Buried in the Liberal Federal Budget that was introduced on March 22, 2016, under Chapter 8 – Tax Fairness and a Strong Financial Sector, was a section titled “Introducing a Bank Recapitalization ‘Bail-in’ Regime.” Simply stated, in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the Government proposed it would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks – not taxpayers.

What that means is that shareholders, bondholders and depositors, rather than taxpayers, are responsible for the bank’s risks in the event of a failure. During the 2008 global financial crash, banks that were deemed “too-big-to-fail” were bailed out by the government, meaning the taxpayer footed the bill. None of the banks were Canadian banks, but it does need to be noted that Canadian banks received some $114 billion from Canada’s federal government. This was against the background of Canadian banks being declared “the most sound banking system in the world.” At the time, the government denied there was any bailout, preferring to use the term “liquidity support.” To put the amount in perspective, $114 billion is roughly 7% of Canada’s GDP.

The 2016 budget notes that in implementing a “bail-in” regime, it will strengthen the bank resolution toolkit in Canada and ensure Canadian banking practices are consistent with international best practices endorsed by the G20. Bail-in regimes are being instituted in the Western economies especially – in the EU, the USA, Japan, Australia and, of course, Canada. This isn’t the first time that a bail-in has been introduced, as the previous government came forward with one in 2013, and in 2014 presented a consultation paper. Initially it was thought that depositors would be excluded.

Surprisingly, in the budget, depositors are not mentioned specifically. It should be noted, however, that depositors have paid a price in bail-ins that have already occurred in Cyprus and in Italy. So the risk to depositors cannot be ignored.