Bill 33 — The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 33 (The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025)
Second Reading

From Hansard (12 November 2025)

To view this section on video, click here and start play at 2:28:45 PM.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move second reading of Bill No. 33, The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025. This bill will modernize certain portions of The Credit Union Act, 1998.

In both 2020 and 2023, the Canadian Credit Union Association consulted the CEOs [chief executive officer] and general managers of Saskatchewan credit unions and compiled a list of priorities and concerns for possible amendments to the Act.

This bill will amend the threshold required for members to pass a special resolution from the current three-quarters to two-thirds to align with other provinces, except for certain matters in Quebec. It will authorize certain responsibilities to be delegated by a credit union board to employees. It will provide a definition for the term “professional adviser” to remove ambiguity about the eligibility for an individual to be on a credit union’s board of directors. It will create future flexibility to allow regulations to prescribe certain requirements or time frames. And it will clarify how deposits are paid out when a membership is terminated.

Additionally credit unions have requested changes to the membership termination process as they have found the current Act to be unclear. Amendments in this bill will revise the member termination and appeal process to clarify requirements. It will allow the board of a credit union in certain situations to direct the terminated member’s form of submissions to be made during an appeal to the members of a credit union. And it will authorize the board to replace the appeal to the membership with an appeal to the court, if the board reasonably believes an appeal to the membership cannot be done in any form without violating certain obligations of the credit union or an order of the court.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 33, The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025.

Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice
From Hansard (22 April 2026)

To view this section on video, click here and start play at 3:32:50 PM.

Clause 1

Chair B. McLeod: — We’ll first consider Bill No. 33, The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025 beginning with the consideration of clause 1, short title. Now, Minister McLeod, welcome. You are here with your officials, and I ask that the officials would introduce themselves before they speak for the first time. And as always, do not touch the microphones. The Hansard operator will turn them on for you when you speak.

Minister, please introduce your officials and make your opening comments, please.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Well thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and committee members. Joining me at the table to my far left, we have Cory Peters, the executive director, consumer credit division at the FCAA [Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan]. To my immediate left, Haley Irwin, legal counsel with the FCAA. And to my right, Darca Tkach, the Crown counsel, legislative services, Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer some opening remarks for Bill No. 33, The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025. This is a bill that will modernize certain portions of The Credit Union Act of 1998. In both 2020 and 2023, the Canadian Credit Union Association consulted the CEOs [chief executive officer] and general managers of Saskatchewan credit unions and compiled a list of priorities and concerns for possible amendments to the Act.

This bill will do several things. The first, it amends the threshold required for members to pass a special resolution from the current three-quarters to two-thirds to align with all other provinces, except for a vote for dissolution in Quebec. Secondly, it authorizes certain responsibilities to be delegated by a credit union board to employees.

Thirdly, provides a definition for the term “professional adviser” to remove ambiguity about the eligibility for an individual to be on a credit union’s board of directors. It also creates future flexibility to allow regulations to prescribe certain requirements or timeframes, and finally it clarifies how deposits are paid out when a membership is terminated.

Additionally, credit unions have requested changes to the membership termination process, as they have found the current Act to be unclear. Amendments in this bill will revise the member termination and appeal processes to clarify requirements. It will allow the board of the credit union in certain situations to direct the terminated member’s form of submissions to be made during an appeal to the members of the credit union. And finally, it authorizes the board to replace the appeal to the membership with an appeal to the court if the board reasonably believes that an appeal to the membership cannot be done in any form without violating certain obligations of the credit union or an order of the court.

Mr. Chair, with those opening remarks, I’m welcoming questions respecting Bill 33, The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025.

Chair B. McLeod: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open the floor to questions, and I recognize MLA Sarauer.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Minister, for your opening comments. In your opening statement you mentioned that the provisions in this bill are a result of consultations that the Canadian Credit Union Association did with their members. In those consultations they had a list of priorities that had been presented to the ministry. Were all of the CCUA’s [Canadian Credit Union Association] priorities implemented in this bill?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thanks for the question. Just wanted to confer with the team about the number of recommendations that were made. There were quite a number of them, and most of them were accepted. There were several that were not for a variety of reasons. I’m going to ask my excellent team to explain some of those reasons in greater detail, starting first with Darca.

Darca Tkach: — So Darca Tkach, Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. So yes, the top three recommendations that CCUA brought forward were integrated. But for some of the other requests, we did not integrate them into the bill for various reasons. So for example, some of those items were just outside the scope of the targeted amendments we wanted to make in this bill.

One reason was because some of the items can be addressed in the regulations when those are developed. Some of them would require further consultation with a broader spectrum of stakeholders. Some of them we felt it would be best if we left it to the democratic member process of credit unions.

And some were not brought forward in this bill for specific reasons. For example, there was a request that the bill be reviewed every 10 years and the regs every five years, but that’s not something that we typically build into legislation. So those are the main reasons why not every request made it into this set of targeted amendments.

Nicole Sarauer: — Are you able to more clearly outline for the committee the requests that were made, and then the decision of the ministry as to why that request was not granted?

Darca Tkach: — I could outline some of those.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you.

Darca Tkach: — So let’s see. Some of the things that can be addressed in the regulations are that there is currently a regulation-making authority in the Act to allow for exemptions. And there was a request concerning exempting credit unions from the current Act requirements that must be met before issuing a guarantee regarding members’ credit card limit. So if an exemption is required for that, that could be reviewed when the regs are developed.

Another request that could be integrated into the regs is concerns allowing credit unions to repay term deposits within one year after a membership has been terminated. And again that one-year period could be reviewed for how appropriate it is when the regs are being developed.

Some of the amendments that require a greater consultation would be, for example, allowing credit unions to sell certain types of insurance. That would require looking at CCUA’s recommendation on that topic. Adding provisions related to unclaimed safety deposit boxes, that’s also outside the scope of what we’re looking at for this bill. Am I missing . . . keep going, okay. They’ll tell me if I’ve missed any.

Providing an expedited process to allow a provincial credit union to sell its assets to a federal CU [credit union]. That’s also something we’d have to look at because it might require amendments to the Bank Act, which is federal.

So not every request could be accommodated. Some of the things that are better left to the democratic member process is whether or not it’s permissible to override member-approved bylaws, to expand access to recruitment of directors. That’s something that CUs can propose revisions to in their bylaws.

Authorizing the regulator to remove a director is also something that the credit unions need to self-govern. Allowing a credit union board to appoint an auditor. Again, it was felt that that was appropriate for the members to determine themselves.

Allowing credit unions to exercise discretion regarding the redemption or repayment of deposits instead of the board. It was felt that it was appropriate for the board to make those kind of decisions.

And then we had some requests that did not make it into this bill for specific reasons, like for example, authorizing credit unions’ senior management to make membership termination decisions. We’ve built into this bill additional requirements surrounding member terminations so that any safety concerns could be addressed. So we did not feel that that needed to be included in this bill.

There was a request to allow members to withdraw from the membership of a credit union at any time by giving verbal notice. We did integrate that request, but we added some additional requirements that the credit union follow up with them in writing to ensure that that verbal withdrawal was confirmed in writing.

[15:45]

Let’s see. There was a request concerning the requirement to obtain CUDGC’s approval, that’s the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation, to require CUDGC’s approval if a patronage refund exceeded one year’s profits. But it was felt that it’s important that CUDGC maintain regulatory oversight over these kind of events. So I think that covers most of the requests, and why and how they were dealt with.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. I appreciate you laying it out. Let’s talk specifically about one of the ones you had mentioned, the membership termination provisions. Now this bill has different provisions that what was requested by the CCUA. Can you explain why?

Haley Irwin: — Haley Irwin, legal counsel, Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority. So the current Act states that membership termination decisions are first made by the board with an appeal to the members of the credit union. This bill maintained that structure.

The request from CCUA was to instead have the CEO or the credit union make the initial termination decision with the appeal going to the board. This bill, while maintaining the current structure that’s in the current credit union Act, also provides safeguards for some of the concerns that were raised by CCUA — chief among them issues related to safety of members and employees of credit unions — while also maintaining that the members make the final decision with respect to a membership termination, which is an important core concept of the credit union model.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. The CCUA and several of the credit unions that it represents were fairly clear in their request for this change as you have described it, and have expressed — through I believe multiple letters to the ministry — their reasons why, particularly around safety. Could the ministry explain why they feel that this recommended amendment is sufficient to address their needs?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Yeah, I’m happy to do that. I have had a number of very positive conversations with them and heard their concerns. From the ministry’s perspective, we need to strike a balance to make sure that we’re protecting the members’ interests and not just management’s interests. And certainly the concerns that were brought forward were around if the behaviour of a certain member was warranting the termination, or at least the termination discussion, then they wanted to ensure that there were safety precautions in place.

We didn’t feel that the appropriate way to address those was to remove the voice of the membership in the appeal process. We can, and we had many conversations about this, point to a variety of other mechanisms that allow for those safety concerns to be addressed.

An example is the virtual attendance at an appeal. If a member is being terminated and they want to appeal but there’s a safety concern about their attendance, they can attend virtually. Alternatively, the appeal could go to a court and the court could hear the appeal. There are a variety of mechanisms, and we’ve built them into this legislation to address those concerns without removing the voice of the membership. And as it was stated by Haley, really a core principle of the credit union model being that the voice of the membership should be respected.

Nicole Sarauer: — Could the ministry explain why they feel they have a better understanding of the credit union model and safety concerns of these credit unions than CCUA and the members that they represent?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Well I wouldn’t frame it that we know better. As I said earlier, we’re striking a balance between respecting the voice of the members and the membership which currently exists, and we’re addressing the concern that was brought forward, particularly around termination of membership, by striking that balance, respecting both the concern that was brought forward but as well the voice of the membership being included in the appeal process.

Nicole Sarauer: — Could the ministry explain why credit unions shouldn’t have the same power over terminating memberships than traditional banks?

Cory Peters: — Cory Peters, executive director with the consumer credit division of the FCAA. Appreciate the question. One of the complicating factors is credit unions refer to their customers as members, and The Credit Union Act contemplates members. Members under The Credit Union Act are the owners, as a co-operative. So to the question of what would a bank do, well the verb I believe is “debank,” where the bank would close accounts, cease lines of credit, look to not renew mortgages.

And these are tools that credit unions are doing now to minimize the connection with that customer. The member termination has to deal with that customer and their ownership of the credit union’s capacity, which banks, with the exception of federal credit unions, are not co-operatives.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. I understand that this is of particular concern in smaller centres, smaller credit union branches, smaller membership. Everybody knows each other in a way. There have been, I understand, some safety concerns in some locations in the past and a feeling that they have not been able to keep their staff safe in a way that CIBC [Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce] could, for example, in terms of limiting access or debanking, as you have said, some members.

I suppose my question is, we have a bill before us. I have a proposed amendment for clause 11, which would replace the presented new provisions on membership termination with the requested provisions. If this amendment doesn’t pass today, is the ministry open to continuing conversations on this issue?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Of course always happy to continue the conversations with the CCUA. I would say those conversations are particularly fruitful. Not only do they inform the ministry about the concerns and the work that we do, but to reciprocate, I would say that a lot of the concerns that were brought in the initial meetings with myself and the ministry, the CCUA wasn’t necessarily aware of all of the current mechanisms available to it to address some of those concerns.

I think of the example of a section 810 order under the Criminal Code, otherwise known as a peace bond. The CCUA wasn’t aware that that was perhaps an option that was available to some of their institutions in the event that there was somebody that was potentially harassing or causing threats to the institution. They have that mechanism available to them, as do all citizens. That was something that they weren’t aware of.

So those ongoing conversations certainly inform our work, and we’re happy to share back with the CCUA any information that we can that would address the concerns without necessarily stepping on or altering the rights of the membership as a whole.

Nicole Sarauer: — Right. You and I both know that peace bonds aren’t the easiest things in the world to be able to access.

I have a few things I’m going to read into the record. They’re just submissions that have been made and have been requested of me to read in. So I’m going to do that right now. It’s with respect to this particular issue.

The first one is a letter from CCUA dated September 19th, 2025, to the CEO of the FCAA, and it was their response to consultation on the modernization of The Credit Union Act, 1998. And I’m just going to read the specific part of the letter for the committee’s awareness on this particular piece on membership termination and appeals. So it says:

Question 2: clarification of the process for membership termination and appeals. Do you agree with the proposed amendments to clarify and revise the membership termination and appeals processes? Why or why not?

Credit unions are encouraged by the measures being considered to enhance health and safety. The options provided to the credit union board to consider a membership appeal are a positive step to mitigate potential risks to staff and other credit union members. Updates to this part of the legislation will be carefully monitored and may require further iteration. As this submission will be made available to the public, CCUA is taking the opportunity to explain why these amendments to the membership termination process are being considered. Saskatchewan credit unions are owned by their members, and they value their members and their business.

With nearly 513,000 members across the province, membership termination due to extreme circumstances is rare and occurs only after all other remedies have been attempted. Membership termination is an extreme remedy which is required in extreme circumstances.

Being a credit union member requires that the terms of the financial services agreement are adhered to. If a member has not been fulfilling the terms of their financial services agreement, the credit union can refuse to provide those services. The membership is not terminated, but those financial products are discontinued and are no longer available to the member.

Membership termination would only be considered when a definitive action is required to completely sever the business relationship with a member, due to a risk of potential harm to an employee or members.

The health and safety reasons for proposing revisions of the Act with respect to membership termination are significant. As noted in the consultation document, the Government of Saskatchewan requires all Saskatchewan employers to have violence prevention policies in place. Saskatchewan Occupational health and safety recognizes financial services as a high-risk industry. Credit unions and banks can be the targets of violent robberies, and the front-line staff of our institutions are also vulnerable to harassment, threats, or violence from clients, the credit union members.

While credit unions have implemented policies to protect their staff and other credit union members, structural elements of the governing legislation for credit unions need to be revised to mitigate the risk further. Unfortunately this is a challenge for credit unions in Saskatchewan, across Canada, and internationally. As the national trade association for credit unions, CCUA has received concerns from credit unions in Saskatchewan and across Canada regarding increased threats and/or abusive staff and sometimes board members.

This has been a long-standing challenge for credit unions. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, front-line staff in essential services, including many of the Saskatchewan credit union sector’s approximately 3,000 staff, continued to serve the public to ensure no service disruption. The financial services industry has many staff who are public facing and serve a variety of clients/members. Similar to health care, law enforcement, and the retail sector, there is a notable increase in violence against front-line workers.

Manitoba and Prince Edward Island have amended the credit union legislation to streamline the membership termination process. We are advised that Ontario is also considering similar measures, and federal credit unions in the United States recently received an update to their governing legislation, the Credit Union Governance Modernization Act, to tackle the issue and ensure that the safety of staff and other members is at the forefront.

[16:00]

The new measures in the federal credit union legislation in the United States outline the specific circumstances under which membership termination would be considered, including a substantial or repeated violation of the credit union’s membership agreement, a substantial or repeated disruption to credit union operations including dangerous or abusive behaviour, fraud, attempted fraud, or conviction of other illegal conduct in relation to the credit union, including the credit union’s employees.

The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments oversees the dispute resolution process for federally regulated banks as defined in the Bank Act, and it seems much more streamlined.

In summary, the proposed amendments are an improvement, and credit unions will carefully monitor their outcomes, however future revisions may be required if the new membership termination process does not mitigate the potential health and safety risks to staff and board directors.

I have two additional letters I’ve been asked to read into the record. One is from CCUA to the minister dated December 4th, 2025, regarding Bills 30 and 33, The Credit Union Amendment Act.

It says:

Dear Minister McLeod,

On behalf of Saskatchewan credit unions and the Canadian Credit Union Association, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on Bill 30-33.

We support the bill’s intent to modernize governance and strengthen accountability; however creating more red tape by having a more prescriptive process in the Act and not in the regulations would not improve the membership termination process.

Given that the bill is now at second reading, we respectfully recommend targeted technical amendments to the membership termination and appeal provisions to ensure they are workable in practice while fully aligning with legislative intent, safety, and democratic member control.

As noted in our letter dated May 10, 2024, to former minister of Justice Bronwyn Eyre, we proposed that senior management should be allowed to determine when membership termination would be required to allow a nimble response to protect staff and other members.

Credit unions support an appeal mechanism and are proposing that the appeal be directed to the board and not a meeting of the credit union membership. The board’s final review of the appeal should be final. We believe that this streamlined process still includes the co-operative principle of democratic member control, as the board is elected by the membership and represents them.

Under the current draft, membership termination appeals must be heard by the full membership except in cases where the board refers the matter directly to the Court of King’s Bench. While well-intentioned, the approach presents challenges related to privacy, safety, and operational feasibility. In practice, cases involving harassment, threatening behaviour, or confidential issues are not well-suited to discussion before a membership meeting.

Unfortunately credit unions have seen increased incidents of members using abusive language, threats of violence, and sexual harassment towards staff. These types of situations require an immediate response from credit union management to ensure workers are not exposed to harassment or violence in the workplace.

Credit unions have implemented policy statements on violence and prevention plans and procedures to investigate incidents of violence in the workplace as required by The Saskatchewan Employment Act. A membership meeting is not the appropriate venue for appeals as it may place members in the position of adjudicating highly sensitive or complex matters without appropriate expertise.

In addition to the privacy, safety, and sensitivity concerns noted above, this requirement could also introduce significant administrative burden and increase red tape. Organizing a general membership appeal may require substantial coordination, including legal preparation, meaning costly and time-consuming court intervention by providing clear internal mechanisms for dispute resolution.

We respectfully request your consideration of these targeted amendments during the committee review stage and would welcome the opportunity to support drafting efforts and regulatory implementation to ensure the appeal process is both fair and workable.

Sincerely, Rob Swallow, director of government relations for Saskatchewan.

And the amendments I’ll be proposing are the ones that were being suggested by that letter.

I understand, Minister, you received several letters from different credit unions in support of CCUA’s letter. I’m going to read one of them. It’s been requested that it be anonymized, so I won’t be reading who it was from, but it’s dated March 2nd, 2026:

Dear Minister,

Saskatchewan credit unions appreciate the opportunity to provide input on The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025. We also thank you for your February 6th, 2026, response to the Canadian Credit Union Association’s December 2025 letter.

We acknowledge your view that the bill as drafted addresses safety concerns through procedural direction, the option to direct appeals to the courts, and by allowing terminations to remain in effect pending appeal where safety risks exist.

However your response did not address the significant administrative, privacy, and operational burdens that arise from requiring membership termination appeals to be heard at a full general meeting nor the challenges this poses for credit unions in delivering services effectively while protecting staff and member safety. These concerns remain central to our request for a more practical and workable framework.

Organizing a general membership appeal requires substantial coordination, including legal preparation, meeting logistics, secure communications, and governance oversight. This is more challenging for credit unions who have members spread out across the province.

Further, this places pressure on staff and board members and diverts resources from operational and strategic priorities. Cases involving harassment, threats, fraud, or other misconduct often include sensitive personal information. Requiring these matters to be presented to the full membership creates material privacy risks and may limit a credit union’s ability to comply with federal privacy and anti-money-laundering obligations.

Credit unions are subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. For example, if a credit union must present evidence at a membership-wide appeal meeting, it cannot disclose more personal information than is strictly necessary. They must also avoid exposing sensitive details — for example, mental health information, financial hardship, fraud investigations — unless explicitly required by law.

Credit unions are reporting entities under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. For example, if the grounds for termination involve suspected money laundering, fraud, or structuring, the credit union must file a suspicious transaction report, even if the member disputes the termination.

During an appeal, staff cannot disclose the existence of this report to the member or to the membership due to federal prohibitions; thus a membership-level appeal risks revealing information the credit union is federally prohibited from disclosing under the PCMLTFA. Under the proposed Act, membership termination appeals must be heard by the full membership unless the board refers the matter directly to the Court of King’s Bench. While well-intentioned, this approach is likely to result in delays and increased costs for the credit union and the member as the appeal makes its way through the court system.

An appeal to the board whose members are democratically elected and better positioned to adjudicate appeals in a timely manner with appropriate confidentiality, consistency, and expertise is a more workable approach and better reflects the modern sophistication of the current credit union system. At a minimum, the bill should allow credit union members to delegate appeals to the board, which could then in turn delegate termination decisions to senior management of the credit union under conditions set out by membership and the board.

We encourage the government to consider modern models such as the state of Maine, which recently updated its credit union legislation. This model recognizes that modern credit unions require flexible tools to address misconduct while preserving due process. This approach balances safety, fairness, and operational practicality and helps ensure that employees and members are protected from dangerous or abusive behaviour. Saskatchewan could take a leadership role in Canada by adopting this type of approach.

We want to be clear that a membership termination will always remain a measure of last resort for credit unions, used only when a business relationship must be fully severed. We remain committed to working with you and your officials on a practical and modern framework that is proportionate, efficient, protective of staff and members, respectful of privacy obligations, and aligned with our co-operative principles.

Board-level appeals maintain traditional member oversight while ensuring decisions are made by those entrusted through democratic election. We respectfully request amendments that allow membership termination appeals to be heard by the board or another delegated body rather than requiring a full general meeting.

My question to you, Minister, is . . . One of the letters I read — CCUA’s, I believe — specifically stated that there are other jurisdictions that have implemented the recommendations that they are proposing. I believe they said PEI [Prince Edward Island] and another one. Could you explain why those jurisdictions implemented these recommendations and our jurisdiction is choosing not to?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Well I think first of all, you addressed I think Prince Edward Island and Maine. I certainly can’t speak to those jurisdictions or what they were facing, particularly in the United States.

I will say this. The Government of Saskatchewan and the Ministry of Justice believe that harassment or threats of violence or abusive behaviour are never acceptable in any circumstance. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their workplace. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their community. That is not the question before us today. We absolutely want to ensure that people have a safe workplace, that people feel safe. And there should be no tolerance of abusive behaviour or harassment or violence.

Those concerns, as have been stated, can be addressed in a variety of ways. The way that was proposed by the CCUA is one of many options and it — in my view — doesn’t allow for the democratic process of the membership voice to be heard. Credit unions are not charter banks, and there is a distinction. When someone signs up to be a member of a credit union, they become a shareholder of the credit union. That’s not the case when you open a bank account at a charter bank.

As was pointed out earlier, everyone who is engaged in behaviour, inappropriate behaviour, can be refused service for that reason, whether they’re at a bank or a credit union. What we’re talking about here is the shareholder piece, the membership piece that people have signed up for as a credit union member. And we have implemented through this a variety of changes, through this bill, that address the concerns that were brought forward by the CCUA to respect the concern without disrespecting the membership, without removing the voice of the membership.

And I heard you read the part about concerns about the specific details being shared amongst the broader membership. Recall that if a member’s termination is getting to the broader membership, the member brought it. The board isn’t bringing the termination to the membership. This is about an appeal. So the CEO and the board have the ability to make these decisions, and only if it’s appealed by the member would the broader membership ever be hearing any of those details.

So I will say again that while we have accepted most of the recommendations of the CCUA, we do have to balance that. Because we are hearing from the CCUA, but we’re not hearing from the individual members that these proposals that we’re not taking are what they would like. So there’s a balancing of the rights of the members, respecting again that credit unions are not charter banks. They’re very deliberately structured in a different way.

So we are trying to strike the balance of addressing those concerns of the CCUA and the management side of the credit unions without disrespecting one of the core pieces of a credit union, which is that membership piece and the shareholder piece.

And again if any members are behaving inappropriately, they can be refused service as a customer in those institutions. No one should have to feel unsafe in their workplace, and we absolutely do not condone in any way harassment or violence or abusive behaviour.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you, Minister. Just further to the remarks that you had made just now, in your consultation process did you hear from other stakeholders who expressed opposition to the recommendation that CCUA had made?

Cory Peters: — Thank you. So consultation was issued to the following parties. We issued it to CCUA, the Canadian Credit Union Association. Was issued to SaskCentral. It was issued to Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation. CCUA distributed to the Saskatchewan credit unions. And on the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority website, the consultation was also posted for the public.

In that process we received one response, that being the CCUA response, which is on the FCAA website.

[16:15]

Chair B. McLeod: — Seeing no more questions, we will proceed to vote on the clauses. Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

[Clause 1 agreed to.]

[Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.]

Clause 11

Chair B. McLeod: — Clause 11, is that agreed? Please, MLA Sarauer.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. I’d like to move an amendment to clause 11, that clause 11 be amended to say as follows:

(a) by striking out subsection 69(1) and substituting the following:

“69(1) The chief executive officer of a credit union, or an employee designated by name or by office of the board, may terminate the membership of a member in accordance with this Division”.

(b) by striking out subsection 69(2) and substituting the following:

“(2) Before terminating a membership pursuant to subsection (1), the credit union shall give the member not less than 7 days’ written notice of the proposed termination”.

(c) by striking out subsection 69(3) and substituting the following:

“(3) The notice mentioned in subsection (2) must include:

(a) the grounds on which the membership is proposed to be terminated;

(b) the effective date of the proposed termination;

(d) the member’s right to appeal a termination decision to the board pursuant to section 69.1; and

(e) any other information prescribed in the regulations”.

(d) by striking out subsection 69(4) and substituting the following:

“(4) If a membership is terminated pursuant to subsection (1), the credit union shall, within 10 days after the termination takes effect, give the member written notice of termination that includes:

(a) the grounds on which the membership is terminated;

(b) the effective date;

(d) information respecting the member’s right to appeal the termination to the board pursuant to section 69.1;

(e) representation rights at the appeal; and

(f) any other information prescribed in the regulations”.

(e) by striking out subsection 69(5);

(f) by striking out subsection 69(6);

(g) by striking out subsection 69(7);

(h) by striking out subsection 69(8);

(i) by striking out subsection 69(9);

(j) by striking out subsection 69.1 and substituting the following:

“69.1(1) A member whose membership has been terminated pursuant to section 69 may appeal the termination to the board of the credit union.

(2) A member who intends to appeal shall give written notice of appeal to the secretary of the credit union within 30 days after receiving the notice of termination.

(3) The board shall hear the appeal within a reasonable time and may permit written or oral submissions by the member.

(4) After considering the appeal, the board may confirm, rescind, or vary the termination on any terms it considers appropriate.

(5) Subject to section 69.2, the decision of the board on appeal is final”.

(k) by striking out subsection 69.2(1) and substituting the following:

“69.2(1) a member may appeal a decision of the board made pursuant to subsection 69.1(4) to the court in accordance with this section”.

I so move.

Chair B. McLeod: — The member has moved an amendment to clause 11. Are committee members ready for the question?

Some Hon. Members: — Question.

Chair B. McLeod: — Do committee members agree with the amendment as read?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Some Hon. Members: — No.

Nicole Sarauer: — Recorded vote please, Mr. Chair.

Chair B. McLeod: — So I will also at this point in time declare my deliberative vote. And the question before the committee: a recorded vote has been called, and all those in favour of the amendment please raise your hand. Three in favour. All those opposed to the amendment please raise your hand.

Those in favour of the amendment is three; those opposed to the amendment, four. I declare the amendment defeated.

We will continue with the original clause. Clause 11, is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.

[Clause 11 agreed to.]

[Clauses 12 to 20 inclusive agreed to.]

Chair B. McLeod: — His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025.

I would ask a member to move that we report Bill No. 33, The Credit Union Amendment Act, 2025 without amendment. MLA Martens moves. Is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried. Do we have any closing comments by the minister?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll reserve my thanks for the committee and Hansard and broadcasting who still have more work to do this evening. But I do want to very much thank my officials who have joined me here today for their excellent work each and every day, but particularly for assisting with this committee today.

Chair B. McLeod: — Any closing comments from members? Please go ahead, MLA Sarauer.

Nicole Sarauer: — Please, yes. As the minister has indicated, he’s switching out officials. So to the officials who are leaving, thank you so much for coming today and all of the work that you do on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan.

Chair B. McLeod: — And I will thank you for your presence tonight and for your participation. Appreciate it so much.

Back to 2025/2026 Session

Constituency Office