Finance Committee on March 15th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It might be best if we can go through it and you can have some thoughts as to how you want to handle it. As we get to the end of clause by clause, we can revisit the matter if you wish. Is that okay?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'm mindful of not going too quickly for members, but I do not have an amendment until clause 53. I have two amendments for clause 53. Could members indicate to me if they have any questions or comments for the officials on any clause. You can indicate to me and then I'll try to group clauses that members do not have questions and deal with them first.

I'll start with Mr. Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I would like to know what difference between the English and French versions justifies an amendment to section 2 of the Bank Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Ryan, do you want to speak to that?

[Eleanor Ryan, Senior Chief, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Yes.

Here are you referring to the definition of “consumer provision” or the proposed subsection 2(2) dealing with «banque étrangère»?

C'est «banque étrangère»?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes.

[Eleanor Ryan]

There's a mistake in the French version. There should be a reference to subsection 378(2).

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I don't think she understood my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Does that clarify the issue?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

There was obviously something wrong between the English and French versions. You made the French and English versions consistent. What difference between the two version justified the amendment?

[Diane Lafleur]

There was simply an erroneous reference. The number of the provision wasn't correct in the French version.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So there was no discrepancy between the English and French versions?

[Diane Lafleur]

It wasn't the wording that was incorrect; it was simply the reference to the provision in question.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Are there any clauses before clause 53 that members want to highlight and discuss? Okay, I'm going to group them.

(Clauses 2 to 52 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 53)

On clause 53, I have amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Julian, I'll ask you to move that, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, just to simplify things, I'm sure my Conservative colleagues and Mr. Brison will be happy to learn that I'll only be speaking really once to a series of amendments that are very similar, unless there is a massive reaction from the Conservative and Liberal MPs, who want me to speak more. I certainly could.

In all four cases we're talking about similar amendments. First—

…the Bank Act; second, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act; third, the Insurance Companies Act; and fourth, the Trust and Loan Companies Act.

In every case, the amendments deal with the minister's decision-making process with respect to the acquisition of foreign financial institutions by a Canadian financial institution.

We have similar amendments in all four sections. What we are attempting to do in all four sections is provide more transparency around the decision and to provide a greater degree of input into the decision itself.

As you can see in clause 53:

the Minister may, in considering whether to grant the approval under paragraph (5)(b.1), take into account all matters that he or she considers relevant in the circumstances, including

Currently it's,

(a) the stability of the financial system in Canada; and

(b) the best interests of the financial system in Canada.

We would make it obligatory that “the Minister shall” take into consideration these elements, and we've added the additional elements: “stability of the Canadian economy”, “the best interests of the Canadian economy”, and “any written report of the Superintendent”, so in that way providing a stronger framework for the decision and an obligatory process for the decision that's taken by the minister.

In all four sections we're talking about a similar approach. We would have four different votes, but unless there are questions I think it's pretty clear what we're endeavouring to do here. Whether members agree or disagree is another question. What we're trying to do in these four sections is make the process obligatory, and add additional elements that the minister must take into consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.

I have Ms. Glover and then Mr. Jean.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague across the way for paying close attention to the important bill that we have before us. I have to disagree with my colleague, however.

In essence, this bill allows some flexibility, which is very important, to the minister. To insist on specific criteria and on the “shall” as opposed to the “may” would limit the flexibility of the minister, who right now has the ability to look not only at the criteria set in the bill but at other criteria.

For those reasons, we would be opposed. I hope our colleagues across the way will see how important that flexibility is, because bills, as you know, take a very long time to amend through the parliamentary procedure. Who knows what kinds of things are going to come forward in the next few years that the minister may want to refer to in the future?

So I think flexibility is important, but in line with what the officials said previously today, consistency is also very important. There are a number of financial institutions statutes that are written very much consistently with what we have. This amendment would require going away from the standard, going away from that consistency, and would be detrimental, frankly.

I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration, withdraw their proposed amendment, and simply go with what has been proposed under the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

Mr. Jean, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Typically I agree with Ms. Glover, the parliamentary secretary, and again I do this time. It makes total sense.

I don't really understand how this scheme would be accomplished. In one situation, you're suggesting to take away the discretion of the minister—which, of course, is ministerial discretion and the reason that they are ministers—and have all the accompanying requirements. But then you're adding in some other things, such as the stability of the Canadian economy and the best interests....

Somebody has to make a decision on whether it is in “the best interests”. You always have A versus B. You've included “stability of the economy”, for instance. That is a subjective opinion of people based upon a set of data that are by their nature subjective.

So I think this is at cross purposes, but I would disagree with it just because it does not fit in with ministers' discretion and the discretion of the crown generally. It doesn't make sense.

What I think it does point to is that you believe you're never going to be in government and will never be able to be a minister. I'm not trying to cause antagonism here, but certainly if you reached government and became a minister, you'd want to have the discretion to do what exactly is in the best interests of the Canadian economy and base it on the stability of the economy as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

I have Ms. McLeod on the list.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

Perhaps our officials could speak to this.

You are very comprehensive in terms of how and why you put certain language forward. If you have any comments on the suggested amendment and why this clause was worded originally as it was....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there someone who'd like to speak to this?

[Diane Lafleur]

I can take a stab at it.

As Ms. Glover mentioned, the wording of this section is consistent with other parts of the statute, and it draws from various other pieces of legislation, so it offers some consistency.

I would point out, too, that the wording of the legislation is “take into account all matters that he or she considers relevant”. This list is not exhaustive, and there is nothing that precludes the minister from taking other matters into consideration, depending on the particulars of the transaction that is before him.

These tend to be very complex deals. They each tend to bring many unique considerations forward. Giving discretion and the ability to consider different things based on the particulars helps serve the public interest better.

I would also note in respect of proposed paragraph 468(5.1)(e), that a “written report of the Superintendent” is, as we discussed earlier, redundant because there would in fact be a written recommendation from the superintendent that would precede such an approval. So it is already built into the approvals framework.