Bill C-26 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by exempting persons from the application of section 347 of that Act in respect of agreements for small, short-term loans. The exemption applies to persons who are licensed or otherwise authorized to enter into such agreements by designated provinces that have legislative measures that protect recipients of payday loans and that specify a limit on the total cost of those loans.

Criminal Code

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to exempt payday lenders doing business in provinces and territories that have legislative measures in place that protect borrowers from section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and to require that the competent authorities set limits on what the consumer is charged for a payday loan.

It was our Liberal government that put the wheels in motion for this bill by starting consultations with the provinces and territories and other stakeholders to deal with this very important issue.

If we look at it, we have these payday loan operations that fill a certain market niche, but unfortunately they really gouge consumers and some of the interest rates, as many have cited in the chamber today, can reach 1,200% per annum, whereas the Criminal Code in section 347 makes it a criminal offence to charge more than 60% interest per annum.

Some might ask, if the Criminal Code already says that, why would the police not arrest people or the crown prosecutors prosecute people who are charging clearly more than this?

That is a good question and one that I have wondered about myself. I think we really need to look at the origin of section 347 of the Criminal Code which was designed primarily to deal with what we now call loan sharks. Loan sharking is an activity carried out mostly by the underworld or by organized crime, where people who are in a desperate need of a loan would go to a criminal like this and be prepared to pay a very large amount to get a loan because perhaps they had to pay back another debt, a drug debt, a gambling debt or whatever it might be. Therefore, it became known and is known today as loan sharking and that was really the origin of this provision in the Criminal Code.

The reality is that there are many Canadians who really need the benefit of these payday loan operations because between paydays they find themselves stretched for whatever reason and they need to obtain a loan from one of these particular operations.

A payday loan is a short-term loan for a relatively small sum of money provided by a non-traditional lender. Statistics from the Canadian payday loan industry suggest that the average payday loan is valued at $280 and is extended for a period of 10 days. In order to qualify for a loan, the borrower generally must have identification, a personal chequing account, and a pay stub or alternative proof of a regular income. Payday lenders typically extend credit based on a percentage of the borrower's net pay until his or her next payday, generally within two weeks or less. The borrower provides the payday lender with a post-dated cheque, or authorizes a direct withdrawal, for the value of the loan plus any interest or fees charged.

There we have it: small loans of very short duration that help people meet their needs from payday to payday. By decriminalizing it, so to speak, which is the effect of Bill C-26, the provinces and territories will agree to regulate these same-day loan enterprises, which is part and parcel of this particular bill. The provinces and territories will regulate the interest rates charged on these payday loans. I think most Canadians would agree that 1200% per annum is exorbitant and unjustified. It puts people deeper into debt instead of helping them find their way out of a position like that.

It also begs the question of why it is that people cannot live between paydays. There are many reasons. We hear a lot about poverty in Canada, of course, and we have done many things to try to alleviate poverty, one of which was to have a strong economy. Certainly our Liberal government cut taxes for low income and medium income Canadians.

The Liberals also introduced a number of programs like the national child benefit, which is an example that I would like to highlight. We brought in the federal child tax credit, but unfortunately, the province of Ontario, where my constituency is located, has clawed back the federal child tax credit 100%. From the point of view of the recipient, that makes it neutral. The benefit that we tried to convey was clawed back by the government in Ontario. That was done by the Harris Conservative government. The Liberal government ran on a platform to take back the clawback, but it has not done that. That affects many groups in the province and certainly does not help families and the working poor. We should begin to address it.

I have been talking about working families in the low to medium end of the income spectrum and I am sure we can find individuals like that who need loans to get them from one payday to the next; it might be monthly or, depending on how they are paid, bi-weekly. They may need to make a large capital acquisition. Maybe their stove has crashed. Maybe they have other urgent expenses. They need help from payday to payday with a loan so they go to one of these payday loan companies. We have seen these companies grow in large numbers and in size and scope across Canada.

Another group I would like to touch on is seniors. In my riding of Etobicoke North, I encounter many seniors. Many of them are living on fixed incomes with old age security and the Canada pension plan. Some might benefit from a company pension as well. I think these people are facing rather unique cost pressures. Old age security is indexed every year, but it is indexed to the general cost of living.

I have done some research on this. I am going to be coming to Parliament with an initiative in the not too distant future. What has been found is that the cost of living index that is presented to seniors is not the same as the cost of living index or the cost pressures facing Canadians in general. We can see a number of reasons for that. We could look at property taxes, rents, insurance rates, energy costs and food costs. These are cost pressures that seniors face. If one is on a fixed income, this can create quite a problem.

Our Liberal government brought in the guaranteed income supplement and made some one-time changes to it. This is another area that we should look at. I believe that we may need to develop a particular cost of living index for seniors, one that reflects the basket of goods and services they must deal with.

Given that, we should also look at perhaps a one-time change in the old age security and then index it to this new index. I appreciate that this would cost the federal treasury some money. I do not mean to minimize that, but I think it is an area we need to look at. Our seniors built this country and we need to respect that. We need to help them deal with the cost pressures they face and the standard of living they are entitled to.

I will be supporting Bill C-26.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the amount of the old age pension would probably have to be increased. If a certain income level is needed to obtain payday loans and people can at the same time borrow money on their pension cheques, that is going to have perverse effects. What it means is that people who need money will be spending their cheques even before they receive them.

Are we going to go against the welfare of senior citizens in order to solve the payday lender problem? Will the member find an unequivocal way of getting the old age pension raised? I would like to hear what he has to say on that subject.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for his question.

Bill C-26 addresses a subject that we have discussed today: the very high interest rates charged.

Frankly, I am not sure if these payday loan organizations will accept pension cheques. Perhaps they do.

I think there are two different issues. If pensioners have problems getting from payday to payday and a pension is their only source of income, increasing their pension will not expose them to further difficulties. It will keep them away from the payday loan organizations. I do not see the two as running contrary to each other.

I think if we were to do something with seniors that could help them with their pensions, it could keep them away from payday loan organizations. In fact, I suspect many seniors are not aware of the proliferation of payday loan organizations. Some may be, but some may have difficulty finding their way to the payday loan organizations and dealing with some of the complexities. I am not sure that they are big customers, but I am only saying that. I do not have any research or information to support that.

I do not think that what I am suggesting here with respect to old age security and what Bill C-26 does conflict with one another in any way shape or form.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's concern for pensioners tweaked my interest. I think he will agree with me that one of the root causes for the proliferation of these payday loans is that there have been so many bank closures, at least especially in the inner city in the riding I represent. As the banks closed, that void was filled with these fringe banking outfits that actually charge to cash cheques. I did not know this until recently, but it is against the law to charge to cash a government cheque. Some of these places charge 3%, 4% or 5% to cash even government pension cheques.

As for my question, I wonder if my colleague is aware that the plight of pensioners who rely solely on OAS-GIS has actually gotten worse. In the last federal budget, the government decreased the basic personal exemption from $9,039 to $8,639, I believe, so it was decreased by $400. That means $400 more that a senior is paying taxes on. Even at the lowest rate of taxation, which I believe is 15.5%, seniors are now paying taxes on $400 more than they ever used to before.

I did some quick math, and my colleague is probably better at math than I am, but that is $60 or $61 a year, which only looks like $5 a month, except that because this came into effect on July 1, the government doubled it for the remaining six months to spread it out over the whole year, so it is a cut in pay of $10 a month. When a lot of seniors voted for the Tories to form the government, I do not think they knew they would get their pay cut by ten bucks a month for that six month period and five bucks a month thereafter. Was my colleague aware of that? Does he run into that issue in his own riding?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to make room for the cut in the GST reduction, the Conservative government in its last budget increased personal income taxes and the basic rate to 15.5%. That would affect many seniors. I am not sure if that deals with the specific point the member was making, and I have not heard that specifically, but clearly the government is not quite so caring of low and middle income Canadians. A GST cut of 1%, and now I presume in the next budget it will be another 1%, will not really benefit the poor and the medium income families.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. First, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-26. I totally disagree with my colleagues' assertions, as do all Bloc Québécois members. Bill C-26 is a underhanded means to help people who have difficulty getting a loan to get money from payday lenders. These payday lenders have put pressure on the government to legalize their existence with a clause in the law, clause 347, which allows them to demand up to 60% in interest, and this can be verified. Indeed, it is the interest rate that appears in section 347 of the Criminal Code.

However, the major problem in this issue is the fact that the federal government is once again intruding into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. In Quebec, there is already an act that deals with these loans, and the entire loan is at a maximum interest rate of 35%. Thus, any other loan with an interest rate of more than 35% is loansharking. The best way to gouge people is to lend them money at an interest rate of 60%.

Which group will take over the payday loan market? I believe it will not be the merchant who owns the corner store or the butcher down the street. The member was talking earlier about organized crime. This is the best way to launder money. It is obvious that these people will take the legal road to do something that is illegal. If the House of Commons is not aware of this, it will open the door to these people, who will be able to demand interest rates of up to 60%.

In addition, I sit on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, where Bill C-26 was debated. How long was the debate? An hour. Why? Because the people in the other political parties agreed that it is a great bill. We are therefore going to pass it without wondering what people in Quebec or other provinces think, whether or not they think it is good or whether it encroaches on provincial jurisdictions. I should even mention that, in committee, we asked whether any of the provinces were opposed to this bill. To our great surprise, none were.

During that same meeting, we received a communiqué from Quebec saying that Quebec disagreed with Bill C-26.

Why should Quebeckers, who already have legislation covering these sorts of loans that caps interest rates at 35%, have to ask the federal government for an exemption from the bill?

Why should we let the government interfere in our jurisdictions?

If the rest of Canada thinks this is fine and dandy and wants to endorse this system, it can do so. But Quebec's position is that this is not how it is going to be and that we will fight tooth and nail to make sure this system is not put in place.

On both sides of the House, Conservative and Liberal defenders of the bill are saying that they represent Quebeckers. What they are really saying is that they are not listening and that they have bills and will adopt them at everyone's expense.

They are saying in the House and in the newspapers that they represent Quebec's interests and are going to stand up for Quebec. I cannot say what I am thinking, because I would be reprimanded, but I can say that that is not true.

There are members opposite who say: “This is good, we are able to make progress for Quebec”. I think they are wrong. They do not know what they are talking about and they will say just about anything.

What is more, this bill addresses people who earn a salary, including seniors. Why? Because they receive an income every month and are able to certify to payday lenders that they have a salary. They can borrow against their income. How far will we go with these measures to give them a chance to spend their money? If a problem arises, these people have to turn to payday lenders to borrow money. As I was saying earlier when I asked the Liberal member, is there a problem? Are our seniors not being paid enough money? They built our country, Quebec especially. Are we going to abandon them like this? If they need $100 to fix their broken washing machine, will they have to turn to payday lenders? There were no payday lenders before. Why would we need them now? To give others a chance to become wealthy and launder money? I do not believe this is a good solution.

Furthermore, the designation process—and this is the problem—requires that the province write the federal Minister of Justice to inform him that it has a law and is seeking a designation. If, on the recommendation of the federal Minister of Industry, the Minister of Justice feels that the province meets the requirements, the Governor in Council will receive recommendation to grant the exemption. This process should be relatively simple.

Why should get on our knees to ask the federal government for permission to be exempt? We have nothing to ask of it. We have our own laws. We are capable of respecting them and enforcing them. We do not need anyone to be a big brother and tell us what to do.

I strongly believe that this bill is not appropriate in that legislation is generally left to the discretion of the provinces. It is as simple as that.

When we talk about legislative measures, especially measures on consumer protection that generally cover payday loans, I do not think that consumers would agree with the way the government wants to encourage them to consume even more and have the opportunity to get money easily. It is easy to get money from payday lenders.

Much worse could be said. Michael Jenkin, director general of the office of consumer affairs and co-chair of Industry Canada's federal-provincial-territorial consumer measures committee, said, “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...”

He told us the costs were very high. Imagine paying $40 to $75 interest on a $300 loan for two weeks. It is not usurious, but it sure is close. It is not far off. I can see the Quebec members nodding off on the other side of the House. They should listen more rather than think about their next snooze. That way, they might understand this a little better.

That is not all. In 2004, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for consumer affairs expressed concern about the abusive practices and high costs consumers encounter in this parallel market, such as with payday lending. One study showed that payday loans were far too expensive and that the interest rates were too high. That was in 2004. It is now 2007. Now, a bill has been introduced to confirm that everything is just fine.

I would like to conclude by saying that we will vote against this bill. We in Quebec will take care of this responsibility ourselves.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am one member of Parliament opposite who was not sleeping. I was listening very carefully and with great interest because I am trying, for the life of me, to understand why the Bloc is so opposed to this bill when the rest of the country needs it so very much.

My colleague said there is no room for it, there is no need for it, speaking about this bill. In actual fact, this bill is the legislation which would allow my province of Manitoba to do something about the thieves, the criminals, who are ripping off the people in my riding.

A lot of the payday loan industry are charging rates of interest that are illegal, that are criminal. They are gouging them and they are sucking the life right out of the inner city of Winnipeg; however, the federal government has jurisdiction over this. This bill would give the jurisdiction to the provinces, so that my province of Manitoba could do something about these, as I say, blood-sucking leeches who are profiting from human misery, from low income people.

I should tell my colleague that these payday loan outfits are charging as much as 10,000% interest. Not even a cocaine dealer, not even the Hells Angels, gets 10,000% interest. But in actual fact, we now know some of the payday loan industry is in fact run by organized crime because where else could one get that kind of money? So, we went to the federal government and said to cede this federal jurisdiction to the provinces so that we can clean up this mess within our own jurisdiction.

I thought that was exactly what the Bloc Québécois wanted, for the federal government to give jurisdiction to the provinces. In every speech I have ever heard from my colleagues from the Bloc, they have demanded for the federal government to get out of their business and for them to have jurisdiction over their own issues. In this case, I agree with them. We should pass this bill, so that the provinces could solve their own problems within their jurisdiction.

This reminds me, in a way, of the ban on pesticides. The NDP tried to get pesticides banned in Canada. Most members of the House of Commons agreed. The Bloc voted against it, and the bill was defeated, because Quebec has already banned pesticides. Well, just because Quebec has already solved its problem, please do not stand in the way of the rest of us who are trying to solve the same problem in the rest of Canada.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Constitution grants provincial and territorial governments jurisdiction in matters of consumer protection, by virtue of their powers in the area of property and civil law. If a province does not yet have such legislation, its leaders have the option of creating it. If they have not done so and wait for Canada's big brothers to enact legislation—whether they agree with it or not—section 347 of the Criminal Code imposes an interest rate of 60%.

While criminal organizations, as we just heard, demand 10,000% interest, the rate would be set at only 60%. If the rate of 60% suits Albertans, that is fine. In Quebec, however, we already have legislation that covers payday lenders, and the interest rate is set at 35%. Any loan that has an interest rate higher than 35% is considered loansharking.

We have already enacted legislation in Quebec to deal with this type of loan. What we object to is that we have to ask for an exemption in order not to be subject to this legislation. The province must prove that it already has legislation, which must be sent to the governor in council, and the governor in council or Prime Minister must decide if the province should be subject to this legislation, and must ensure that the province's legislation conforms.

Clearly, Quebec already has such legislation and does not need anyone to tell it how to manage that legislation.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), following the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford.

According to the government, the purpose of Bill C-26, which we are debating today at third reading, is to respond to the concerns of some provinces and territories as well as several consumer advocacy associations which believe that it is urgent and necessary to regulate more strictly payday lending, which is a growing industry in some provinces.

While it may seem simple and even generous, this bill is, as the hon. member for Shefford aptly explained, yet another attempt at interfering in jurisdictions that belong to Quebec and the provinces. The Conservative members across the way are shaking their heads saying no. They should read the bill.

Even if the government's intent was to supervise better at the federal level to prevent interference in provincial jurisdictions, it is once again interfering in an area that we, in Quebec, are managing superbly.

Members will understand that the Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill which opens the door to a federal veto on tools currently used in Quebec to regulate such activities through the Consumer Protection Act, among others. I do hope that government members from Quebec are familiar with that piece of legislation. Have they forgotten about it since coming to this place, the House of Commons? I am not sure, but I think so.

As I said, the government described this bill as a response to many concerns raised about the payday lending industry. Granted, this is am industry that has been accused of all sorts of questionable practices, including high lending rates on future pay, insufficient disclosure on contractual terms, if any, and all too often unfair debt collection practices.

Before getting into the details of our reasons for opposing this bill, I would like to say a few words about these increasingly popular payday loans.

This is a disturbing phenomenon because it reflects a troublesome reality, the increasing presence of poverty. The people who borrow from these payday lenders often find themselves short of money. At present, the Criminal Code sets limits on payday lenders. Interest rates may be as high as 60%. I am sure that no member of this House would borrow a portion of his or her salary at such a high interest rate. The target is people without resources. That is why such activities are governed in Quebec by the consumer protection act, and the interest rate can be no higher than 35%, while here 60% is mentioned. I think 35% interest is already high.

In Quebec, payday loans are becoming less and less common. Mechanisms have been put in place; support groups for the poor have been created. There are even some CLSCs that loan money to clients with temporary needs, such as food for a week. All sorts of social measures, such as food banks, have been set up to help these people, all so they will not have to take out loans they cannot pay back. When someone borrows a portion of their salary at that kind of interest, for two or three weeks, they repeat the same scenario and keep getting deeper into debt. It affects quality of life for the borrowers and their families.

According to the Canadian Payday Loan Association, payday loans are unsecured small-sum short-term loans typically for a few hundred dollars. As we know, they are usually for two weeks. Payday loans are specifically designed to help customers with one-time, unanticipated expenses. The average payday loan is around $280 for a period of 10 days.

We can see that these loans are for small amounts to meet what are supposed to be one-time needs but are often related to rent, accommodation and housing. Payday loans are really designed for the low income earners in our society.

As I have said, I am sure that government officials, our ministers, members of Parliament and other members of society do not take out payday loans. We are talking about the poorest people in our society here today. I heard what my NDP colleague said, that we were doing this to help the least fortunate. It is incredible!

This Conservative government tends to minimize and sometimes even ignore the problems associated with poverty. We saw this recently, when the government cut funding for literacy programs and Status of Women Canada programs. My colleague and I recently toured New Brunswick and Newfoundland. People were offended at the cuts to programs that contribute to our social fabric. Once again, the government is introducing a bill to squeeze these people further.

Payday loans, also called wage advances, are a very expensive way for consumers to meet a temporary need for credit. This type of loan is expensive, because lenders charge numerous, often excessive administrative fees, not to mention high interest rates.

In return for making the loan, payday lenders will require a post-dated cheque or a preauthorized debit for the loan amount and will charge applicable fees as well as interest. With the addition of the various fees, the amount to be repaid is greater than the amount of the initial loan.

This puts the squeeze on borrowers. Here in the House of Commons, we are trying to help people in provinces where payday loans are not regulated at present. I understand that, but I do not believe that a measure such as this is the best way to help people in need. It is important to remember that these are the people this bill targets.

As you know, we are opposed to this new bill. It contains two main measures. First, it adds a definition of a payday loan to the Criminal Code. Second, it amends section 347.1 of the Criminal Code to allow exemptions from that section.

There are two parts to the new exemption mechanism. The first part specifies that section 347 of the Criminal Code and section 2 of the Interest Act no longer apply to the payday loan industry of a province when the amount of money advanced is $1,500 or less and the term of the loan is 62 days or less, and the lending company is licensed under the laws of a province to provide such loans.

The second part—and this is where we have a problem—involves a political decision by the federal government.

The federal government exempts from the application of section 347 of the Criminal Code and section 2 of the Interest Act provinces designated by the federal government for passing legislation that the federal government considers to be consistent with its objectives for regulating this industry.

In conclusion, why should Quebec submit to the rules established by the federal government in order not to be subject to criminal interest rates, when Quebec already has consumer protection legislation that properly regulates this activity, which is in fact all but non-existent in Quebec? The members from Quebec now in this House know this. We believe that 60% is an almost criminal rate of interest. In our view, it is usurious.

I have explained in my speech that we have found other ways of helping those in need.

The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes, in principle, the bill—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order.

For questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have essentially the same question as my colleague from the NDP. I have a hard time understanding how the Bloc Québécois could be against the bill. My understanding is Quebec has its own very good legislation and it would like that to prevail. However, right now Quebec is subject to section 347 of the Criminal Code and there could be a conflict. My understanding is the Bloc would like Quebec to be exempt from these provisions.

The bill would exempt Quebec. It removes any conflict that there might be, in which of course the federal law would prevail. If we have a bill that would give the authority to Quebec, would remove it from falling under section 347, why would Quebec not want more autonomy?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier in my speech, given that Bloc Québécois members define themselves as defenders of Quebec's real interests—not like certain other members in this House from other parties who sometimes say they are defending the interests of Quebeckers—we cannot vote for a bill that gives the federal government power, whereby Quebec has to seek exemption from the federal government in a jurisdiction that is currently being well taken care of by Quebeckers.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen further proof of the Bloc's powerlessness and arrogance. Indeed, we can see just how blinded they are by their obsession to achieve independence. They are refusing any progress for the least fortunate, in the name of an ideology and a sacrosanct principle. This time, they are refusing to fill a legal void that exists.

My question is simple. How can the members of the Bloc Québécois oppose a bill that aims to help those least fortunate, whether from Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba or Prince Edward Island? How can they justify such stubbornness? Are we in the wrong House here? We are duly mandated not only to represent our constituents, but also to ensure that our government implements Canada-wide measures to protect those least fortunate.

The Bloc has an opportunity here to reach out to those least fortunate across Canada. Yet, rather than saying that this is a good bill, here is the Bloc pulling back, hiding behind its sacrosanct principles and, in the end, refusing to help ensure that we can all live in a better country.

Here on this side of the House, our position is clear. We support all measures that will help those least fortunate, no matter what province they come from. We are acting and action is being taken. Of course, as usual, the Bloc is criticizing and talking a lot, but it consistently fails to act and delivers no results.

What are the Bloc and its members waiting for before they support a bill that aims to help those least fortunate, regardless of what province they are from?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am taken aback by the fiery speech of this new Conservative member who claims to be here to help the least fortunate.

The Conservatives have just cut student summer employment by half and slashed funding for literacy programs. These are the least fortunate people, yet the Conservatives rise in this House and claim to be further helping the least fortunate by putting forward a bill to charge a 60% interest rate to individuals who need interim financing to meet their needs.

The member said that we are in the wrong House. For his information, the Bloc Québécois is in the right House. Perhaps our friend is in the wrong one. We can see what is going on in the aerospace industry these days and how the Conservative members from Quebec are failing totally to defend the interests of Quebeckers, let alone those of the least fortunate.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-26. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate). We refer to it as the payday loans.

I want to give a little background, which I found very interesting. The payday lending industry is a growth industry in Canada. It was virtually non-existent until 1994. The payday lending industry is believed to have grown to more than 1,300 outlets. Canada's new government, the so-called—