I want to thank the committee for allowing me to speak today on this very important consumer issue of payday lending. I'd like to introduce my colleague David Clarke, who has been the senior policy officer on this issue for the past number of years. He is an active member of the federal, provincial, and territorial working group of committees that continues to study the payday lending issue.
I'll be pleased to answer questions you may have today concerning the background to this file, particularly on any federal, provincial, or territorial dimensions or consumer protection issues.
I have a few words, just for a moment, on payday lending. It's a form of short-term lending through which the consumer typically borrows several hundred dollars for 10 days to two weeks. The borrowing costs are very high, as you probably know. They are usually in the range of, for example, $40 to $75 for a $300 loan for two weeks or less.
The concerns expressed about this type of borrowing in the general community have included its very high costs, obviously; the lending practices associated with it, such as inadequate disclosure of costs and terms; and rolling over of loans--that is, the sequential structuring of loans one after the other, and the accumulation of interest and principal costs therein. You very quickly spiral your costs.
The industry, which originated in the United States some time ago, is a relatively recent phenomenon in Canada. It emerged in western Canada in the mid-1990s and rapidly spread eastward over a very few years. It is now a major presence in many urban areas in the country. There are approximately 1,300 retail outlets, and the number is growing. Estimates place annual lending at $1.3 billion or more per year.
Payday lending and other fringe financial services are known collectively as the alternative consumer credit market by the consumer measures committee. They were first identified as a federal-provincial-territorial issue by British Columbia in the late 1990s. In 1998, at the request of some western provinces, the federal-provincial-territorial committee of justice ministers considered the alternative consumer credit market, which by the way includes cheque cashing, chattel mortgages, and pawnbroking. The justice ministers referred the issue to federal, provincial, and territorial consumer ministers, who in turn asked the consumer measures committee of officials to look into the matter on their behalf.
[Translation]
Since the year 2000, CMC officials have been pursuing a detailed program of work, most of which can be found on the CMC website: www.cmcweb.ca. The work has included research by officials and others, for instance Professor Iain Ramsay of Osgoode Hall Law School; a survey of practices employed within the industry; and a roundtable meeting early on in Victoria, with governments, industry, consumer and academic representatives.
[English]
In 2001, federal and provincial consumer ministers used that work as the basis for their decision to direct officials to develop options for future action in such areas as best practice guidelines for the industry, consumer education and awareness, and regulatory mechanisms.
In 2003, a national public consultation was held on the legal framework and consumer protection issues for the alternative consumer credit market.
[Translation]
In 2004, FPT Consumer Ministers expressed their concern about the abusive practices and excessive costs encountered by consumers in the alternative market, for example payday loans, cheque cashing, rent-to-own. With an emphasis on payday loans, they asked officials to undertake work related to a consumer protection framework, including measures to address the issue of rollovers of loans, concurrent loans from multiple lenders and the habitual use of payday loans, industry best practices, and consumer education on the true cost of these loans.
[English]
In 2004 and 2005, a second national public consultation was held specifically on regulating payday lenders. Subsequently, provincial and territorial senior officials and several ministers formally sought federal legislative action to facilitate regulation of this sector. As you know, in the fall of this year was introduced in Parliament.
To date, Mr. Chairman, two provinces, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, have passed legislation in anticipation of the possible passage of . There are numerous indications in the media that several other jurisdictions intend to proceed with some form of regulation as well.
A considerable amount of work over a long period of time has brought the federal-provincial discussions on payday lending to this point. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you to speak on . We refer to it as the payday lending bill. That's what it deals with.
My apologies to the committee; I will be making my remarks in English.
As my colleague from Department of Industry has provided an overview of the payday lending industry and the policy discussions that inform the development of the bill, I will simply make some remarks about the structure of the bill itself and some of the legal framework into which it fits.
The amendments in the bill are really quite straightforward. They simply create an exemption scheme from the applicability of section 347 of the Criminal Code, which otherwise imposes a maximum interest rate on any kind of loan arrangement anywhere in Canada. It's called the criminal interest rate provision. It will allow this exemption to apply in those provinces and territories that choose to regulate the payday lending industry and seek a designation from the federal government in order to do so.
The bill amends the Criminal Code by defining payday loans for the purposes of the exemption schemes. I'll read the definition. It's not a simple definition, because it's not that simple and straightforward to simply say what a payday loan is, although generally we know it when we see it. It reads as follows:
“payday loan” means an advancement of money in exchange for a post-dated cheque, a pre-authorized debit or a future payment of a similar nature but not for any guarantee, suretyship, overdraft protection or security on property and not through a margin loan, pawnbroking, a line of credit or a credit card.
We define it primarily by a couple of simple indicia--a post-dated cheque or a similar payment--and then by what it's not. The rest of the definition is contained in another section in which we prescribe the limits on the kinds of loans that can be subject to the exemption.
The definition ensures that only this very narrowly defined class of lending arrangements known as payday lending will qualify and therefore be eligible. For example, lending arrangements by way of credit cards or lines of credit would not be included in the definition of payday loans.
The heart of the proposed amendments is in subsections 347.1(2) to 347.1(4), which set out the exemption scheme. These provisions specify which payday loan agreements are eligible to be exempt from the application of section 347.
Subsection 347.1(2) specifies the conditions that must be in place for such an exemption to apply. First we defined the payday loan, and this is really the rest of the definition of a payday loan for the purposes of this exemption provision: “the amount of money advanced under the agreement is $1,500 or less and the term of the agreement is 62 days or less”.
This, of course, is the typical payday loan scenario described by my colleague from the Department of Industry--that is, a short-term loan for a small amount. Indeed, these are really the top-end figures, if you will, and the average amount, as I understand it, is closer to, say, $300 for 10 days. They are quite small amounts for relatively short periods of time, so $1,500 for 62 days would really specify top-end limits to a payday loan that could be subject to an exemption.
Second, the payday lender “is licensed or otherwise specifically authorized under the laws of a province to enter into the agreement”. It's the province that will do the regulating from top to bottom of the payday lenders who will be subject to the exemption. This necessarily implies that the province has in place consumer protection measures that govern payday loans. The nature of such measures, however, is generally left to the province to determine. There are only a very few requirements for there to be legislation in place, and a requirement for a specification of an upper limit for the cost of borrowing, which can actually be charged.
The third requirement for the exemption to apply is that the province must be designated by the Governor in Council. This is simply a process to ensure that the province that has enacted the legislation, or already had legislation in place, if that is the case, has advised the Governor in Council that the legislation is there and that they wish to have their province be availed of that exemption. Then the exemption is put in place.
The obtaining of the designation is fairly straightforward. It is set out in subsection 347.1(3). A designation will be provided once a provincial Lieutenant Governor in Council--the provincial cabinet--requests it and in so doing indicates that the province has consumer protection measures in place to protect recipients of payday loans.
That is simply a general description of the fact that in the province there must be consumer protection measures in place that apply to these payday loans.
The only particular requirement is that the measures must include a limit on the total cost of borrowing for a payday loan. This will then replace the 60% limit that's otherwise specified under section 347. This guarantees a cap on the total cost of borrowing and provides the provinces and territories some flexibility to assess what the cap should be.
The designation process would amount to the province writing to the federal Minister of Justice to indicate that it has the legislation measures and is seeking the designation. If, on the recommendation of the federal Minister of Industry, the Minister of Justice is satisfied the province meets the requirements, the recommendation would be made to the Governor in Council. It should be a fairly simple process.
In addition, in subsection 347.1(4) there is a process for revoking it. I don't really anticipate that this is going to be necessary for provinces once they decide they're going to be in the business of regulating payday loans and probably aren't going to get out, but in case they did, it could be in two instances: either the province simply requests it, or the consumer protection measure is no longer in place--the legislation has been repealed.
As you are aware, the Constitution of Canada provides the provinces and territories with competence over consumer protection through their authority over property and civil rights. They are the level of government with the appropriate mechanisms in place to provide consumer protection of this kind; in fact, consumer protection measures do already exist across the country, and in some cases there are some measures that do apply to some of the elements of payday lending--although not in the comprehensive way that my colleague has spoken of--that have now been enacted in at least two provinces.
won't either dictate to or fetter the province's ability to enact appropriate consumer protection measures. It deals simply with the applicability of section 347 to these specified payday loan agreements and provides an exemption that otherwise is prohibited by section 347. This is pursuant to the federal government's constitutional competence over criminal law.
That's the basis upon which section 347 was enacted. Should a province or territory wish to exempt their loans, they need only have the legislation in place and seek an exemption in order to do so.
Mr. Chairman, the bill is necessary to provide the flexibility to the provinces to regulate payday loans. Otherwise, section 347 puts in place a prohibition against their operating at anything over 60%, as my colleague has described. It's in the nature of these short-term, small-amount loans. The definition of interest under section 347 is very broad and covers all of the interest and associated charges involved--not just the interest, but all of the associated charges--and specifies it on an effective annual rate of interest, which is a compound rate of interest. None of the payday lending operations can operate or do operate within that 60% limit.
This is simply opening the door to the provinces to be able to regulate them, allow them to exist, and provide appropriate limits on the cost of borrowing, and also to put in place other regulatory rules to ensure that the consumers of these loans are adequately protected.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
The objective of the bill we have before us may ultimately be desirable. However, the fact is that Quebec has long had legislation on loans and it provides for a maximum interest rate of 35%. That is something I can state now.
Earlier, I referred to tab 4, but we find the same thing at tab 5 of this document. I will start by reading what it says at tab 4 regarding clause 2, subsection 347.1(3):
This amendment sets out the procedure by which a province obtains a designation from the federal government.
The designation shall be issued, upon request by a province, if the province demonstrated that it has legislative measures in place that protect recipients of payday loans and which include a limit on the total cost of borrowing.
And then we have the reasons for the change:
The federal designation of a province is necessary to enable the exemption of authorized payday lenders from section 347 of the Criminal Code.
The requirements to demonstrate the existence of applicable consumer protection legislation, including a limit on the total cost of borrowing, ensures the provincial consumer protection measures are in place prior to enabling the exemption from section 347.
At tab 5, the following comments are made regarding clause 2, subsection 347.1(4):
This amendment enables the ratification of a provincial designation, for the purposes of this section, in two situations: (1) upon request by the province where the designation exists; or (2) when the pre-conditions that form the basis for the designation are no longer in force.
This ensures that section 347 of the Criminal Code will resume application to payday loan agreements that previously could have been exempt because the provincial designation is a pre-condition for an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code.
I was trying to show that in the case of Quebec—and this is why I put forward the amendment—we would like to have the bill amended to ensure that in no way must the provincial legislation be required to obtain the federal government's blessing.
We agree that the government should inform the province that it has passed legislation of this type, but we do not think the province must ask for the federal government's blessing. The current wording of the bill presents a problem in this regard.
I have been in touch with people in the Office of the Quebec minister to find out what his position is, and I was given a verbal reply. I hope to get it in writing in the very near future. I also hope that the Quebec minister will contact the Canadian Minister of Industry so that we can get some assurance that the federal government will not pass legislation in an area that has come under Quebec jurisdiction for a very long time—namely consumer protection.
In light of the foregoing arguments, I think it is important that the committee accept the amendment.
In his presentation, Mr. Jenkin spoke about a council on which the provinces and the federal government are represented that has been studying this issue for a number of years. He also spoke about provinces that would like to see legislation of this type as quickly as possible. However, nowhere does it state that the Quebec government agrees with this legislation. I think it would be inappropriate to pass this bill without the agreement of the Quebec government.
This bill would mean that a province that had legislated a maximum interest rate of 35% would have to get the federal government's blessing. I agree with Mr. Bartlett that that is not the intention of the bill. However, my experience as a parliamentarian has taught me that the intention of the bill is one thing and its interpretation by the courts is quite another. Judges do not interpret interpretations: they interpret the written text. According to the text and the information provided to us by the department, an evaluation will have to be carried out before a province is designated.
When I read this, I wonder whether it will not ultimately be the Prime Minister who will make this decision. The bill does state that it will be the governor in council, so to some extent that will be done by cabinet.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will explain my amendment again and provide a context.
At line 5 in Mr. Carrie's motion, it says:
Bill C-26 is generally supported by the provinces because it allows them the option to regulate payday lenders through an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code to those who have measures in place to protect borrowers.
This bill should not apply to Quebec, because the option offered does not respect Quebec's right to look after its own consumers' rights. It imposes conditions which create a framework and an evaluation by the federal government in an area where this has not always been and still is not necessary. It would be different if the bill were written in such a way that Quebec could simply inform the federal government that it had its own legislation, and this is something which any other province could do as well. If the other provinces truly prefer to send all of their bills to the federal government to ask whether they are in accordance with section 347, I would be willing to accept this type of asymmetric federalism. I do not object to the provinces needing some kind of authorization from the federal government, but I do not want Quebec to have to play along.
I am trying to remember when the Office de la protection du consommateur was created. I remember back when Ms. Payette prohibited advertising aimed at children. The Office de la protection du consommateur was probably created by a Liberal government in Quebec, either that of Jean Lesage or Robert Bourassa. I apologize for not knowing my history well enough to pinpoint the exact date. But, in any case, these were very dynamic and progressive measures, as were the ones taken to create day care services, which were much more progressive than anything else available in the rest of the country.
I think that someone—Mr. Bartlett or Ms. Jenkin—said that this practice was developed in the United States in the 1990s. But in Quebec, we had measures in place well before then, which points to the difference between the two approaches.
This bill is trying to make legal something which is already happening because several provinces have realized that it was going too far and some of the things that were happening were illegal and spinning out of control. In Quebec, the problem was tackled and the situation was regulated. Our maximum rate is 35%. Today, we are being told that we need authorization from the federal government to do this. That's why I have a huge problem supporting the motion as it stands, and all the more so because the motion implies that we are ready to put it to a vote. However, we have not heard from a single province or any other witness, apart from officials, and we have not even heard the witnesses answer members' questions.
If we allow to ask questions of the witnesses, we might take a break from debating the motion, as I am sure that there will be additional questions.
It is very important to respect provincial jurisdictions. I read the letter from the Consumers Council of Canada. They don't share my point of view, but ask why it is so important to adopt this amendment to the Criminal Code as quickly as is happening right now. The council says that it would result in each province having its own system. I have nothing against each province having its own system, but I think we need to take much more time before adopting this bill. I don't think it is necessary to settle the matter before Christmas or New Year's. We really need to have a more in-depth debate.
I would really like the committee to ask the Government of Quebec for its official position on this matter. If the committee agreed to write to the person responsible within the Government of Quebec or to the intergovernmental affairs minister to find out what the position of Quebec is, and if ultimately the Government of Quebec said that it did not object to the bill and that it could live with it, then we would see what our position is. I think that would be more reasonable than bulldozing the bill through.
You know, there are differences between bills. When you debate a matter for 14, 25, 38 or 75 hours, when 250 amendments have been presented and they have all been debated, it is possible that people are only talking to kill time.
Personally, this is the first time I debate this bill. This is just the first hour of debate in committee. And if memory serves me well, this bill was sent to the committee by the House of Commons to be studied, so that we could look at the issue in depth.
Therefore, we must deal with two issues. First, the respect of provincial jurisdictions, which, ultimately, is important; but it is just the framework. Second, will this framework work well?
Imagine the following situation: after a bill becomes law, a citizen or group of companies in Quebec writes to Prime Minister Harper to ask him to amend existing legislation in Quebec because this group has not managed to convince the government of Quebec to change it. In other words, these people would turn to the federal Prime Minister to revoke the designation contained in the document. Just imagine the can of worms if we so much as open the door to that possibility! In my opinion, this would not be satisfactory.
However, if the bill included wording indicating that the existing legislation in Quebec would simply be tabled, that Quebec already has legislation to that effect, we will not be opening a can of worms. When Mr. Harper receives the letter from Quebec, he would say that the matter does not fall under federal jurisdiction, that he realizes that Quebec already has legislation, and that Quebec should settle the matter itself. In my opinion, this would respect the true spirit of federalism as far as this issue is concerned.
But as it is worded, we would potentially be opening the door to federal members of Parliament being pressured to get Quebec to change its legislation. I think this is rather unhealthy in view of what is already happening in this sector. So my amendment would be made to that sentence.
The next sentence reads:
I move that the committee is ready to continue through the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-26, with the objective of completing our review, and sending the bill back to the House of Commons today.
It appears that my first amendment—except for Quebec—makes the second sentence redundant. Indeed, how can the committee decide today that it has already settled the matter, when in fact we have not even analyzed it? I have not heard the opinion of a single member present here about this issue, nor whether any member thinks it makes any sense or whether the government of Quebec is sufficiently protected in this area.
Mr. McTeague seems to want to give his opinion by saying he is ready to vote, but that is not how I feel.
: It's to protect consumers, Mr. Crête.
: Yes, I agree with you on that point. Indeed, as far as protecting consumers is concerned... Let's talk about consumer protection. For about 40 years now, Quebec has had a consumer protection act. The legislation has passed the test of several different generations and has ignited a great deal of social debate. In that regard, we find we have enough maturity to decide how to tackle the issue.
Cultural practices can vary from one province to the next. For example, I'm thinking of a province which was initially founded by people from certain communities, and for whom money and credit were very important things: Nova Scotia. In fact, the Scots were largely responsible for creating the Canadian banking system. So Nova Scotia might have an approach which is different from that of British Columbia. It depends on the people who settled each of these territories.
Different types of influences took hold in different places. For example, the Mouvement Desjardins—the Desjardins credit unions—is currently working on a microcredit project somewhere in Africa; this project was promoted by a man from Bangladesh who has just won the Nobel Peace Price. The rate of 35% which was established in Quebec was greatly inspired by the Mouvement Desjardins, which initially was created to get rid of loan sharking. When Mr. Desjardins created the Mouvement Desjardins, he wanted to put the village loan shark out of business. He wanted to find another way to fill the void. So he created the Mouvement Desjardins, which gave people the opportunity to put their money in the bank, to earn a bit of interest and to have access to a regular account.
Following this movement, the Quebec government decided to create a law based on existing legislation and determined that for this kind of transaction, the maximum rate was 35%.
This law existed even before the new trend spread across North America and before this bill proposed such a practice. As opposed to the Quebec legislation, the lenders are more interested in this bill than the borrowers are. In Quebec, the people at the grassroots wanted to have a standard practice like the one developed by the Desjardins Group, to ensure that no one got caught in an unlivable situation because of these things. This is how the Consumer Protection Act was created.
As I understand it, the federal government is proposing a bill that is mainly supported by companies that provide loans of this kind, because they want to have a legal framework for their operations. They have every right to want it. They could also want a standard framework for the entire country, as they could want this framework to develop differently in each province. That is the situation.
I think that this is what really justifies the amendment. It would be improper to adopt this kind of legislation if it obliged Quebec to ask for the federal government's authorization.
Let me tell you in detail what I would propose if the amendments were adopted. After studying this bill, we put forward four amendments. The first intends to clarify the definition of payday lending and does not necessarily raise the jurisdictional issue, although it would create different systems based on the size of the loans, and this would have quite a negative impact. The other three amendments all have the same objective, which is to get rid of the veto rights that the federal government is claiming for itself in a field that is not under its jurisdiction, namely, consumer protection.
In the current draft legislation, not only does the federal government oblige the province that wants to legislate payday lending to implement a licence system, but it also allows Ottawa to impose its own view regarding consumer protection legislation. This is a roundabout way of doing something that cannot be done directly. They want to extend their influence...
Earlier, I gave the example of someone from Quebec who could ask the federal Prime Minister to change the Quebec legislation. In addition, there could be people in other provinces of Canada who have developed their industry and who could write to the Prime Minister of Canada to say that they want to enter the Quebec market, but that in order to allow them to do so, the legislation in Quebec would have to be the same as in the rest of Canada.
In this sense, they would be putting pressure on an authority that should not be put under such pressure. These people have the right to want to influence Quebec legislators so that they amend the Consumer Protection Act, but as a legislator in the federal government, I do not want to allow this kind of pressure to be put on the federal government rather than on the Quebec government.
One of our amendments, number 2524665, specifically deals with the licence issue and is more flexible because it allows each province to choose its standards for approving payday lending businesses. Thus, rather than impose a licensing system, our version allows each province to approve payday lending businesses in the way that works best for it.
Another amendment, number 2524712, seeks to repeal a condition belatedly imposed by the federal government. On the one hand, the federal government has no jurisdiction over consumer protection and it has no right to impose its will through reviewing the legislation of Quebec and other provinces.
Another amendment, number 2524742, has a similar objective. It seeks to prevent the federal government from exercising a veto right over the legislation of Quebec and of the provinces, and from arbitrarily taking away their power to legislate the payday lending industry. The Quebec government takes its responsibilities seriously. It was elected by the people, it has a mandate from the people, it is serious about protecting its citizens and it has every right to take every measure it deems necessary to regulate the industry.
The last part of subsection 4 deals with a veto right over the legality of protection measures taken by Quebec and by the provinces.
As far as we are concerned, the federal government has neither the expertise nor the jurisdiction to decide whether consumers are adequately protected by consumer protection laws. It is up to Quebec and the provinces to choose their consumer protection methods.
For all these reasons, I think that I have put forward a useful amendment that should be adopted by this committee. If other members want to intervene regarding this issue, they can do so right now.
:
In my opinion, if my subamendment were adopted, we could then receive all the relevant witnesses. Afterward, we could proceed with the question. Let me read out for you the letter from the Consumers Council of Canada. Please excuse my English.
[English]
It is dated Monday, December 11, 2006, regarding Bill, and is addressed to the chair and members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. It says:
The Consumers Council of Canada wishes to make known to the Committee that it has serious concerns with the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code.
The Consumers Council of Canada believes that it is in the best interests of Canadian consumers to have the federal government establish the rates of interest charged on convenience loans, commonly referred to as payday loans.
Should the proposed amendment be passed, provinces will establish different levels of charges permitted for such convenience loans. Indeed, some provinces will not seek federal permission to establish rates and therefore continue the practice of permitting criminal rates of interest being charged. This would not be in the best interests of consumers and is contrary to all the harmonization reports currently underway.
The Consumers Council of Canada also believes that it would be in the best interest of consumers to have banks and credit unions develop convenience loan products.
We urge you to consider the best interests of consumers in amending the Criminal Code.
[Translation]
I wanted to state that the Consumers Council of Canada could be invited as a witness. We could also invite banks, credit unions, and savings and credit cooperatives. After all, they are relevant stakeholders in the banking business. As regards the letter from the Quebec government, it is not an official opinion and I cannot share it with you word for word. However, I am convinced that the Quebec government minister will be in touch with the Minister of Industry Canada or the Minister of Justice, to make his opinion heard.
I will not read the entire opinion, but I can assure you that it exists. You will have to trust me on this point. Broadly speaking, they say that they have no reservations about the substance of this issue, but they do want to ensure that Quebec's prerogatives and legislation are respected. I think that the administrative designation procedure should be withdrawn, which would ensure that Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection is respected. To me, this letter confirms how important it would be to invite these people as witnesses.
This is why my subamendment mentions the possibility of inviting all relevant witnesses. There are others. I mentioned the Consumers Council of Canada, but we could also have the Union des consommateurs. It could be useful to hear the opinions of those who proposed this system, those who met us and who insisted that legislation be adopted regarding these things. Perhaps we could also invite citizens who are grappling with this situation and see whether some of them want to tell us how they are coping with it and how they feel about the possibility that the maximum rate could be 35% in Quebec and some other rate somewhere else.
To me, the essential part is that we have before us a bill that deserves to be passed. I hope it will be passed as soon as possible, if it respects Quebec jurisdiction. Up to now, from what I have heard, that does not seem to be the case. This is why I would like to invite witnesses. We could also invite neutral experts on the Constitution and a legal expert to find out whether the proposed amendments deserve consideration.
I think that we have what we need to perform a good study of the entire bill. My subamendment seeks to enhance the motion. It says that we should vote as soon as possible once we have all the needed information. Well, as far as I am concerned, we do not have the required information at this time. This is why I hope to propose this subamendment. I do not know whether Mr. McTeague will contest the validity of his own motion. He might well decide that it goes against the Standing Orders and want to put a different one forward.
Besides all the parliamentary procedure issues, it would be important for the members of this committee to understand that the Quebec government has a responsibility with regard to this issue that it has jurisdiction over this issue and that the Quebec government is not satisfied with the way the bill is drafted.
I am not dissatisfied with this just because I am a separatist; not only are Quebec federalists dissatisfied as well, but so is the Quebec government, the government that the people of Quebec elected. Now the Quebec government is saying, through its Department of Justice, that it is opposed to adopting this bill as it is currently drafted.
A voice: There is a list.
Mr. Paul Crête: Excuse-me, but I was interrupted by some noise.
A voice: He said that he wanted the list. I agree with that.
Mr. Paul Crête: Personally, I have no problem with that. I am ready to invite the Quebec justice minister. Besides, let us send him an invitation, and he will tell us whether he's ready to appear or not. He could appear before us or he could write us a letter stating in a more official way what I have in this text. He can also get in touch with the federal Minister of Industry, and after discussion, the government could amend this bill. Thus we could finally adopt this bill so that in the rest of Canada, a payday lending industry can develop in a way that is well managed, well adapted to the situation in each province, but that, at the same time, respects Quebec's jurisdiction.
This is what I had in mind when I put forward my subamendment. To be fully explicit, I say “after having heard all the witnesses proposed by the members”. Of course, if other members want to propose witnesses, I am not the only one competent to do so. If Mr. Vincent or any other committee member has a list of witnesses, it would be important to proceed and gather all the needed information to adopt a bill that does what it is supposed to do.
This is more or less what I have to say about my subamendment as I drafted it. When the time comes for the question, I want us to read again the basic motion, the amendments and the subamendment so that committee members can have a proper view of the whole picture, with the all the nuances that are in the subamendment, the amendments and the main motion when it is amended.
This is what I had to say about this subamendment. Further on, I will be pleased to speak about the amendment put forward I think by Mr. Colin Carrie. Depending on how things go—
:
As a matter of fact, I am only speaking about the subamendment.
If the subamendment is adopted it will be easy to vote in favour of the amendment. On the other hand, if the subamendment is not adopted, it will change everything. I am putting this forward to show you the relation between it and the entire proposition we have before us, and this could be constructive if we respect the things that must be respected.
I said: “witnesses proposed by the members”, without specifying whether I meant MPs who are members of the committee or MPs of the House of Commons in general, but this is something that we can decide in this committee. In fact, members who are not here could wish to propose witnesses. The text is not specific on this point and I am sorry about that. If the subamendment is adopted with the words “by the members”, the committee will decide how to manage it.
If we say “witnesses proposed by the members”, it means that we will have to leave some time for those suggestions to be made. We would need between 12 and 24 extra hours to send out the formal list of the people whom we would like to hear and to send out written notices. This will avoid discussions, arguments, or misinterpretations regarding the relevance of the witnesses we choose for studying this bill, following the testimony of department officials we have already heard. Hearing these witnesses would help us to weigh the pros and cons and to make better decisions about these issues.
We heard the testimony of officials who have responsibilities towards the federal state and who are very committed to their task. I understand very well the point of view that they expressed. However, as an elected member, my responsibility is to go beyond what the experts say and to hear the opinions of other people, especially regarding the respect of Quebec's jurisdiction.
Besides, it would be important to hear witnesses regarding a certain amendment. Our first amendment clarifies the definition of payday loans. In the current draft, it seems that payday loans have no ceiling. Provinces could legislate only with regard to loans under $1,500. This would create different systems according to the amount of the loan, which will have a negative impact. It is better to include the ceiling in the definition of payday lending.
It would be important to hear witnesses, even if only on this amendment. I may not be alone in wanting to put forward amendments to the bill. Perhaps Mr. Vincent or other members would also bring some forward after hearing the witnesses. Then we could add them to the list to get a better view of the situation.
I've studied many bills in Parliament. I do not claim to know it all. Remember Bill C-55 on bankruptcy rights that we rammed through last year. All of the political parties supported it. We did the whole thing in one day and then we realized that the act could not be enforced because of some serious problems. I think that the same thing is happening today.