Finance Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

It's not a matter of territory. I'm going to use a strange analogy.

Quebec butter producers ultimately won their case in the Supreme Court as a result of a consumer protection matter. The product, which is a fish oil of the same colour as butter, cannot be mistaken for butter by consumers. However, you're telling me that, if a credit union in Manitoba were incorporated at the federal level, and henceforth bore the name of “caisse populaire” and established itself in Quebec as a federal caisse populaire, that wouldn't be a problem for you.

[Hubert Thibault]

It would be called a “federal credit union”.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Not at all. It would be called a “caisse populaire”. That's the problem. We validated that point in our hearings. It would bear the name “federal credit union”.

[Hubert Thibault]

Based on our understanding of the act—

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Your understanding is incorrect. We confirmed this point here last week.

[Hubert Thibault]

Is that so?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Departmental experts confirmed for us that if a credit union from Manitoba designated, in French, as a “caisse populaire” migrated to the federal system, as you so well said, and decided to establish itself in Quebec, it would bear the name of “federal credit union”.

[Hubert Thibault]

From what we understand, the act requires that the term “federal credit union” be used.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Not at all!

[Hubert Thibault]

We're going to review our analysis on that point.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Very well.

I want to go back to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Mr. Alexander, from what I understood of your remarks, you would like Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to be sold as soon as possible. Is that correct?

[Dr. Neil Alexander]

I think Hubert gave a very good answer to that question. We need to make progress quickly, but we also need to make sure it is the right progress. There is a balance there; I wouldn't like to suggest to people that it has to be done in a hurry, but we need to progress at an appropriate rate, because as well as the opportunities we're losing, there is the issue that Mike Ivanco raised around keeping quality people in the country with opportunity.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Monsieur Mulcair.

Mr. McKay, you may have a five-minute round.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've been very critical of the way the government has handled this particular bill with respect to putting things into the bill that are inappropriate or not before the right committee and to throwing everything in, including the kitchen sink. However, concerning the proposal that there be federal legislation with respect to credit unions, which has been talked about for years—Mr. Phillips in particular has made representations—this is an appropriate committee, and this is an appropriate item to put into this particular kind of legislation.

Having said that, the question I have for Mr. Phillips and possibly Mr. Thibault is, why would a credit union now incorporate provincially?

[David Phillips]

Why would it incorporate provincially?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes. If it's the same grief to set up provincially as it is to set up federally, why would you do it?

[David Phillips]

I'm not sure it would be the same grief in every case. There are going to be pluses and minuses for incorporating in any particular jurisdiction, and you would really need to consider what your strategy is overall. In some jurisdictions, for instance, the deposit insurance level is higher than it would be under this bill. In some provincial jurisdictions, the powers are greater than would be present under federal legislation.

However, if you're incorporated in a province, you can only expand within that province; you can't expand across borders. It really comes down to the kind of strategy you wish to develop and the trade-off you make between the various advantages and disadvantages of one corporate level over another.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But it is a decision. I accept your answer, that it does make sense, but it strikes me that, all things being equal, one would probably incorporate federally now, with this kind of provision.

[David Phillips]

That would be the case potentially for a large credit union. This is a strong charter, a good charter. But you're going to want to consider your strategy very carefully.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes, some details still need to be fleshed out.

My next question is for both Mr. MacDiarmid and Mr. Ivanco.

Yesterday I flew in from Washington. The seatmate with whom I was sitting and I chatted as we flew in. She worked for Nortel for nine years. She now works for a Washington-based company. That Washington-based company was picking up a section of the Ericsson purchase. We discussed the amount of money that the Canadian taxpayers had sunk into Nortel, the tremendous loss that it is. Her comment, entirely unsolicited by me, was that this was a terrible tragedy, that it basically took Canada out of the game, except insofar as it's more advantageous for foreign companies to locate their operations here than it might be anywhere else.

My first question, Mr. MacDiarmid, is whether AECL is the next Nortel, because this legislation gives the government the authority to sell it one minute after royal assent.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

I'm certainly not the right person to respond to the broader policy questions; I'm the executive responsible for running the business. I can say, from my perspective, that what I believe to be the case is that the goal is to strengthen AECL, to preserve the CANDU brand, and to strengthen Canada's—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I only have a minute or two. I've listened to that fantasy argument from government members. The truth of the matter is that this does, without any hesitation, give the opportunity to the government to sell off AECL without any debate whatsoever, and at the end of the day, we may not have a nuclear industry.

I have very few minutes left. I'll let Mr. Ivanco respond to the same question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Very briefly.

[Dr. Michael Ivanco]

That has been one of our concerns. We don't know. The bill gives the government carte blanche to do whatever it wants. The intentions are apparently not there, but the bill allows them to do it. You heard Neil mention earlier that there is a $20-billion sale by the Koreans to the United Arab Emirates. Were a foreign company to buy us, if they chose to do it just to kill us it could be a wise business investment. That has always been one of our fears.