Evidence of meeting #56 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was measure.
A video is available from Parliament.
Manager, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
They would go through the normal process, which would be to a federal department and then to a province, so that's correct.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you for being here. With respect to this division, we will see you at clause-by-clause.
Colleagues, I will suspend for five minutes and we'll have a discussion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call this meeting back to order. It is meeting number 56 of the Standing Committee on Finance.
I know we have questions for at least divisions 18, 20, and 21.
We'll ask the officials for those three divisions to come to the table. I just want to get the officials to the table as soon as possible so we can start right into questions.
We'll do questions on division 18.
Do I have a question from the NDP? No.
Okay, we'll go then to the CPC. Are there questions on division 18? No. Okay, thank you.
On division 20, do I have notice of a question from the NDP? No.
Is there a question from the CPC?
We'll have a question on division 20 quickly, please.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to clarify that the chief public health officer is not losing any influence or advising powers when it comes to health issues with regard to division 20.
Sylvain Segard Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and International Affairs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
That is correct. The measure simply separates the authority for management and moves that over to the new president's function, whereas the CPHO will continue to have the same responsibilities and ability to advise directly the minister or Canadians on all matters related to public health.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much for being here with us this evening, Mr. Saxton.
We'll now go to division 21. Are there any questions on division 21?
We want to thank you for being with us on division 21. We'll see you at clause-by-clause.
Colleagues, the next divisions I have, unless you indicate otherwise, are 22, 26, and 27.
We'll go to division 22.
Mr. Rankin, you can start.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
My question concerns this entire division in terms of the objective with respect to credit union regulation. It seems to change the way in which credit unions are regulated. It has provincial and federal reference, and I am a little concerned about the amount of consultation that the officials did with the credit union sector before these changes in the regulatory landscape were introduced. Could someone comment on the nature of the consultation giving rise to these changes?
Rob Stewart Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I would be pleased to answer that question.
These changes stem from an extensive process of consultation in the broad sense. It was flagged several years ago by the credit union movement and, in particular the credit union centrals, that changes in the regulatory landscape were intended, and it was more recently flagged in the budget of 2014. Over the last two years there have been interactions at a variety of levels, including communications with provinces and provincial officials, who are responsible for the regulation of credit unions, and many meetings with credit unions themselves. Most recently, there has been a technical paper published to elaborate on the rationale behind the changes.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
All right.
I have a much more specific question. I am not sure I understand clause 270, which says that a local cooperative credit union, if authorized, can immediately amalgamate.
Could someone explain the intent of clause 270 to me?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Certainly. The changes in this bill reflect a dual agenda. A minute ago we were talking about the regulatory side of that agenda, which is a clarification of the regulatory framework. They also address progressing the government's intention to offer the option of federal credit unions, and in that context, clause 270 speaks to facilitating the amalgamation of credit unions for the purposes of transitioning to the federal system.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Right. You are saying that the federal government is open to exploring alternative models. This section provides the statutory authority for a federally regulated credit union.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That previously existed.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It facilitates the process of becoming a federal credit union. It is an extension of a prior effort.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
OSFI will cease to have a dual supervisory role in conjunction with the provinces. Will there continue to be provincial regulation of credit unions, and then OSFI will plug in if and only if a federal credit union is concerned?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That is correct.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I see. There is also a change here proposing, as I understand it, that the CDIC no longer provide lending to provincial credit union centrals. Do I have that right?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That is correct.
November 5th, 2014 / 5:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That is part of the clarification of the regulatory framework for provincial credit unions. There are three elements to that framework, which include the cessation of OSFI's supervision of centrals, the removal of CDIC's lending power to credit unions, and changes to the Bank of Canada's authority to provide emergency lending assistance.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Given that, I'm trying to get a handle on the regulatory burden facing credit unions as a consequence. Credit union centrals are already regulated by the provinces. Correct?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Correct.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Essentially we're removing federal regulation, but only in the sense if there's a federally regulated credit union. In other words, is there less of a regulatory burden as a consequence of these amendments than there was before these amendments, or is that a fair way of looking at it?
