Canadian employers are in a unique position. Not because they can solve every challenge facing employees, but because they influence the conditions that shape real outcomes over time.
In our last article, we looked deeper at where the gaps form and why they matter. This article builds on that by focusing on the most practical lever to close those gaps at scale: the workplace.
Most organizations already recognize their impact on physical and mental health through benefits, workplace policies, wellness initiatives, and access to care. The same principle applies to financial wellbeing. In many ways, the linkage is even more direct.
Compensation is the obvious foundation. But long-term financial success is heavily influenced by workplace systems that make it easier to save, stay consistent, and make informed decisions. A retirement plan should be viewed as more than a benefit – more like infrastructure for better outcomes.
The difference between saving inside and outside the workplace
To see the gap clearly, compare two Canadians with similar income and goals:
Saving outside the workplace
- They must choose the right account type, provider, contribution level, and investment approach on their own.
- They often face friction at every step: paperwork, uncertainty, inconsistent follow-through, and limited decision support.
- If they want advice, they may not qualify or it may not be affordable in a traditional model.
Saving inside the workplace
- Enrollment is simpler.
- Contributions can be automated through payroll.
- Matching or employer contributions create an immediate incentive.
- Education, tools, and decision support can be embedded into the plan experience.
- In many cases, there is access to guidance that helps employees make better choices.
This contrast matters because outcomes are shaped less by intention and more by structure. When a system reduces friction and supports better decisions, more people participate, contribute, and stay on track.
The advice gap is not theoretical
Canada’s current regulatory environment has contributed to an “advice gap” where low- and middle-income households are increasingly shut out of personalized financial guidance. A C.D. Howe Institute report highlighted how rising compliance costs and fragmented regulation have pushed many advisory firms toward minimum asset thresholds, often $100,000 or more, limiting access for the mass market.
C.D. Howe also points to international lessons. Canada has not faced some of the more extreme disruptions seen elsewhere, such as the U.K.’s commission bans, but the broader warning is clear: transparency alone does not solve access, and other jurisdictions have been moving more aggressively toward modernization than Canada. When people cannot access advice, they still make financial decisions. They just do it with less support, more misinformation, and more reliance on informal sources. That is a risk for households and a risk for the broader economy.
CAPSA has correctly identified the outcomes problem
CAPSA’s updated Guideline for Capital Accumulation Plans reinforces a key point that many employers already sense: member outcomes are not improving simply because a plan exists. CAPSA encourages sponsors to adopt an ongoing education strategy designed to improve member decisions and outcomes, and explicitly acknowledges that varying levels of financial literacy, engagement, and capacity to save contribute to the challenge.
That matters because employers have something regulators and markets do not: proximity and trust.
Many workforces include large segments of low- to middle-income earners, the same Canadians most likely to be excluded from traditional planning models. If the goal is better outcomes, the workplace is one of the most practical channels for improving access.
The employer opportunity: expand compensation beyond pay
This is the turning point. If an employer accepts that financial outcomes are influenced by access, structure, and support, then the question becomes practical:
How can compensation be reviewed and modernized to include access to meaningful financial planning support?
It requires recognizing that compensation already includes multiple components that influence long-term wellbeing:
- base pay
- incentives
- benefits
- retirement programs
- education and development
- workplace supports that improve decision-making
Financial planning access can be part of that total value proposition.
What this looks like in practice
For many organizations, the path forward is not a single initiative. It is a set of coordinated decisions that reduce friction and increase follow-through.
A strong approach typically includes:
- Plan design that supports participation
- Ongoing education tied to behaviour
- Access to guidance
- Governance and measurement
Many employers have already invested heavily in workplace supports. The lesson from mental health applies here too: access alone does not guarantee results.
If employees are enrolled but under-saving, if they are invested but unsure, if they are overwhelmed at retirement transition points, then the system still has gaps. Employers can close those gaps by treating financial wellbeing as an outcomes problem, not a communications problem.
The bottom line
The question is no longer whether employers can influence outcomes. They already do.
The real question is whether compensation strategies will evolve to include access to the financial planning supports that make those outcomes possible.
Interested in hearing more? Let’s talk. Iain Blair
