Episode 3.3 with Kelly MacDonald and Matt Saunders

Stream this episode and others in this series on Spotify, YouTube and Apple Podcasts.

Text transcript

Kevin Press:

Welcome to the Canadian Advisor.cast, a podcast dedicated to financial advisors and the people who work with them. My name’s Kevin Press. I’m Editorial Director of Advisor.ca.

My guests today are Kelly MacDonald and Matt Saunders. Kelly’s National Innovation and Growth Strategy Leader at BFL Canada. She is an expert on cyber risk and AI-related exposures. Matt is Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais. He advises clients on cyber resilience and incident response. We’re speaking at the 2026 conference of the Federation of Independent Dealers. Our thanks to Matt for hosting us today. It’s been a terrific event.

Welcome to you both. Really appreciate you taking the time. And you’ve just delivered an extraordinary panel discussion.

Matt Saunders:

Thank you.

Kevin Press:

Congratulations.

Kelly MacDonald:

Our fearless leader.

Kevin Press:

Our fearless leader. And, I have to ask to start off, the conversation turned to Mythos. Matt, maybe you can start us, just for those who haven’t been keeping up to date on AI-related cyber risk. What is Mythos, and why are we all so stressed out about it?

Matt Saunders:

Well, at a high level, Kevin, Mythos is a tool that has been developed by Anthropic and not released. Interestingly, the tool…at least released to the public. Interestingly, it’s been released very limitedly under what’s called Project Glasswing. And, effectively, what Anthropic has determined, and they’ve put together a pretty interesting and extensive blog post on some of the fundamental issues that they’ve identified over the course of testing Mythos. And those tests were very specific to how the tool could be used from a cybersecurity perspective.

And, instead of releasing the tool more widely, they limited it to this very select group of government, financial services, security resources to show them the power with which this tool could, not just identify vulnerabilities in systems, but also then take those vulnerabilities and turn them into exploits.

One of our panellists flagged the fact that, generally speaking, over the last 25 years, the number of, say, zero-day exploits that would be identified in any given year would be, again, 100 or so. And Mythos was making that number and more in a matter of weeks. So, we’re seeing speed, we’re seeing fear, we’re seeing optimism, I guess, at the scope and scale of what this tool can do-both from a defensive and an offensive perspective. But, certainly, there are a lot of people taking a very close look at this and what it means for the future of AI and cybersecurity in general.

Kevin Press:

Yeah, Kelly, you could’ve heard a pin drop, as Larry Keating was talking about this, right? Do you think that financial advisors and the dealers that they work with are ready for this?

Kelly MacDonald:

No. No, no, not at all. No, not at all. And I think it goes to, sort of, what I alluded to at the beginning of the session, you know. And this is universal. This isn’t just for financial advisory firms. It’s not just for professional firms. There’s a massive gap between adoption and real understanding of, you know, the risks. And, so, I always talk to clients like, everything is risk/reward, and the reward for the tool or the thing needs to be higher for the risk or it doesn’t make good business sense.

And, you know, again, there’s a lot of, you know, everybody, the FOMO, the fear of missing out. “We’ve got to get there” “We’ve got to stay ahead.” “We can’t fall behind.” All that, sort of, language that we hear. And then you’ve got organizations that are needing to show, you know, a return on investment. And so that gap is going to grow. And if so, if that’s happening at the organizational level, at the people that are making the decisions around what tools we’re going to use, what tools we aren’t going to use, how the business is going to think about that. Like, if they’re not even there, to expect that the advisors would know. Like, they’re busy as it is. Like, they’ve got a whole bunch of regulatory stuff to deal with. They’ve got a whole bunch of, you know, client things to deal with. There’s aging population and people are retiring. So, there are all these competing priorities that are happening for advisors right now, and now we’re layering on AI and Mythos and everything that’s going on. No, I don’t think…how could we even expect them to, you know, have the level of probably detail and knowledge that they need to understand, you know, how real these risks are? And so glad that, you know, at an event like today, we’re talking about it.

And the last thing I’ll say is, you know, there’s double the number of people at this event from last year, as I’m understanding. This is positive because I think it’s events like this, and what you’re doing here, we’re going to get this information into the hands where it’s critically needed.

Kevin Press:

Let’s pull the lens back a bit and talk just about how AI is rolling out in the industry, because it has been pretty conservative, would you say, Matt? I mean, appropriately conservative, do you think?

Matt Saunders:

I would say, when it comes to maybe subject matter-specific AI tools, I think so. What I’m surprised by is the speed with which enterprise-level AI tools within and amongst the suite of, say, Microsoft products, that any business would be using. The speed that Copilot and OpenAI tools are being used in the workplace-but then also in parallel from a personal perspective-I think that’s been very interesting to see, because I would’ve suspected, given the echoes and issues that arose, you know, a year, two years ago, just when it was personal use, would then translate to a more cautious approach at enterprise rollout when it’s been the exact opposite.

And, again, I think it’s because this is a very bright, shiny, and it is getting better day in and day out. I think that momentum is drowning out, to a certain extent, some of the, maybe, more responsible positions to take a pause, test things out a little bit more before things get widely developed.

And so, I would just say one last thing about Mythos, and that’s an example where there has been that responsible pause. And we thought we might see OpenAI get into the market and deploy its new AI tools at the same time, saying it was as good or better than Mythos, but they’ve also held back. So, that’s encouraging, but then it also gives me pause because there’s got to be some seriousness with the power that’s behind these tools. And, that’s a little scary.

Kevin Press:

What’s your take, Kelly? Are we moving too fast, too slow, or about right?

Kelly MacDonald:

Yeah. Well, I’ve got a couple of comments on that. So I think what firms are saying they’re doing publicly versus what they’re actually doing privately, there’s a mismatch. So, I think a lot of firms are developing their own tools and trying different things out, but they’re not necessarily talking about those publicly outside of, maybe, like you say, the Copilots and, you know, the enterprise, ChatGPT, and all of that, which are, you know, coming bundled with other things. So, I think it’s hit and miss, but, again, I do think what they’re saying publicly versus what they’re doing behind the scenes is very different.

Again, my big worry is not how fast or slow organizations are moving, but it’s this gap around the governance and the understanding. And I think that, you know, almost everyone I talk to when I say, “How are you thinking about the risk side of it?” I get a lot of blank stares. I get a lot of, you know, colour draining from the face. I get people, sort of, shifting in their chairs, you know. Or if I, sort of, try to pull on some of those threads, “Well, you know, what about this and what about that?” A lot of what they have thought they were prepared for, they start to realize it’s like that sweater when I pull the thread, and the thread doesn’t just come out, the whole sweater comes apart.

So, and, again, as much as I’m very bullish on AI, and I think it’s going to do some incredible things for, you know, for the industry, my big fear is people that are going, “La, la, la, la, la, la, la,” and, “Yeah, okay, big government’s going to stop, you know, Mythos, and there’s some good people there.” I worry that, you know, this drive for profitability, either, like, at firms and the competition or these big AI tools that are, you know, they’ve spent lots of money, and they’re looking to show some returns there, people cut corners in those circumstances. And, so, if you don’t have a formal, kind of, strong risk program to just, like, bounce those things out of your organization, this is where I worry that things get really scary.

Kevin Press:

You know, the irony is that advisors have always been pretty conservative when it comes to technology and, in some circles, even hesitant to adopt new tech. It doesn’t feel like they’re going to have that luxury this time around, would you say?

Matt Saunders:

Agreed. I think it’s not just the speed with which the tools are advancing and they’re being deployed, but I think it’s also the speed of the human apprehension and appreciation of the impact it’s going to have on the sector itself. And, it’s not just from a dealer’s perspective. We’re seeing huge impacts in the legal profession now. We’re seeing it in medicine and healthcare. And, so, I think anybody who’s now reached April of 2026 and doesn’t have something implemented, or ready to roll out-notwithstanding the issues of the fact they probably don’t have any governance behind that-they’re already way behind their competitors.

And, so, I think you’ve got this, sort of, duelling tension and pressure to get something going because if you blink, you’re going to miss out. What that means for the sector as a whole is, I think, this is going to be the new normal. The number of tools, the number of agents an individual dealer could be using to help individual, specific customers, that’s going to be embedded in the workplace much sooner rather than later. And, I think that the potential benefit of the speed with which that’s happening is that we’re going to start seeing some regulatory and governments, from a legal perspective, start filling in the gaps. Because, again, we’ve, sort of, had that three-year period of waiting and seeing how this is going to go, and we know that it’s going, so we’ve got to now start regulating it.

Kevin Press:

Yeah, I was going to ask, you know, what’s the industry look like in five years? That’s probably a big piece of how this evolves, right?

Matt Saunders:

Most definitely, and I think you’re starting to see pieces of it. We commented during the session today that Canada has a bit of a grey zone as it relates to AI-specific law, but the same could be said for cybersecurity legislation. But, on the foundation of privacy law being built-and we’ve seen this in other parts of the world-that foundation started out and from there, you see cyber regs get built, whether it’s through OSFI, whether it’s…You see the critical infrastructure cybersecurity legislation the federal government’s pushing out. And now provinces are also getting there, particularly in the public sector. There are rules in place for how AI and cyber measures are going to be rolled out.

And, so, hopefully, we’ll get some federal guidance from an AI law perspective. We had that a couple of years ago, and they’re back to the drawing board. But, I think Canada will eventually adopt, I guess, a middle-of-the-road approach, where it’s less “no regs and all innovation,” as we’re seeing south of the border; and “all regs, limited innovation,” as we’re seeing in multiple jurisdictions across the pond.

Kevin Press:

Kelly, you know, I’m struck by the fact that you still got a lot of firms who allow advisors to select their own tech.

Kelly MacDonald:

Yep.

Kevin Press:

Clearly, that’s not sustainable. I assume you’d agree with that. What should advisors be doing to prepare for how this rolls out? What can they do right now?

Kelly MacDonald:

Yeah, and it’s a great question. And, I think, you know, there’s a few different things that are important. You know, first of all, events like this, you’ve got to get to those events where the subject matter experts are talking about what is happening right now, and multidisciplinary. You know, not just the risk person, not just the lawyer, not just the techie, not just the Larry Keating, you know. You need to talk to everybody.

And I think, you know, Larry made a great point-I think it was on the first question you asked him on the panel-and he said, you know, “I started working on my notes two weeks ago, and I threw those out to talk about something else.” So that tells you about how, you know, rapidly things are changing. So, you know, and I made this comment on the panel, “You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.” So, if you want to be part of the solution in you’re practice, you’ve got to be insatiably curious. You know, you’ve got to ask really good questions. You’ve got to go to the right events. There’s a ton of publicly available information. I mean, you can use AI to synthesize and organize, you know, where risk is evolving and changing and figure out, you know, where you might need to make some changes, you know, adopt a new strategy and anything in between. And then, you know, if you’re talking about an advisor themselves, go to your compliance team, go to your head office team, you know, get some guidance there.

I think the regulators are doing a far better job of putting out, you know, some guidance around, you know, cybersecurity best practices, some guidance around this, some guidance around that. Like, I think, you know, I’ve been doing this for a very, very long time, and I would’ve said, you know, 20 years ago, you know, regulators weren’t necessarily friendly with the industry. But now it’s a partnership, right? Like, we have a common thing that we’re trying to do. We want the industry to be resilient and successful, but that means the clients and the customers need to feel comfortable and safe.

And so that means that regulatory and compliance overlay is not a bad thing. That’s a shield to protect the business. And, so, you know, again, do your own research, use your dealer, talk to the regulators, and then come to events and hear what the subject matter experts are saying. And, do it constantly, because, again, it’s changing in the moment.

Kevin Press:

And what about understanding how client expectations evolve in all of this, right? That’s the piece that seems a little tougher to pin down. But, what do you think clients will expect in terms of AI being a part of their relationship with an advisor?

Kelly MacDonald:

I mean, I would think, like, if I think about myself, I would want to know how my advisor is using AI. So, if my advisor is using AI to do administrative work and labour-intensive work that can be better done by a program or an algorithm or some kind of AI tool, and so they can spend their time with me doing high-value work? That, to me, is a win. And that’s how we think about it in our business. I want to make sure that I’m doing the high-value work with my clients, that I’m having really meaningful conversations where we’re teasing out risk.

If my financial advisor can show me how, you know, maybe there’s an AI tool that… You know, I almost think about, like, how, like, Uber has surge pricing, right? So how things are dynamic, you know. Maybe it is changing dynamically, and, so, they can solve for more unmet needs within my, kind of, financial advisory work. But I’m going to want to know how they’re using it; I’m going to want to have some disclosures. I don’t think I’m ever going to want to talk to a bot to do, my, you know, my stock portfolio and my this and my that. I think I like this, you know, with a real person. But if I know that AI can augment and enhance, and also if my advisor has their finger on the pulse of all the things that are happening in the moment, that’s just going to make them a better advisor.

So if they’re using AI to show up better and differently for me, I’m going to be okay with that. And I think that younger generation that is so much more tech-savvy and used to doing things on apps and with bots and whatnot are going to be very, very comfortable, but I still think they’re going to want to have that, you know, that advisory work, that high-value work done by an advisor. So, don’t replace my advisor, but augment and enhance what my advisor can do and give him or her some really interesting tools that are very, you know, Kelly-specific in the moment for what I need today.

Kevin Press:

Kelly makes a key point there, right? Transparency. That’s going to be essential.

Matt Saunders:

Critical. And especially when it comes to the data that the advisor is using to their client’s benefit. And it goes to that foundation of governance because you can’t really have that transparency. You can’t know as best as you can what’s going on within that black box, unless you’ve done the work, you’ve done the homework, and you’ve got those internal protocols in place. Because, again, the regulator’s going to want them, in any event. They’re going to want to look under the hood to see what Investor A, B, C or Dealer X, Y, Z is doing, not just to the benefit of their clients, but where else could that data go.

And so to have that transparency on data, on how the tool is being instructed to use that data, what are the retention periods for that data? And, again, also showing transparency of the third-party vendors that they’re using- whether it’s for the tools or it’s in support of those tools-so that, again, the client has that visibility on the entire ecosystem-or as best and is reasonably possible- because I think they’re going to go to another one if they don’t get that from their trusted advisor.

Kevin Press:

We reported an extraordinary story last winter. David Rosenberg was deepfaked, and many of his clients were led to believe that they were getting advice from him by video. This must be the thing that really keeps you both up at night, right, in terms of that risk of really terrible client experience?

Kelly MacDonald:

Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, I don’t know if you were in the session, but I gave an example of, it was a fraud case; it was a deepfake. And it was an engineering firm, and, clearly, somebody had hacked into their network. And, so, the cybercriminals knew what the business was talking about, knew how people interacted with one another, the language they use. And, so, you know, they were building up their ability to then use that information to trick the organization into releasing a significant number of funds.

And, so, it was a Teams call. You’ve got one person, I think, in Hong Kong; you’ve got the rest of the leadership team in the UK. The CFO in Hong Kong thinks they’re having a conversation like this on a screen because the voices and the video, and the whole thing was an AI deepfake. That scares me. You know, the voice cloning scares me. You know, I know when I call into my bank and it says, “Oh, you’ve been voice authenticated,” which is going to allow them to a whole bunch of things. Like, that’s going to need to change. And so, that goes back to, you know, that one of the earlier, you know, questions around, you know, are businesses moving too fast or moving too slow?

You know, maybe yes, maybe no, but, like, are you thinking about how risk is going to change and, sort of, overlaying these new risks onto your business and going, “Do we have the right tools to identify when, you know, this is an AI-generated version of you versus you and an AI-generated, you know, version of my voice. I think about, like, manipulations that can be done at speed and scale, where, you know…And that’s the whole thing about AI. Like, it’ll take a good thing and do it at speed and scale. It’ll take a bad thing and do it at speed and scale. And then imagine, all of a sudden, people are making all these decisions. That’s kind of like that Black Swan I talk about. Everybody makes a certain decision en masse because they’ve been duped into something because, you know, AI Kelly told them to do something, and it was really, you know, cybercriminal, somebody else that was doing that. So, that makes me feel ill.

And, I don’t know, you know, what tools are around to circumvent that- other than having secondary and third checks and processes to make sure that, yeah, when I’m talking to you on a Teams call, that it actually is you.

Kevin Press:

You got my attention during the session when you said Black Swan, not surprisingly. How soon is that going to hit us, do you think?

Matt Saunders:

I would’ve said before Mythos, you know, maybe three to five years, and I’m thinking more like 12 to 18 months.

Kelly MacDonald:

Yeah.

Matt Saunders:

Present day.

Kevin Press:

That’s devastating.

Kelly MacDonald:

Yeah.

Matt Saunders:

It is. I mean, it is a new world, and I think we need to, you know, as we talked about in the session, we need to pay very close attention to what’s going on with all these tools, the businesses that have built them, and our institutions that are now using them.

And, so, going back to Kelly’s point from an education perspective, so many of these firms, to their credit, are now putting out fairly extensive and exhaustive training sessions that you can do all for free. Even universities. Harvard just dropped one that is significant. AI-focused, very current, and you can literally sign up online to just immerse yourself in the technology.

So I think that’s, you know, that’s, I guess, the “glass half full” versus “glass half empty.” It is really scary. It is really dynamic. But I think the onus is on us to wrap our heads around it and get as engaged as we can so that we’re limiting the risk of, you know, how big that boulder is going to be when it finally hits the bottom of the hill.

Kevin Press:

Are you optimistic that the law will be able to keep up?

Matt Saunders:

I’m more optimistic now than I was a year ago. And, you know, interestingly, one reason for that is I’m seeing a number… First, you saw it from a civil procedure or a criminal procedure. Courts effectively realizing how impactful AI was going to be on their operations and the speed with which courts across the country- provincial, federal jurisdiction- rolled those rules out. Huge.

I think the awareness and education of judges and how to engage particularly self-represented litigants, which could come up in complex financial cases. They’re appreciating the benefits of their use of AI from an access-to-justice perspective, so they’re not closing the door entirely on how those tools can be used, but they are also appreciating the impact that the misuse of those tools can have on overall court functions and the waste of resources that can come from that.

So, I’m a little bit more optimistic. It does depress me when I see cases of judges using AI in the writing of their decisions, not just fake citations in support of their reasoning, but I would remove reasoning from that decision entirely. And, so, I think we’re seeing some pluses, but it’s definitely a space to keep watching.

Kevin Press:

It’s interesting you talk about the judges. I’m going to try not to be ageist as I ask this question, but there’s a generational issue here, isn’t there, where you’ve got a lot of people in a position to make decisions, to write regulations, to write laws who maybe don’t get it? What do you think?

Kelly MacDonald:

Oh, 100%. So, the very first, sort of, AI-focused panel that I spoke on was about two years ago. And so, you know, did a lot of reading, listened to a lot of podcasts. And, one of the most interesting ones was a McKinsey Podcast, and two of their, sort of, top global consultants, and all their work was focused on working with the largest organizations around the globe on AI, board readiness, governance. And, what they said was, “Nobody’s ready.” Like, nobody’s ready. And the most sophisticated organizations that you would think, they said they still need help.

So, if top organizations still need some help here, yeah, absolutely. And that’s why I made the point at the end, like, do not go this alone. There are lawyers, law firms, risk professionals, and others that this is what they do. You know, bring them in to help you better understand, you know, everything. I’ll tell a just a silly, you know, firm story.

So, I do growth strategy, so that means sales and was, you know, working with a bunch of our client executives. And I was asking like, “Who’s using AI as part of the sales process?” And I was pleased to see the young folks were, and it’s a lot around research, right? So it’s just, it’s speeding up client research and making sure that when they’re getting out to a prospect, they’re coming, you know, heavily researched and they can have really good, you know, discovery questions.

But there was definitely a generational divide in the room, and there were a whole bunch of them going, “Oh, I don’t really use AI for anything.” And I said, “Guys, like, you’ve got to…” Even if it’s, you know, it feels a little bit foreign to you, you’ve got to grow or die on the vine. And so, it’s going to be a huge problem. So, yes, I think there’s some real challenges around, you know, generational issues. You know, fear around tools that we don’t know. Like, I’ve got kids, and sometimes they look… Like, I think I’m a pretty hip and with-it individual, and sometimes my daughters look at me and they’re like, “Oh, Mom, like, you’re like Cro-Magnon.” So, you know, then take people that are older than me. So, yeah, there’s definitely some generational, some differences that we need to bridge.

And those that are, you know, making policy or, you know, making decisions, you know, to use or not use, they need to understand, like, you know, if it’s a founder of a business or an executive team that’s like, “Okay, well, we need to find a way to expand margin and grow,” and all they’re focused on is like operational efficiency, “I need to not replace head count,” they’ve lost the plot on, like, yeah, they’re focused on the reward part, but they’ve so missed the risk part.

And when those get out of whack or those conversations aren’t had together, like, that’s when the wheels fall off. And, like, we’re very much racing down the freeway, you know, changing the tire, you know, putting the windshield wiper fluid in, somebody’s under the hood trying to put some oil there, and, you know, some are in better shape than others, but… And then some haven’t even, you know, left the, they’re still with their pit crew.

Kevin Press:

So I heard two calls to action there. Number one was use the tools. If you’re not in there, get in there.

Kelly MacDonald:

Yeah.

Kevin Press:

Number two, get help.

Kelly MacDonald:

Yes. Yes, absolutely.

Kevin Press:

Okay. So, Matt, the larger financial services industry, beyond just the firms and the advisors-same two calls to action, I assume?

Matt Saunders:

Most definitely. Most definitely. And we’re hearing those calls, and I think the approach that’s being taken, on a much grander scale, but is one being done not in isolation. It’s realizing that there are a whole bunch of different tools in the toolbox that need to be used to figure out how to appropriately use these tools to the benefit of our customers and also their bottom line, and to be done in a way that limits, as much as possible, the cyber risk, Mythos notwithstanding.

But, it is, what, what we’re seeing is a fairly collaborative approach, and I think, going back to, sort of, the risk/benefit, I think you’re seeing the action that’s being taken place, particularly in the private sector, is having an impact on the public sector from a regulatory perspective. And you’re seeing, particularly at the federal level and the provincial levels, that the rules need to get more meat on the bones and the frameworks that we have, again, starting with privacy and now into cyber, there’s opportunity there to build better regulations from an AI side of things.

And I’m hopeful, financial services being one of those big sectors, I think critical infrastructure, which is a very broad piece, but I think also another area where rules are going to come from the actions that the big players are taking. And I think Canada’s got a real opportunity to be a leader in that space because just of how diverse the approaches to AI regulation are in other countries.

Kevin Press:

Is this going to change how advisory practices need to insure themselves?

Matt Saunders:

I would say yes, but I’m not as big of an expert on that side of things. But, I’ll just say quickly before handing it to Kelly, you’ve seen the evolution of cyber coverage, and I think we’re in another very shifty place of where AI fits into that. Is it its own product? Is it something entirely different? Can it fall under cyber?

Kelly MacDonald:

Yeah, I mean, I think there’s going to have to be an evolution over time. And, you know, I made the comment earlier, like, the insurance industry’s trying to figure this out as well.

So, you know, the insurance industry is also using AI. They want to find efficiencies. They want to use it to underwrite better. They want to use it to process claims better and all of that. But, at the same time, they need to figure out, you know, when they’re underwriting a risk, “What do I need to ask now that I didn’t ask before?” And I do think there’s a big miss on, you know, talking to D&O carriers and how they’re thinking about the governance exposure and how that’s changing, and I don’t think they’ve completely digested how big the risk is because firms are going to get sued and boards are going to get sued.

And, so, I don’t see any issues with those policies responding, you know, outside of, you know, the terms and conditions, obviously, need to be met, but I don’t see any concerns. It fits squarely within, sort of, the governance, in the governance world. You know, cyber, we might start to see some, you know, carve-outs of coverage depending on what you’re using AI for. I would think that they’re going to start to ask, you know, we’re starting to see some questions around, you know, use and deployment of AI or creation of your own AI as part of some of those cyber renewals and cyber discussions.

But, you know, it’s evolving. And I think what’s going to happen is there’s going to be a big, stinky claim, and either it’s going to be denied or it’s going to get paid, or there’s going to be a couple, one’s going to get denied, and there’s going to be a change. You know, it’s no different than when the Twin Towers were hit, and all of a sudden now we’ve got terrorism insurance, and the industry had to evolve. And then, you know, as getting a little bit more granular, like, are you developing AI, or what are you using AI to do in your business? Because if, all of a sudden, there’s like E&O exposure that is not around, like, the delivering of professional services and the way we think of it, the way an advisor would work with a client.

Respectfully, underwriters haven’t underwritten that exposure and haven’t charged the appropriate premium for what that AI tool is doing. And, so, I think they should be able to exclude that exposure. So, again, if you’re a firm that’s using, you know, AI to make decisions within your business that then impact clients, yeah, like, the insurance needs to change. I also think about, you know, crime and social engineering and all those types of ways that cybercriminals are going to use AI to attack at speed and scale, I think that’s going to change the face of, you know, crime insurance and whatnot. So… And I think they’re going to be insurers that really lean into, you know, AI-specific coverage. You know, those that, again, that stay silent and those that say like, “No, thanks. I don’t want to be any part of that, and we want you to do something separate and distinct.”

Kevin Press:

Last question for both of you. Optimistic, pessimistic, or somewhere in between?

Matt Saunders:

Does that count as one of those answers? I think it’s a deep-rooted feeling. I’m trying to be optimistic, but, of late, I’m more pessimistic. And the reason for that, maybe, is twofold. It goes back to one of the original points I made. One, the technology and the speed with which it’s advancing is too fast. Two, the slowness for which the regulatory landscape is trying to keep up. And that’s disconcerting. It’s great for us in the sense of the work that we’ll have to do and the way that we’re going to advise our clients, but I feel that, that window of providing actual help and advice is starting to narrow, unless we can really start getting some traction on new laws, regulatory, sort of, foundations, so that clients, dealers, individuals just have a clearer picture in terms of, “I’m going to use these tools. I’m going to do these things with them. This is the risk, and I’m okay with that, and I know what the outcomes could be.”

Kevin Press:

Kelly, please say optimistic.

Kelly MacDonald:

I wish I could. I mean, I think I’m going to say the exact same thing. I mean, there was a time, maybe, six, nine months ago, where I was a lot more optimistic, a lot more bullish. And, again, I think there is stuff that really excites me, but I echo your comments. It’s moving too fast. It is moving too fast. It’s a runaway train. The emergency brake is not working. And, I worry that we have lost the opportunity to, kind of, tap the brakes where we need to tap the brakes to do exactly what you said, just, sort of, figure out the frameworks, figure out like, let’s just figure out where everybody needs to be so that we can get a bird’s-eye view of, you know, risk and opportunity, and then we can take advantage of the power of these tools. So, I want to be optimistic. I really, really do because there’s so much that really excites me about the topic, but I do worry that it is a runaway train, and, again, this distance between, like, what we needed to do to keep everything in order and this innovation out here, that, that divide has gotten so large, that even if we wanted to, I don’t even know if we can catch up and keep up.

Kevin Press:

Thank you both so much. Such an important conversation. Obviously, a timely one. Thank you.

Kelly MacDonald:

You’re welcome. Thank you.

Kevin Press:

My guests have been Kelly MacDonald of BFL Canada and Matt Saunders of Borden Ladner Gervais. Our thanks to the Federation of Independent Dealers for hosting us today. Canadian Advisor.cast is a production of Newcom Media. It’s produced by Alisha Hiyate, co-produced by Noushin Ziafati. My name’s Kevin Press. Take care.