Finance committee  Many provinces do regulate their credit unions or caisses populaires or other entities, and some have generic consumer protection that applies to regular corporations, and it really speaks to the intent of a province of whether they want—I'm just speaking generally, hypothetically—to interfere with the provincial ability to regulate banks.

Finance committee  They may not be the same thing. Let me go back and correct; I may have misspoken earlier. This applies to Caisse populaire acadienne UNI credit. I misspoke earlier and said caisses populaires Desjardins. In fact, it clearly does not apply to Desjardins. Mr. Girard.

Finance committee  It's very hard to say that they would be complementary when you have the potential for multiple jurisdictions. It's incongruous to have a national banking standard where banks and related entities design all their products and services for a national scope and then, in many respects, meet varying provincial requirements.

Finance committee  I had answered this question earlier, but to be clear, this applies to banks and any current or future federally chartered credit unions.

Finance committee  That's a very good question. We went through this test recently with the caisse populaire in New Brunswick, which is now UNI Coopération financière. Similar to other federal provisions, for example, deposit insurance, they've had to go to their customers, their members, and stipulate that the regime is changing and that the rules under which they are operating are changing for deposit insurance, including consumer protection.

Finance committee  In this case, if they're a resident of that province and a customer of that particular institution, then under this regime the federal rules would apply and they would approach that institution...and everything that follows suit. If they just had a general complaint about something, they could go to the federal regulator and lodge a complaint.

Finance committee  There can be extensive differences between the provincial regimes. I'm not an expert in all provincial regimes, given the different provinces that—

Finance committee  We can safely assume that the Department of Justice, in its service to the Department of Finance in helping to draft this legislation for the government, has exhausted all of the necessary reviews before putting this legislation before Parliament. We're here to refer to the specific provisions and the policy intent—and we can talk about that—but I think we can safely assume that vetting has been done.

Finance committee  The suite of amendments that are being proposed here, in our opinion, respect the framework set out by the court.

Finance committee  I'm not going to make any comment about constitutionality. I think that's beyond my remit. However, the court, in our reading, from a policy point of view, was pretty clear. The Government of Canada, through the Parliament of Canada, needs to express its intent and be clear in legislation over how it intends these rules to apply, particularly around the circumstances where there may not be direct conflicts with the provincial law, but they're close, or there may be gaps.

Finance committee  Yes.

Finance committee  I'm responding to, holistically, the provisions that are here now, including the amendments that—

Finance committee  Pardon me. The government's amendments that are reflected in Bill C-29.

Finance committee  First, let me say that the legislation as amended, as proposed, is clear in its intent to have entities that are subject to the legislation follow the rules that are set out, and to know that these are comprehensive in their structure, such that they would be the rules to which those entities would follow pertaining to consumer protection in the realm of banks and banking, which is under federal jurisdiction as per the Constitution.

Finance committee  Not at all.