Evidence of meeting #19 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was income.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Trevor McGowan  Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Pierre LeBlanc  Senior Chief, Quantitative Analysis, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
James Greene  Director, Business Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Robert Demeter  Chief, Business Property and Personal Income, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Greg Meredith  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Brad Recker  Senior Chief, Expenditure Analysis and Forecasting, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Faith McIntyre  Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Glenn Campbell  Director, Financial Institutions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Alexandra Dostal  Senior Chief Framework Policy, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Campbell, you mentioned—and that is what I read too—that a number of aspects would then be subsequently determined through regulations, not the legislation.

I accept your explanation that deposits are not included in the liabilities of banks, but the fact remains that the definition of liabilities is not included in the legislation. As I understand it, it will eventually be defined in regulations. Is that correct? The regulations themselves do not require the participation of Parliament and the House of Commons. It can come from an order from the Governor in Council. Is that the case?

What concerns people is that their deposits could be at risk. Is there a protection mechanism to ensure that the definition cannot be changed by the Governor in Council?

I completely agree with wanting to exclude that, but I am wondering whether significant obstacles would prevent another government dealing with a more difficult situation from amending the definition to include deposits. That's what worries me. This is not about the current government, but rather a future government facing a different situation.

1:55 p.m.

Director, Financial Institutions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Glenn Campbell

Thank you for the questions.

Let me start by saying that the whole concept here enshrined in legislation is long-term debt, which basically means bonds, creditors, investors—the whole concept. Also in the concept is that a systemic bank keep operating. In order to keep operating, it needs to attract and retain its deposits. Even in concept, then, in the legislation deposits figure prominently in considering the ability of the bank to continue operating.

Given that deposits were not contemplated in this regime, what can be bailed in will be described in legislation. The nature of what long-term debt securities are can change over time—the length of time, the type of bonds—but clearly the intent was that it can change. It will be a Governor in Council decision. There will be a promulgation of regulations, and we will have to consult with the whole industry as well as Canadians on the regulations. That is a natural Treasury Board process.

But again, deposits aren't even contemplated anywhere in this regime, I can assure you of that.

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We're going to stop it there. We will have to ask the witnesses back and we'll figure out a time.

Thank you for coming. I'm sorry we didn't get to you, but we'll have to come back to division 5, division 9, division 12, and division 14. Thank you for your appearance today.

The meeting is adjourned.