Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He clearly examined the bill in great detail. It did not generate much debate when it was amended. I believe that this amendment was in fact introduced by the government.
Of course, my recollection may be questionable. I agree with the member that, given more time, we should have done more work on this issue in particular.
In the context of Bill C-37, more flexible measures concerning cooperative credit associations were aimed at facilitating the entry of new cooperative credit associations and at reducing to two the number of institutions that would be required to become a cooperative credit association.
Thus, small communities will have the opportunity to put in place cooperative credit associations that will be recognized as long as they have two institutions or two branches. In this case, the regulatory requirements cannot be the same as for a charter bank that has thousands of branches and which manages billions of dollars. This is why the bill was amended to account for some situations where there would be a small number of cooperative credit associations.
Another aspect is perhaps related to this fact. I admit that I would have to take another look at the text . The regulatory requirements for foreign near banks that are present in Canada were also amended so that they would be regulated almost to the same extent as in their country of origin. Once again, these are institutions that may be relatively small.
This is the only reason I can give the member. In some cases, regulations that would be too onerous would prevent communities from putting in place cooperative credit associations as long as there are two institutions. They would not be nearly as large as the Desjardins movement or other credit unions.
I think that we will have to remain vigilant to ensure that there is no abuse in this regard.