specific Standards for Pension Plans – Reporting: External User Report; Advice on the Funded Status or Funding of a Pension Plan ended on August 31, 2016. The DG chaired by Geoffrey Melbourne is considering the mixed feedback received on this initiative and plans to bring forward an exposure draft for any changes in the near future.

The comment period on the Notice of Intent to EstablishStandards of Practice in Respect of Calibration of Stochastic Models used for the Purposes of Certification of Pension Plan Funding Requirements (new Subsection 3270 Stochastic Modellingalso ended on August 31, 2016. In order to eliminate any possible perception of conflict of interest from the external public, Tony Williams has stepped back from involvement in this designated group. At our October meeting, the ASB appointed Todd Saulnier as the Chair of this DG. The ASB would like to thank Tony for all his efforts in getting this initiative to this point. The DG is reviewing the feedback received and is considering the plans needed to continue to move this initiative forward. This DG includes representation from the insurance practice area in order to appropriately consider consistency with similar standards in the life insurance-specific standards.

The DG, chaired by Gavin Benjamin, considering Amendments to Section 3500 of the Practice-Specific Standards for Pension Plans – Pension Commuted Values, continues to research and discuss the various challenges with a focus on the future structure of the discount rate and changes required for target benefit and shared risk plans. A second DG focused on assumptions underlying marriage breakdown capitalized costs is expected to start work after enough progress has been made on the pension side.

The DG, chaired by Catherine Robertson, to incorporate principles of International Standard of Actuarial Practice (ISAP) 3 – IAS 19 Employee Benefits into the Canadian Standards of Practice, now has its membership in place and is preparing a notice of intent.

Insurance Initiatives

The comment period on the Exposure Draft for Revisions to the Practice-Specific Standards for Insurance (Part 2000) ended on October 31, 2016. The DG, chaired by Josephine Marks, is in the process of reviewing the feedback and hopes to issue the resulting final standard early in 2017 in order to ease coordination with the other proposals underway.

As mentioned above, the DG chaired by Dominic Hains to Revise Mortality Improvement Rates and Associated Margins for Adverse Deviations within the Practice-Specific Standards on Insurance Contract Valuation: Life and Health (Accident and Sickness) Insurance (Subsection 2350) and the Accompanying Promulgation has had some data challenges emerge. The target was to have this initiative completed in time for the 2017 year-end valuation. Options in order to still meet this date are being considered.

The DG chaired by Stéphanie Fadous prepared a Notice of Intent to Review the Standards of Practice to Incorporate Changes Needed as a Result of the New Capital Standard that was approved at our October meeting and published on October 14, 2016 with a comment deadline of December 31, 2016. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and l’Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) have been working with the industry on a new capital standard for several years. This new standard will be effective from January 1, 2018.

The new capital standard will require changes to the Canadian actuarial Standards of Practice (SOP) to ensure that all references to capital in the SOP use terminology consistent with the new capital standard.

Under the new capital standard there is also a need to quantify the provisions for adverse deviations in insurance contract liabilities and to isolate best estimate cash flows. For future mortality improvement assumptions, the Standards of Practice only prescribe a minimum valuation basis. As a result, many combinations of best estimate assumptions and margins are possible for valuation purposes. The DG will consider whether changes are required to narrow this range for this purpose, or whether guidance in an educational note is more appropriate.

The continuation of the low interest rate environment has prompted the ASB to monitor these developments closely and it is working through a process to review research on these annually with the Committee on Life Insurance Financial Reporting (CLIFR). This involves reviewing and updating the calibration criteria for stochastic risk-free interest rates models and then determining any corresponding changes to the ultimate reinvestment rates. The process to routinely update this research is well underway and the ASB expects to review the findings and consider any changes to the Promulgations of the Maximum Net Credit Spread, Ultimate Reinvestment Rates, and Calibration Criteria for Stochastic Risk-Free Interest Rates in the Standards of Practice for the Valuation of Insurance Contract Liabilities: Life and Health Insurance early in 2017.

On a related subject, the Final Communication of a Promulgation of Calibration Criteria for Investment Returns Referenced in the Standards of Practice for the Valuation of Insurance Contract Liabilities: Life and Health (Accident and Sickness) Insurance (Subsection 2360(Equity Returns) was published on July 3, 2012. As part of our process to routinely review these at least every five years, CLIFR is completing the necessary research to consider any changes. The ASB expects to review the findings and consider any changes early in 2017.

International Developments

The ASB remains committed to converging to the ISAP and has made significant progress on a number of related projects in addition to the update on ISAP 3 above.

The comment period on the Revised Exposure Draft for Standards of Practice – Establishment of Social Security Practice-Specific Standards ended on September 30, 2016. The ASB discussed the feedback, including that from the Actuarial Standards Oversight Council, at its meeting in October. The DG chaired by Edward Gibson is considering this feedback and plans to bring a final standard to the December meeting for approval.

When considering convergence to ISAP 1 – General Actuarial Practice, the DG at the time concluded that the ED-proposed new subsection 1850 regarding peer review which mirrors provisions of ISAP 1 should not be implemented. The reasons for not pursuing were the following:

The ED proposed recommendation indicates that

The actuary should consider to what extent, if at all, it is appropriate for a report to be independently peer reviewed, in full or in part, prior to the delivery of the report.

While this does not expressly require any particular work to be peer reviewed, it strongly suggests that some work needs to be peer reviewed. As there are no criteria provided as to which work should be peer reviewed (and it is highly problematic that clear guidance could be developed as to which work does or does not need peer review), application of the provision is not practical. Also, inclusion of this provision opens the possibility of litigation when something goes wrong as to whether particular work should have been peer reviewed—again with no obvious criteria for determination.

The U.S. and UK practice standards do not currently reference peer review. As a result, maintaining this difference from ISAP 1 does not seem unreasonable pending future developments.

Recently the UK practice standards have introduced a new standard on the Review of Actuarial Work that has addressed a number of these concerns. The purpose of this standard is

To set out the responsibilities of all Members in relation to the application of Work Review, which may include Independent Peer Review, to promote the quality of Actuarial Work.

The ASB has asked that the DG on the review of Part 1000 look at integrating peer review into part 1000 of the standards in a way that is generally reflective of what the UK has done.

Ty Faulds, FCIA, is Chair of the Actuarial Standards Board.

Actuaries on the Move

Career Developments

Pierre-Yves Julien will be inducted into the Junior Achievement New Brunswick Business Hall of Fame in November.

Geoffrey Melbourne won first place in the Society of Actuaries' 2016 Country Feature Article Call for Papers with his article Retirement Readiness: A Rocky Road in Canada.

Actuaries in the Media

Craig Allen is mentioned in an article on what to consider when calculating an effective annual interest rate.

Networking is a key part of any successful professional's career, and the CIA is offering you a fresh opportunity to inform your peers about your achievements and progress.

Our (e)Bulletin section, Actuaries on the Move, is a chance for you to publicize your new job, title, credentials, or other information. This is an opportunity to tell thousands of fellow actuarial professionals—whether they are ex-colleagues, former college friends, potential employers, future clients, etc.—about, for example:

  • Your new job;
  • A change of title or area of responsibility;
  • Your new qualifications;
  • A change of contact details;
  • Awards or other recognition; or
  • Publication of academic papers or articles.

Simply send an e-mail—one line of information can be enough, but feel free to add more if you so wish—to the CIA's English editor at and we will aim to include it in the next issue of the (e)Bulletin.

Research Hub

Faizel Alladina, Research Committee Chair

By Bonnie Robinson

The Research Committee (ResCo) provides oversight on the planning, development and execution of CIA-sponsored research. With a budget of over $450,000 in 2016–2017, it has 15 members, nine of whom are chairs of ResCo’s nine practice area subcommittees. Over 65 additional volunteers serve on those subcommittees.

In September 2015, Faizel Alladina became Chair of ResCo. "One of the first things I did was survey the committee, including past members," he says. "I wanted to get the pulse of the effectiveness of ResCo." Research has always been an important part of the CIA’s operations, but Mr. Alladina has noticed a change over the past six years in the workload and type of research the committee has been involved with.

"In 2010, when I joined ResCo, it was more of an experience study committee," Mr. Alladina says. "We oversaw regular, yearly studies such as lapse rates, mortality updates, and so on." There were some one-time research projects, but these were less common. "This research was regular maintenance around providing important experience study updates for the membership; however, there is not usually a lot of change in them from year-to-year."

Mr. Alladina gives credit to current CIA President Dave Dickson, who, during his time as Chair of ResCo (2013–2015), increased overall research activity, added subcommittees to better represent practice areas, and strengthened the committee’s relationship with the CIA Board.

One-Time Research Projects

Mr. Alladina estimates that now almost three-quarters of the new projects ResCo oversees are one-time, non-recurring initiatives; these tend to align with the CIA’s strategic priorities, and many are focused on a specific emerging area of importance to the actuarial profession.

"ResCo has a mandate to be aligned with the Board and responsive to some of its initiatives," he explains. "Research is needed to participate effectively with public positions. Research allows for fact-based decision-making, rather than using intuition." The Board and ResCo also have a commitment to develop stronger ties with academics through ResCo’s Academic Research Committee and the Academic Research Grant Program.

Heavier Workload

One of the challenges facing the committee is the pressure on ResCo and its subcommittees, especially as chairs and vice-chairs had to take on a heavier workload. "It was clear that we had challenges around succession and workloads," Mr. Alladina says. "We formed a task force to study the issue and consider options for making improvements. There was a real danger we would no longer have a Research Committee if members lost interest in volunteering for leadership positions on it."

During a rigorous five-month process, the task force took on a very thoughtful review and evaluation, developing 12 guiding principles the committee could use to assess its current structure (and operations) and evaluate gaps. Some of these principles include the following:

  • Reducing pressure on chairs;
  • Robust project prioritization;
  • Efficient and reliable project execution/approval;
  • Member engagement;
  • Diversity in ResCo membership; and
  • Strategic research.

The task force met with members of the Society of Actuaries (SOA), the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA), and the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) to see how other organizations manage their research efforts, and looked at every opportunity to determine best practices for doing research. "The goal was to develop solutions that satisfy our 12 guiding principles," says Mr. Alladina.

Proposed Restructuring

At the September Board meeting, the Member Services Council (MSC) presented ResCo’s proposal for its restructuring. The restructuring proposal includes having a Research Executive Committee (REC) providing overall direction and thought leadership, an amalgamated Experience Study Subcommittee applying best practices and looking for synergies and opportunities for increased collaboration across all practice areas, and maintaining a separate Academic Research Subcommittee to continue to build partnerships with Canadian universities on research and education. Project oversight groups (POGs) would be created for each new research or experience study project, with defined responsibilities on managing the project. ResCo also proposed having increased CIA support in the form of a Head Office staff member responsible for research. The Board will hear the details of this proposal in early 2017.

"Implementing these changes should allow us to select the right people for these committees and projects," says Mr. Alladina. "Whether it is strategic planning and development or tactical research and peer reviews being done, work is aligned with the interest of the volunteer, and we will be able to draw on volunteers who might have an interest in a specific area. It should also reduce the burden on chairs and help with succession planning."

Mr. Alladina stresses that the committee or POG members are not the ones who are doing the research. "They are facilitating and overseeing work done by the researcher, to ensure that it gets done in a timely manner, with appropriate resources providing expertise and insights as the research progresses and ultimately goes through the approval process."

Going forward, the MSC should be able to implement many of the proposed changes to the ResCo structure. Mr. Alladina says the restructuring should not only result in a more engaged group of volunteers involved in research and doing the things the CIA wants to do, but it also provides a clearer pathway for a CIA member to follow to move through the CIA structure. "Serving on a POG or research subcommittee is a natural stepping stone to moving to the REC, MSC, and ultimately the Board," he says.

Bonnie Robinson is the English editor at the CIA Head Office.

Insight Decision Solutions
Ryerson University, The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education
RGA Canada
Committee Profile


By Terence Narine, FCIA

Earlier this year, the Eligibility Committee became the Committee on Membership Eligibility. The main activity of the nine-member committee is approving new Fellows (FCIAs). This is an ongoing process that involves reviewing member applications to ensure candidates meet the standards required for enrolment.

I have been a member of the committee since 2003, becoming chair in July 2016. Each year, we review between 150–200 applications for CIA Fellowship. In 2015, the number was 150. The number of applications any one committee member reviews is dependent on his or her area of expertise: the reviewer usually works or has experience in the candidate’s practice area.

The primary focus of the reviewers on the committee is ascertaining that the candidates have the relevant work experience to meet the qualification standards. CIA Head Office staff review applications to ensure that submitted information is completed as per FCIA application guidelines, with a secondary check by the reviewer on the committee responsible for any given application. Reviewers then fill out an Excel spreadsheet with a checklist relevant to the application. As well, they provide a recommendation to approve or not approve the application. Final decision for the approval goes to the Eligibility and Education Council. 

Approval Process

Many applications are relatively straightforward. However, on occasion there can be a certain level of difficulty in reviewing an FCIA application. Have applicants from other countries satisfied the requirements for enrolment? What about someone who works in Canada doing U.S. rather than Canadian actuarial work? Or someone in a non-traditional role without a direct FCIA supervisor? We often have to make decisions around whether we approve a candidate in such circumstances. The committee has always taken the side of conservatism in these cases in order to be fair to other candidates and also to ensure the high standards that are required for achieving the FCIA designation. We will typically ask candidates to get additional experience, or other requirements before we approve them for the designation. This may seem onerous to candidates in exceptional circumstances. However, the committee takes its responsibility of maintaining the bar at a certain level fairly seriously. Those reviewing applications may have in-depth discussions with other members before getting approval from the CIA to call the candidate’s supervisor to ask further questions.

The recent changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct now require applicants to the Institute to disclose any criminal convictions they may have. We must also factor this in to our review. Should an applicant make a disclosure, the Committee on Professionalism within the CIA would become involved before we can approve or not approve the candidate. I’m not aware that we have seen any candidates at this point with a self-declared criminal conviction. However, the rule has been around only for a few months.

After we approve a candidate, we pass their application back to Roxanne Vézina, coordinator, membership and education, at the CIA’s Head Office. The candidate’s application then goes before the Eligibility and Education Council (EEC) for final approval.

Ensuring the Quality of FCIAs

The educational part of volunteerism within the actuarial profession is important to me. I initially became involved with the Eligibility Committee because I wanted to have a say in the quality of Fellows, to ensure consistency, and to help the CIA maintain its high standards.

One of the benefits of being chair of the Committee on Membership Eligibility is that I am also a member of the EEC. I have been involved in the continuing professional development (CPD) audit, where each year the chair of the Membership Eligibility Committee reviews the CPD filings of a random group of approximately 50 members to ensure that they are meeting their CPD requirements.

Also related to CPD, the Board has set up a Task Force on CPD Review, chaired by Immediate Past President Rob Stapleford. I am a member of this task force, which is examining the CIA’s CPD requirements and reporting, how to foster greater awareness of what qualifies as acceptable CPD, how to enhance the annual auditing of CPD compliance statements, and the availability of CPD programs.

The Committee on Membership Eligibility also reviews mutual recognition agreements between the Institute and other actuarial organizations.

A Great Way to Earn CPD Credits

The committee doesn’t have face-to-face meetings. All of the work is done by conference calls, meeting as required, with an objective of a minimum of two meetings each year. We often have a lot of lead time to get things done, although there are deadlines for reviewing Fellow applications for EEC approval. Working on the committee is an excellent way to earn CPD credits, particularly since the work centres around professionalism. There is a great deal of satisfaction in knowing you are helping the actuarial profession maintain the quality of its members.

Terence Narine, FCIA, is Chair of the Committee on Membership Eligibility.

Institute News

By Alexis Tertulliani and Virginie Tremblay

The democratization of information technology and the proliferation of communication networks have contributed to the development of cybercrime in recent years. Cybercrime is an emerging risk which all companies and all professionals face, and for which they should be insured.

According to Wikipedia, cybercrimes are offences that are committed against individuals or groups of individuals with a criminal motive to intentionally harm the reputation of the victim or cause physical or mental harm, or loss, to the victim directly or indirectly, using modern telecommunication networks such as the internet and mobile phones.

The most common offences recorded are the following:

  • Attacks on automated data processing systems;
  • Bank card breaches;
  • Unauthorized or unreported ciphers;
  • Interceptions;
  • Theft of mobile computing equipment;
  • Online scams;
  • Counterfeiting; and
  • Violation of intellectual property.

The number of lawsuits filed following an incident related to cyber risk, especially when it relates to confidential information or nonpublic personal information, is constantly growing, and damages claimed by plaintiffs are increasing at a considerable rate. The reputation and assets of businesses and professionals can be significantly affected by legal action.

It has therefore become essential for businesses and professionals to protect themselves against the consequences of cyber risk. Where legal action is initiated, cyber risk insurance provides coverage against monetary damages and pays for legal defence costs to defend your interests.

Several solutions are available on the insurance market offering protection against network security liability and privacy liability.

Network Security Liability

Protects against an attack involving the following:

  • Denial of service;
  • Transmission of a virus;
  • Breach of electronic security; and
  • Mobile hardware theft, such as a laptop or a smart phone, in order to obtain data illegally.

Privacy Liability

Protects against the following:

  • Theft of nonpublic personal information in electronic and paper format; and
  • Non-compliance of laws related to the protection of privacy and regulations that govern the collection, transmission, and use of such information, as well as access to it.

ProAct professional liability insurance provides broad coverage for the professional activities of actuaries and was specifically designed for the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to protect independent consulting actuaries and actuarial consulting firms. A sound risk management program and comprehensive insurance coverage must evolve to deal with new and developing risks; ProAct now provides coverage for network security liability and privacy liability.

For more information on ProAct, contact Lussier Dale Parizeau: Virginie Tremblay, team leader – professional liability damage insurance broker/registered insurance broker (RIBO).

Alexis Tertulliani is vice-president of risk management and client relations at Lussier Dale Parizeau. Virginie Tremblay is team leader – professional liability damage insurance broker/registered insurance broker (RIBO) also at Lussier Dale Parizeau.


Representatives of North American actuarial organizations.

Professional organizations representing actuaries in Canada, the United States, and Mexico signed a cross-border discipline agreement articulating how disciplinary inquiries that require investigations will be handled when member actuaries perform work outside their home country within the three-nation area.

"This important document of mutual understanding eliminates potential confusion and barriers to international actuarial practice by making clear how the discipline process operates for Canadian actuaries working in the United States and Mexico, and for United States and Mexican actuaries working across the borders of our three countries," said CIA President Dave Dickson, who signed the agreement on behalf of the Institute.

The agreement effectively expands upon an existing discipline agreement between Canadian and U.S. actuarial organizations to include their Mexican counterparts.



By Matt Bartley, ACIA

Not that long ago, I was enjoying my second year at London Life. I was at that point in one’s actuarial rotation where you start feeling like you’ve got a handle on things. In my case, things were par product development and pricing. I was also starting to feel like I had a handle on a big presentation I'd be delivering to the actuarial forum (the combined group of qualified actuaries and actuarial students) at London Life.

The topic of my presentation: engaging your audience. As you can imagine, when doing a presentation on presentation skills, the stakes are pretty high; let alone to an audience of one’s peers. I had an outline, I had held meetings with senior actuaries who were considered good presenters (once again, thank you!), and I had solicited some help in preparing a little workshop.

Inspiring Your Audience

I knew from the start that I not only needed to be engaging, but that I needed to convince people why it mattered. I needed my audience to care about the quality of their presentations; that you could and should talk about your mortality study in a way that inspires audience participation and begets understanding. To do this, I relied on what I believe is a common trait among actuaries, both qualified and prospective: ambition. I believe it takes a certain type of individual to complete the examination process and that all of us are meant to be leaders in one capacity or another.

I pored over every internal actuarial job posting that had found its way into my inbox in the last fifteen months. Every single one of them referenced communication skills: associate manager, manager, institutional risk counsellor; the last one citing "proven presentation and communication skills, including the ability to articulate complex topics clearly and appropriately for diverse and demanding audiences".

No matter what kind of actuary or leader you want to be, you need to be a good communicator.

Tailored Delivery

Certainly there is more to being a good communicator than engaging one’s audience or delivering poignant presentations, though. In my opinion, good communication comes down to a few key ideas: having a clear and transparent purpose, knowing your audience, tailoring your content around the first two items, and having a strong delivery. Such tailored delivery may require a great deal of preparation and doing so off the cuff requires both knowledge and experience.

In the same way that actuaries spend years preparing for exams, acquiring knowledge, and gaining experience on the job, communication skills must be built up over time. Some students are very successful at exams while others struggle. Some actuaries have a talent for communication and others are terrified at even the notion of standing in front of a crowd. As with exams though, a bit of targeted effort and perseverance can make a world of difference in both confidence and ability as a communicator.


When I look back nine years ago to when I began my university career, I was not the same person I am today. I’m sure most would say the same of themselves in that amount of time but in my case, I did not have the confidence or ability to speak up in meetings or to present my ideas both concisely and coherently. I made a decision in the middle of my second year to join Toastmasters, an international organization that helps members improve their communication and leadership skills through practice, peer feedback, and objective evaluation.

At a typical meeting, members take turns giving speeches or making presentations, and then receive feedback from other members at the meeting. Toastmasters also has educational materials and programs members can work through at their own pace. My past seven years as a Toastmaster have changed me for the better; seven years of delivering speeches, leading meetings, practising my impromptu speaking skills, listening and watching my fellow members, and receiving constructive feedback along the way.

Practice, Practice, Practice

That last part is really important. An actuarial student wouldn’t complete a practice exam without reviewing the responses that were incorrect, because they wouldn’t know what to work on. Unfortunately, we don’t receive regular feedback on how we communicate with our coworkers, on how effectively we lead meetings and guide discussion, or on our ability to present to a large audience. There may be other avenues for seeking this feedback, but I chose Toastmasters, and that investment continues to pay dividends every day.

That investment gave me the confidence, knowledge, and experience to prepare and deliver a successful presentation to the actuarial forum.

I would like to end with a sentiment that I expressed at the end of that presentation:

It would be natural to ask what made me join Toastmasters, but I think the better question is actually, "why am I still doing Toastmasters?" A simple answer would be that I see the value in public speaking and presentation skills, and that’s true. I do see the value. The bigger truth is this: I want actuaries to have the reputation for being good communicators. Help me to build that reputation by being an engaging presenter.

Matt Bartley, ACIA, is an actuarial associate, in-force management and management information, at London Life.

Events News

Delegates at the In Focus seminar.

Over 130 people attended the 2016 In Focus seminar: The Gathering Storm – Digital and Climate Disruptors, held October 27–28 in Montréal. The event was jointly sponsored by the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) and the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (CIA).

Members from the CAS and CIA, as well as other professionals in the property and casualty industry, attended a variety of sessions on many topics including the internet of things, big data, cyber risk, climate change, and the sharing economy.

Québec Environment Minister Addresses Delegates

David Heurtel, Québec’s Minister of Sustainable Development, the Environment, and the Fight Against Climate Change was a last-minute addition to the program, addressing delegates for a 20-minute session and Q&A regarding climate change and its impact on the planet, humans, and the economy. Among the ideas Minister Heurtel discussed were the following:

  • There is a worldwide trend towards cap and trade, with China being the game changer in this area;
  • There are massive impacts of climate change on infrastructure in Québec, one example being science that shows that the saline front is moving inland in Québec and water treatment is not designed to deal with salt water;
  • By investing in new technology we fight climate change and create new jobs and new opportunities;
  • We need to change our ways of doing things and our habits around the way we use hydrocarbons to fuel the economy, and invest in a new economy that doesn’t rely on oil; and
  • We are looking at massive transformations in the way we live, eat, and breathe.

Presentation by Québec Minister Heurtel.

Minister Heurtel added that actuaries need to have the tools to fully integrate risk management into calculations on climate change.

Actuaries, Big Data, and Risk

During a session on the internet of things and causal analytics, speaker Philip Schwartz, chief technical officer for the financial services sector at IBM Analytics, said that predictive analytics is a game changer for optimizing the workplace of the future. "Data is great," he said. "Real time insights are better. They provide possibilities for predictive quality management for all types of business." He used an example of factory workers wearing sensors that monitor their environment, biometrics, and GPS location, which would allow management to, for example, monitor noise hot spots that could lead to hearing loss. This would allow for better risk and claims management. "We must balance what data is private with appropriate risk management monitoring and alerts," he added. "Actuaries need to make moves now to be able to compete. Make sure you put together a strategy and plan test cases accordingly so you can respond to competition."

At the same session, speaker Don Mango, vice-chair of enterprise analytics at Guy Carpenter, said that Paul Slovic’s Perception of Risk is one of the most important papers for actuaries to read.

A common thread through a number of presentations was the impact of new technologies; specifically, autonomous vehicles and drones. These innovations present challenges as P&C insurers need to adapt traditional liability and damage coverages to accommodate them,

Don’t miss out on other great continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities. Check out the upcoming events page on the CIA website.



The Canadian Institute of Actuaries founded the Actuarial Standards Board (ASB) in 2007 as an independent body to establish actuarial standards of practice. Later, the Actuarial Standards Oversight Council (ASOC) was created to serve the public interest by overseeing the ASB’s work.

You are invited.

WHO: The public, journalists, actuaries

WHAT: ASOC Public Meeting

WHEN: Wednesday, December 14 (11:45 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.)

WHERE: Toronto

WHY: Because you have an interest in actuarial standards of practice as they relate to pensions, insurance, and benefit programs.

Join us to share your thoughts on the ASOC, the ASB, and the actuarial standard-setting process.

Learn more about the ASOC at

Watch for more details coming soon!

Five Questions

Kathleen Thompson, FCIA

Five Questions is a regular feature that explores the person behind the actuary, through his or her interests outside of the profession. Kathleen Thompson, vice-president, risk management at The Empire Life Insurance Company and Vice-chair of the Enterprise Risk Management Applications Committee, is a Fellow of the CIA. Her interests also include tole painting and gardening.  

1. How do you spend your free time?

I like spending my time tole painting, gardening, reading (I love mysteries), watching movies (James Bond and Harry Potter are a few of my favourites) or going for walks on our property.

2. What does your perfect day look like?

My perfect day would start with a leisurely breakfast of bacon and eggs, followed by a long walk on the property with my husband and dog. It would end with some kind of BBQ dinner and a movie.

3. If you won the lottery, what would you do?

I would pay off my mortgage and any other debts, and then I’d be off to Hawaii with my nieces—we have an ongoing joke about running away to Hawaii!

4. How would you like to be remembered?

I would like to be remembered as someone who took the time to share her knowledge with others, who was always willing to listen and learn, and was a good mentor and friend.

5. What is your favourite memory?

It is hard to pick one—my wedding day for sure—it was a bright sunny day in February and I was surrounded by family and friends. Others would be the multiple trips to Disney World in Florida with some combination of my mom, dad, sister, brother, nieces and nephew—I love Disney, especially Winnie the Pooh!

Is there something about yourself that your colleagues would be surprised to know? To take the Five Questions challenge and appear in an upcoming issue of the (e)Bulletin, contact Bonnie Robinson, CIA English editor, at

Volunteers on the Move

Board of Directors

The following people have been appointed to the (sub)committees named below:

  • Member Services Council: Benoit Miclette (vice-chair), effective immediately;
  • Practice Council: Steven Easson and Dean Newell, effective August 1, 2016;
  • Joint Risk Management Section: Minaz Lalani (CIA representative), effective July 1, 2016;
  • Task Force on Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Review: Terence Narine, effective July 20, 2016; and
  • Tribunal Panel: Eileen Luxton, effective immediately.

Practice Council

The following people have been appointed to the (sub)committees named below:

  • Committee on Risk Management and Capital Requirements: Michelle Lindo (Co-chair), effective September 9, 2016; and
  • Committee on Actuarial Evidence: Dean Newell (Practice Council liaison).

The following people have completed their term with the (sub)committees named below, and leave with thanks:

  • Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance Financial Reporting: Jean-Marc Léveillé, effective September 15, 2016.

International Relations Council

The following people have been appointed to the committee named below:

  • International Insurance Accounting Committee: Christopher Piper and Nathalie Cloutier, effective October 12, 2016.

Eligibility and Education Council

The following people have been (re-)appointed to the committee named below:

  • Committee on Continuing Education: Claudia Gagné, retroactive to September 1, 2016;
    • Academic Subcommittee: Claudia Gagné, retroactive to September 1, 2016; and
    • Pension Subcommittee: Alan Cooke, effective immediately.

The following people have completed their term with the (sub)committees named below, and leave with thanks:

  • Practice Education Course Subcommittee (PEC): Wesley Foerster and Jean-François Poitras;
  • PEC Individual Life and Annuities Track Working Group: Wesley Foerster (Chair);
  • PEC Finance and Investment Track Working Group: Wesley Foerster; and
  • PEC Retirement Benefits Track Working Group: Jean-François Poitras (Co-chair).

The Graduate Scholarship Program Selection Committee has been disbanded, retroactive to September 15, 2016.