August 2025 Poll

Yes, coverag$e should be increased to $150,000. in the US, coverage for each category of account is $250,000. Canada is not keeping up with inflation or it’s neighbor.  However, it cannot afford to do more than 50% at once as the government needs t find funds to pay for it in can era of tightening budgets. Perhaps another one or two increases over a 5-year period would make sense.

By Martin on September 03, 2025

None

By George Nate on August 27, 2025

I recently learned that standard FDIC insurance in the US is $250,000 with some institutions/accounts being higher. 

Regardless of what the right number is, it really should reflect inflation and increases in income rather than an occasional bump of a particular round amount.

By Derek T on August 27, 2025

Yes - it should be much more!  More wealth and sales revenues are being accumulated by individuals and businesses and reflected by the larger deposit balances in bank accounts.    Individual incomes and and business revenues have significantly increased over the last 10 years , not only due to increased sales volume, but because of the significant increases in sales pricing.  Individuals are also more wealthy in Canada (not everyone, of course) and hold larger deposits in their bank account.    The CDIC must accommodate and protect that.

By Gaetan Ladouceur on August 26, 2025

Yes, funds are higher cost of living more protection on funds in Canada bank accounts is required. it have incentive to increase this amount to higher living in Urban areas high costs of living.

By Ina Turner on August 20, 2025

Yes, it should be increased… but I agree with the previous 2 posters.. It is not enough for all of the same reasons listed.  I also agree that it should be increasing on a yearly basis.

By Rachel P on August 20, 2025

With possibly what goes on under the surface of the water with GIC’s issuers (TD Bank as 1 example) $150,000 is greatly better than $100K. I also agree with Bob Nelson in that $150K misses the mark totally (We do have bail-in going on now and not bail out) . Perhaps indexing the coverage to match inflation every year would help a little until the amount that it should be when based on common sense enters the conversation and is amended.

By Stella Pearson on August 13, 2025

I say no to the $150,000 coverage level quite simply because the $50,000 coverage increase is frankly inadequate.  In 1967 CDIC offered $20,000 in coverage.  In 1983, 16 years later, that coverage was tripled to $60,000.  In 2005, 22 years later, it was increased to $100,000.  20 years later we are still at the same coverage level as in 2005.  Given the high levels of inflation in recent years and the propensity of many boomers to invest in relatively low risk GICs, I recommend that the coverage goes to $250,000.  There was a time in our lives when this was a staggering figure.  Sadly, today it is not!!  In fact in most urban areas of BC, that amount could not even buy a person a condo.  CDIC coverage is there to protect the consumer.  Consumers assets have risen.  It is time for CDIC to catch up and do a better job of protecting consumers!

By Rob Nelson on August 07, 2025