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

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of an important bill, Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code , which was tabled on October 26 by my colleague the hon. Minister of Justice .

The bill would make changes to the Criminal Code to enable the regulation of the payday lending industry by provinces and territories. This is an important and welcome change.

For years, the payday lending industry has operated in Canada under the radar. The bill would bring this burgeoning industry within the scope of regulations, and in so doing, provide greater protection to millions of Canadians and their families who have come to rely upon the services of the industry.

Indeed, according to the industry's principal lobbying and advocacy organization, the Canadian Payday Loan Association, the industry provides services to nearly two million Canadians each year. This is a substantial figure and demonstrates the importance of ensuring that Canadians are protected against harmful practices in the industry.

Bill C-26 would accomplish the following. It would amend the Criminal Code by adding a new provision, section 347.1, which would provide an exemption scheme for payday lenders from the criminal interest rate where a provincial, territorial consumer protection scheme is in place. It would define payday loans as part of the provincial legislative schemes that are established. It would require the provinces to set a cap on the total cost of borrowing for a payday loan.

Before moving to the discussion of the substance in these amendments, it is important to appreciate two things, first, the history of the payday lending industry in Canada, including the impact it is having on communities across our country; and second, an overview of the questionable practices which have served as a clarion call to action and which forms a basis as to why these specific amendments are proposed.

After learning more about this industry, I believe that all hon. members will agree that the amendments proposed by Bill C-26 are pragmatic, measured and necessary.

The payday lending industry in Canada is relatively new. Storefront operations with catchy names and flashy advertising began popping up in communities throughout Canada around 1994. The payday lending industry began its operations in western Canada. Today, however, the industry is truly national without outlets stretching from coast to coast. In fact, there are an estimated 1,350 payday lending outfits currently operating in every province and city in Canada, except Quebec, and the number continues to rise.

The two million Canadians who use the services of a payday loan company are borrowing nearly $1.7 billion each year. This is simply a staggering amount when one considers that all of this has occurred in an essentially unregulated market. These numbers illustrate that the payday lending companies are clearly responding to a demand from Canadians for their services.

It is true that there are some who would argue that the payday lending industry should not exist at all in Canada. On the other hand, it is clear that the industry is playing an important role for many Canadians on a daily basis.

There are many reasons why Canadians may come to use the service of their neighbourhood payday lending outlet. It may be for convenience, as many of the stores keep late hours and are open on the weekends. Others have suggested that the reason is due to the fact that many of the major financial institutions in Canada have closed the smaller branches, thereby leaving a void in many communities for fast, convenient locations to access cash. It may be due to the relatively anonymous nature of the service or unforeseen emergencies which come with immediate financial consequences. Regardless of the reason, the industry appears to be filling a niche in Canadian communities.

Given this fact, it is important to ensure that those Canadians who do use the service of a payday lender are provided with necessary protection from exploitive business practices, particularly so among the most vulnerable members of our community.

The government takes its responsibilities to improve the lives of Canadians and their families very seriously, and we are taking many important steps in this regard.

Whether it is through strengthening the Criminal Code to ensure that our streets and communities are safer or lowering taxes to help everyday Canadians, we have committed to make a difference. We will continue to take measures such as those proposed in Bill C-26 to ensure that Canadians can have the very best quality of life.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-26 are a thoughtful and effective way to provide for enhanced consumer protection. They respond to the needs expressed by many including the provinces and territories for effective regulation.

There are good reasons to ensure that this industry is regulated. Payday lending is a very expensive way to borrow. In some cases, the costs of borrowing money from a payday lender can range in the 1,000% when annualized. Concerns have been expressed in relation to insufficient disclosure on contractual terms by the lender. In addition, there is a concern with the aggressive debt collection practices and the relatively quick way in which these debts can spiral out of control,as a result of rolling over loans. In some cases payday lenders will even charge an early repayment fee to those who would choose to repay their loan ahead of time.

For all of these reasons it would be abundantly clear to all hon. members that there is a significant need for action in this area. The changes proposed in Bill C-26 will help ensure that action will indeed be taken to provide for the regulation of this industry.

In exploring the most appropriate response to this pressing public policy issue, we worked closely with our provincial and territorial colleagues. Through this work, it became increasingly clear that section 347 of the Criminal Code was a key factor in establishing a new regulatory regime.

Section 347 of the Criminal Code provides for an offence for entering into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at an annual rate of more than 60%. Effectively, this creates the offence of charging interest at a criminal rate. Those who are convicted of this offence can face sentences of up to five years imprisonment.

When section 347 of the Criminal Code was first introduced, it was not intended to serve as a consumer protection measure. Instead, it was meant to provide law enforcement with an additional tool in the fight against organized crime and specifically the practice of loan sharking. Regardless of its original intent, it is applicable to lending arrangements in Canada including payday lending.

Let me be clear though, section 347 of the Criminal Code is not in this government's view the most appropriate or effective way to protect consumers from the unethical and unscrupulous practices which have been connected with segments of the payday lending industry. We are not alone in this assessment. We have heard from many jurisdictions as well as members of civil society who have indicated that section 347 is not a suitable mechanism for consumer protection.

Moreover, these same jurisdictions have noted that in their view the application of section 347 to payday lending companies acts as an obstacle to effective provincial regulations. And so, with these proposed changes we are responding to the needs of the provinces and territories who are much better placed to provide for the necessary consumer protection measures.

We are removing the applicability of section 347 in those instances where provinces choose to act. In instances where the provinces do not act, section 347 will continue to apply. We believe that this is an appropriate solution which will enable those provinces and territories that are ready to regulate the industry to do so.

It is important to briefly point out that Bill C-26 will not apply to federally regulated financial institutions such as banks. Banks are a matter of federal responsibility under Canada's Constitution and there are numerous federal pieces of legislation which regulate these institutions.

In general terms, the amendments would provide an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code for payday lenders under very specific and circumscribed instances. These exemptions would be set out under a proposed new section, section 347.1 of the Criminal Code.

The type of loan provided in a typical payday loan situation is generally a small amount, under $300, according to one study, and the usual terms are short, about 10 days. To qualify, a borrower must establish that he or she has a bank account and provide a post-dated cheque or pre-authorized debit. The borrower must also establish an income source.

Bill C-26 appropriately captures this common understanding of payday lending. It would define a payday loan as:

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 or property and not through a margin loan, pawnbroking, a line of credit or a credit card.

This definition is important, as it clearly sets out the particular type of lending arrangement that will constitute a payday loan.

Our policy objective behind the proposed amendments is targeted. We want to be able to ensure that provinces and territories are able to regulate the practice of payday lending that occurs in their jurisdictions.

We also want to ensure that only those arrangements which are truly payday loans are captured. This is so because the policy considerations in relationship to other forms of credit are quite different. I believe the definition found in Bill C-26 accurately captures the practice of payday lending.

In addition, Bill C-26 would specify that only certain types of payday loans would be eligible for exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code. Notably, the loan would not exceed $1,500 and its term would not exceed 62 days. These limits correspond with the upper limits of payday lending described above.

Bill C-26 is not proposing regulation per se, nor is it proposing to set a national limit on the amount of interest that can be charged for payday loans. Rather, in creating an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code, Bill C-26 is responding to provincial concerns over the need to remove impediments to the regulation of the industry. This is important because the payday lending industry is most appropriately regulated at the provincial and the territorial level.

The ultimate goal of the proposed change is effective regulation. This can best be achieved by providing the provinces and territories with the flexibility they require to be able to set limits on the cost of borrowing. This approach ensures that the regulation is done in a manner which best reflects the local realities of the jurisdiction. At the same time, it recognizes that should a province or territory choose not to legislate for the purpose of regulating the payday lending industry, section 347 will continue to apply.

If a province or territory has made the determination that it will seek an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code for payday lenders operating within its jurisdiction, it will need to obtain a designation from the federal government. In order to succeed, it will need to establish that it has legislative measures in place which afford protection to those who seek payday loans. Those consumer protection measures will be left almost entirely up to the province or territory.

This approach is justifiable, as it recognizes the individual realities of each jurisdiction, including, for example, the practices of the industry in that province, as well as already existing consumer protection legislation enacted under the provincial constitutional authority over property and civil rights.

Bill C-26 would, however, require that as part of its legislation the province or territory must include a limit on the total cost of borrowing. In my opinion, this addresses three fundamentally important considerations: first, it recognizes that the provinces and territories can control the cost of borrowing in their jurisdiction; second, it guarantees that there will be a clearly defined cap on the cost of borrowing; and finally, as has been noted before, it provides a flexible solution to the individual circumstances of each province and territory.

The assessment of whether to issue a designation to a province or territory will be made by the governor in council. The province would write to the federal Minister of Justice detailing the cost control measures set out in the legislative scheme. The Minister of Justice would then, on the recommendation of the federal Minister of Industry, ask the governor in council to grant the designation.

Upon the governor in council doing so, the province would then be eligible to exempt, via licence or other legislative means, a payday lender in its jurisdiction from the application of section 347.

In short, I believe that Bill C-26 is an extremely important bill. It will provide greater protection to Canadians by enabling the provinces and territories to regulate an industry that is in desperate need of regulation.

Bill C-26 sets clear limits. It defines payday loans and limits the maximum one can lend under the exemption scheme to $1,500. It requires provinces to legislate measures to govern payday lending agreements, including limits on the cost of borrowing.

Bill C-26 demonstrates this government's commitment to working collaboratively with provinces and territories on a matter of common concern. The impact of these proposed changes will make a real and significant difference to those Canadians who have come to rely on this service.

I hope that all hon. members will join with me and support the quick passage of this bill into law.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by my colleague from Calgary East regarding the bill, which seems to apply, given that the federal government has the necessary jurisdiction to regulate the business practices in question.

The subject was raised earlier, but I want to ask him whether he knows that the provinces are free to legislate or regulate the business practices of the companies under their jurisdiction.

The Government of Quebec, with which I am more familiar, has in fact defined this practice, by the Office of Consumer Protection, which provides very good oversight for the industry and prohibits unreasonable practices. To my knowledge, this industry is well regulated in Quebec at present. I think that other provinces also intend to legislate in this area.

What does he think of the point of this bill? Has everything else the government has to deal with been solved already? Earlier, we were talking about the fiscal imbalance. In the last budget, they promised to solve it, and yet no solution has yet been drafted. Are there no more important bills, that are not under the jurisdiction of the provinces and for which the federal government has full responsibility?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just before I rose to speak, my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, answered the questions that the hon. member is asking regarding fiscal imbalance and all the other issues that he says are more important.

Let me relate for the member a personal experience. In the last federal election, the election of 2006, my campaign office was next door to a payday lending office. I was just flabbergasted and quite sad to see the operation of this payday loan establishment. We could see that the people who were going in there were those who could not get normal lending from other institutions. People were relying on this establishment for quick cash but they were paying a big interest rate. That particular office was open every day until about 10 o'clock at night and we could see people walking in at all hours.

As I have stated in my speech, some of these institutions are using unscrupulous methods to prey on the disadvantaged of our community. I am sure the member does not want that to happen in Canada, to have somebody takes advantage of those who are disadvantaged. It is necessary for the government to look at this.

I am sure that with his help we would, as I have stated in my speech, pass this law very quickly. It would be there to protect the disadvantaged. Then we could move on to the other business of the House that he so wants to do.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have invited quick passage of this bill in relation to which there seems to be a fair bit of support, and I certainly agree with that. One of the ways we can pass it quickly is not to do too much talking about it, and my remarks are offered today as part of the remarks of the official opposition on this bill.

Colleagues have probably had their attention brought to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called A OK Payday Loan. That was a circumstance where customers of this particular operation had sued in a class action. At issue was the very high interest rates being charged by this payday loan business. As the court eventually determined, as I understand it, the moneys charged by this operation were at a level that constituted a criminal rate of interest, which is defined in the Criminal Code of Canada. That means an interest rate that exceeds 60%. Most of us will regard that as a pretty exorbitant rate of interest.

The point here is that the two jurisdictional worlds, the criminal on the one hand and commercial law on the other, clashed. As our colleague from the Bloc just mentioned, commercial activities outside of banking are normally regulated and administered jurisdictionally by each of our provinces under the property and civil rights heading in section 92 of the Constitution Act.

How do we draw the line between what is criminal and what is commercial? Our laws attempted to do that many years ago. The big difficulty we faced as a society when section 347 of the Criminal Code was first enacted was that organized crime/loan sharks were showing up in material ways across the country, and it was felt that the type of lending they did, which had no regulation, should be criminalized as being anti-social, so the criminal rate of interest rate was selected in such a way that anyone who lent an amount of money and collected at an interest rate beyond and above 60% was found to be in breach of the Criminal Code.

Doubtless that section of the Criminal Code, section 347, has protected many Canadians over the years, but with the growth now, with the proliferation of financial instruments, lending and access to credit and money, there are many ways that consumers now can access credit. One of those ways is this payday loan mechanism, whereby an individual who is employed can obtain a loan or an advance equivalent to some percentage of his or her paycheque and obtain it very quickly and easily from a payday loan business.

People may regard the payday loan business as kind of a bank loan. It is not a bank. It is simply a lending business that will lend money to the individual on the credit of a forthcoming paycheque a week or two weeks down the road. It looks like many Canadians find this a useful device, because the number of payday loan operations in Canada now has mushroomed in the last dozen years or so to the point where we have 1,300 payday loan operations right across the country. It looks like the consumer likes this mechanism.

I point out that it is generally for small amounts and for a very short period of time. It may be filling a niche that credit card companies, banks and credit unions are not. The issue has become, at what price are Canadians required to pay for their payday loan borrowings? In the case I mentioned earlier, equivalent interest rates are in excess of 60% per annum on the amount loaned. I suppose in our society now a knowledgeable consumer should be allowed to spend over 60% in interest if he or she wishes to have the money quickly. However, we are not removing the Criminal Code provision in what we are doing here.

We are going to keep a Criminal Code provision, but we are going to allow an exemption for a lawful business that lends money using this payday loan mechanism. The exemption will be based on the premise that a province or a territory is regulating the commercial operation. The Criminal Code will say that if a province is regulating interest rates and amounts and providing a supervisory regulation of that type of lending mechanism, then the federal jurisdiction will exempt that lending mechanism from our criminal law. We need to do that because under our Constitution, federal jurisdiction has paramountcy over provincial laws except where there is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Where there is an overlap, the federal law will normally govern.

Placing this amendment with section 347, will allow the provinces to assume their proper jurisdiction in the regulation of the commercial affairs of their citizens. However, at the same time we maintain the criminal prohibition with the 60% per annum cap where there is no provincial regulation. We are assuming that a province will provide a form of regulation that will essentially keep the same level of protection the consumers have had up to now.

This does not mean that loan sharks will have a field day. This means that genuine lending businesses, which I described as payday loan operations, can carry on with their legitimate lending services in cities and localities across the country, just as they have up until now, without fear that their practices will offend the criminal law. Their practices might offend the provincial regulatory law that has to be in place, but they will not have to deal with the Criminal Code provisions. Usually it is a lot more difficult for a citizen or a business to deal with a Criminal Code provision than it is for them to deal with a commercial provision. There is no stigma attached to compliance with regulatory requirements as there is to non-compliance with Criminal Code provisions.

The legislation took a number of years to develop. The initial consultations began a few years ago under the previous government and it involved reaching an agreement with the provinces and the territories that would allow them to assume a regulatory role. Those agreements, understandings, consultations and accommodations were all accomplished, and the government now finds itself in the happy position of simply having to introduce the law and getting it passed. I am assuming there will be a fairly high level of support for this. The official opposition will support the bill and we hope it will receive passage soon as well.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by my colleague in the official opposition. I note that he supports the bill. It is very clear that the federal government is responsible for setting the maximum interest rate. The law allows it to do that. In principle, however, it does not have the authority or the jurisdiction to regulate business practices, something that the Government of Quebec has done very well. It has met its responsibilities, and in fact, on the question of maximum interest rates, it has even set the rate at 35% rather than 60%.

We therefore have the impression that this is a bill that is being pointlessly superimposed on the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec. That is why we will not support the bill, because we do not support pointless duplication of all the regulations or jurisdictions of two levels of government. It is important to preserve provincial jurisdictions as they stand. This was in fact a commitment made by the Conservative government, to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces. By introducing this bill, it is not honouring that commitment. I am surprised that my colleague seems to be supporting this.

From his point of view, is the reason that we have this bill really to make up for the incompetence or neglect of certain provinces that have not regulated their business practices as Quebec has properly done? Is this why he would want to support the bill?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that this bill would allow the federal government to vacate an area where it had paramountcy, where it had jurisdiction, and allow the provinces to assume their rightful jurisdiction in regulating commercial transactions.

If the member has any complaint, it may have been that 75 or 100 years ago the federal government did occupy the jurisdictional matter of loansharking. At this point in time, there has been an agreement that the federal government will walk from its criminal jurisdiction involving loansharking if the provinces expressly assume their responsibilities in regulating these commercial transactions. It is a happy ending. It is not a creation of something new. It is the reworking of the federal legislation to precisely allow for provincial jurisdictions to operate.

My friend should be happy with the proposed outcome contained in the legislation. It does not at all attempt to regulate in areas of provincial jurisdiction. If that had happened, it happened 75 or 100 years ago. What is happening now is that the federal government is simply proposing a conditional withdrawal from this otherwise provincial area of commercial activity. On that basis, I think he would want to support the bill.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the allegations of our Liberal Party colleague correctly, the federal government is introducing a bill that would allow it to go to the provinces to regulate usurious loans, while admitting that this is a sector in which the federal government has interfered in years past and which it has promised to leave to the provinces to deal with. He is talking about a complementary approach by the federal government for provinces where rules were nonexistent or inadequate.

Could my colleague assure us that, in the committee that considers this bill, he would be prepared to work on limiting the federal government's ability to intervene in provinces that do not have such a bill or such protection legislation?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I sit with the official opposition, not the government. I am not in a position to give much of an undertaking here.

If the member will realize that the structure of the bill involves the federal government withdrawing from its enforcement of loansharking prohibitions in a way that allows the provinces to assume their proper commercial jurisdiction in regulating person to person institutional commercial transactions, then I can say pretty easily there is no need to give an undertaking that the federal government will not respect those other jurisdictions. The whole purpose of the bill is to recognize those other jurisdictions and to allow the federal government to essentially withdraw.

It is clear, however, that the bill retains, not imposes, the existing federal government jurisdiction over what it has always defined as a criminal rate of interest, which is the term that was used. In this place we call it loansharking. The foundational jurisdiction to proscribe and criminalize loansharking remains, but will not be used or applied if the provinces step in and regulate, as I understand the province of Quebec has.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak in favour of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding criminal interest rates.

What is a payday loan, one might ask. The Library of Parliament explains it this way.

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 payday 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/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.

Some payday lenders will cash the borrower’s post-dated cheque or process the direct withdrawal on the due date of the loan. Others will require that the borrower repay the loan in cash on or before the due date, and may charge an additional fee if the loan is not repaid and they must cash the cheque or process the direct withdrawal subsequent to the loan due date. If there are insufficient funds in the borrower’s account, the borrower may also be required to pay a return fee to the payday lender and/or a non-sufficient funds...fee to his/her bank or credit union. In this instance, the borrower may have the option of “rolling over” the loan — that is, taking out another payday loan to pay off the original loan — for an additional fee.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to read the library's excellent paper on payday loans from which I have just quoted.

With an estimated 1,350 storefront locations and representing annual revenues of approximately $1.7 billion, payday lending is one of the fastest growing industries in Canada. This industry appears to be filling a gap that exists in the availability of credit from the chartered banks and other traditional lending institutions.

There may be different reasons for this gap. Perhaps it is because such institutions are not willing to offer the type of short term unsecured credit that payday lenders do, or simply because local bank branches have been closed in many population centres, thereby making access to credit for many customers very difficult.

The payday lending industry may also be succeeding because of the relative convenience of their operations and the relatively anonymous nature of the commercial transaction.

The payday lending industry has been operating for just over 10 years now without any effective regulation, resulting in some payday lending companies charging outrageous and often crippling fees that trap many an unwary customer. In light of these questionable business practices, which may also include ineffective disclosure of contractual terms and aggressive debt collection practices, many have been right to criticize the current situation, including provincial and territorial governments, consumer groups and the payday lending industry itself.

For example, consumer groups have argued that consumers who would not otherwise have access to this type of short term credit, sometimes feel they have no alternative but to accept the terms and conditions of the payday lender. This can lead to their becoming vulnerable to unfair practices. Consumer groups want to see this issue brought under control.

On the other hand, lenders who have offered loans on reasonable terms and follow a voluntary code of conduct fear that their conduct is being questioned and thus seek regulations in order to give their industry both legitimacy and long term viability in Canada.

The provinces and territories have expressed concern as well. They, too, wish to ensure that Canadians who live in their communities are protected from unscrupulous practices and have noted that section 347 of the Criminal Code, the criminal interest rate provision, stands in the way of them effectively regulating this industry.

The government has heard the criticism and the concerns that have fueled the calls for legislative reform and Bill C-26 is a reflection of our resolve to address them. Our government has been working closely with our provincial and territorial colleagues to examine options for the most effective response to this pressing issue. Indeed, the situation has been the subject of discussion and examination by federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and consumer affairs.

Bill C-26 is the result of that collaboration. I believe it would mean enhanced protection for those Canadians who have come to use the services of the payday lending industry.

Who uses payday loans and why? Again I want to go back to the excellent Library of Parliament paper that I quoted from earlier. The library researchers found:

In early 2005, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada placed questions on the Canadian Ipsos-Reid Express...— a national omnibus poll of Canadian adults—about Canadians’ experiences with, and motivations for, using cheque-cashing and payday loan services. The survey found that approximately 7% of survey respondents had used a cheque-cashing or payday loan company. Cheque cashing was the most frequently used service (57%), followed by payday loans (25%) and tax refund anticipation loans (5%). Certain respondents were more likely to have used these services, including: men; those between the ages of 18 and 34 years; urban residents; residents of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; those with household incomes less than $30,000 per year; and those with some post-secondary education

Those are causes for concern. The ongoing and expanding presence of payday loan companies suggest that some Canadians are willing to pay usurious rates of interest in excess of that permitted under the Criminal Code for their payday loans. This situation raises important questions about whether and how issues in the payday loan industry should be addressed, by whom and with what consequences for the industry and its customers.

The drafters of Bill C-26 must have also read the library paper because they found that section 347 of the Criminal Code, often seen as a de facto regulatory provision to limit the maximum lending rates for commercial and consumer loans, had to be considered in any discussion of payday lending. Indeed, section 347 is at the heart of the amendments proposed in Bill C-26.

I will come back to the substance of the proposed amendments a bit later but first I will explain the origins of the section and why, in my opinion, it is not an appropriate tool to use in regulating consumer lending.

Section 347 was not enacted to regulate commercial or consumer lending per se. The policy goal of the section was instead to enhance the ability of our police forces to target the harmful activities of organized crime syndicates. More specifically, the goal was to address the loansharking activities of these syndicates and the related practices of threats and violence that are often used when collecting payments. The adoption of a specific interest rate limit in the Criminal Code immediately next to the provision for extortion was to facilitate proof of extorted loans. This was clearly not about regulating legitimate lending activities.

Section 347 provides serious criminal penalties for entering into an agreement or receiving payments where the interest charged exceeds the defined criminal rate of 60%. When charges proceed under indictment, the offender is liable for a term of imprisonment of up to five years and, when they proceed summarily, for a fine of up to $25,000 and a term of imprisonment of up to six months.

This government does not believe that section 347 is the most appropriate way to regulate the payday lending industry and provide consumer protection. Bill C-26 would address the concerns noted by the provinces and territories by creating a narrowly defined exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code to facilitate provincial and territorial regulation of payday loan agreements. In instances where a jurisdiction has chosen not to enact consumer protection legislation directed at payday lending, section 347 would continue to apply.

The exception created by Bill C-26 removes the application of section 347 of the Criminal Code, as well as section 2 of the Interest Act where a payday loan agreement is for an amount that does not exceed $1,500 and runs for a maximum term of 62 days and where the province in which the lender operates has been designated as having in place an appropriate regulatory scheme which must include limits on the total cost of borrowing.

It is clear that the exception only applies where the province in which the lender operates has made the appropriate amendments to its legislative scheme that governs consumer protection matters. The province would also have to request the federal cabinet for the necessary designation which allows for the exemption in respect of section 347. The criminal interest rate from section 347 would continue to apply in any province or territory which chooses not to implement qualifying regulations for payday lending agreements.

In Manitoba, bill 25, the consumer protection amendment act regarding payday loans, is now ready for a third reading and provides a good example of the type of complementary consumer protection legislation at the provincial level that would properly leverage the exception.

Manitoba's bill 25 establishes a licensing and inspection scheme for payday lenders, defines limits on certain loan agreement terms and parameters, sets out a lender's information disclosure obligations and defines a borrower's right in terms of cancellation and redress. This cooperative framework of a narrow Criminal Code exception, coupled with suitable provincial regulations specifically addressing the payday lending industry, should meet the goals and objectives of consumers and their advocacy groups, as well as those of legitimate payday lending companies and their industry associations.

In closing, this government believes strongly in protecting consumers from the unscrupulous practices of unregulated payday lenders. Bill C-26 is an important and necessary first step in establishing a fair and equitable regime under which to regulate the activities of payday lending institutions, giving consumers the best possible protection in accessing this type of credit.

I urge all hon. members to join me in support of Bill C-26 and ensuring its speedy passage.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of my colleague from the Conservative party. First, I want to tell him that the Bloc Québécois will oppose the bill, not because we are against the principle, but because the Government of Quebec has already legislated in this field through the Office of Consumer Protection since this falls within its responsibility.

All types of lenders are subject to strict obligations. For the information of my fellow citizens who are now listening to our debates, the Office of Consumer Protection sets the annual interest rate that must be stated in loan contracts. All fees are calculated in the annual rate and it is thus not possible to add fees for opening a file or for forms. Finally, the jurisprudence has established that an annual interest rate above 35% is excessive. Therefore, Quebec consumers are already well protected by the Office of Consumer Protection set up by the Government of Quebec.

This is a flagrant example of duplication by another level of government, the federal government, that now wants to regulate everything that is already regulated within the province of Quebec, and surely in other provinces that are now considering the subject or that do not regulate it because they do not consider it necessary. It is the responsibility of the provinces to regulate all business practices related to loans.

This is really an example of duplication on the part of a government that promised during the election campaign to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and to consider the effectiveness of its legislation. In fact, what it is doing is adding a bill that affects provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to know how he feels about what I am saying.

Does he agree that the government is encroaching on the jurisdiction of the provinces and is thinking for them?

Does he believe that the provinces are not intelligent enough to legislate in these areas?

If they have already legislated in this field, does he agree with the fact that they are being exempted from this bill? Other parliamentary procedures will therefore be necessary. That is what constantly involves additional cost, and that is why the public is complaining so much about paying high taxes to all levels of government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member actually understands what the bill is proposing. He has gone on at length talking about how the government of Quebec has already put regulations in place and how this would be seen as a duplicate.

In actual fact, the Criminal Code of Canada applies to all of Canada. Bill C-26 seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada and not interfere in any way, shape or form with provincial jurisdiction.

As a matter of fact, the bill is actually meant to exclude certain aspects pertaining to Canadian payday loans from provincial jurisdiction. In that way, provinces such as Quebec and the western provinces, including Alberta, which is the province I am from, have the ability to protect their consumers in a way that they see fit.

I actually do not understand the nature of the question. It seems a little bit hypocritical, when the member from the Bloc Québécois, who obviously wants this consumer protection and the individual ability of Quebec to regulate this particular industry. He is opposing this bill. He is essentially saying, and is pitting Quebec against the rest of Canada, that if it is good for Quebec then Quebec can have the regulations. If he is opposing it, he is basically denying the ability of these regulations for the other provinces, such as Manitoba, which is already able and willing to proceed.

I reject the premise of his question. This is not a duplication at all. The Criminal Code is being amended here and it applies across Canada. It will actually create an exemption which will allow provincial jurisdictions, such as the provinces of Quebec and Alberta and any of the other provinces or territories in the country, to proceed in a way that they see fit to protect their consumers where the payday loan associations and payday loan institutions are concerned.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26 before the House today and to give the unequivocal support of the New Democratic Party for passage of this legislative proposal. In fact, it would be our wish, given the succinct nature of this legislation, to have it approved on short notice at all stages, dealt with on an expedited basis, and prompt action taken in an area that is long overdue.

I want to begin by thanking the Conservative Minister of Justice for actually listening to the concerns of people all across Canada and especially provinces which were ready to act. In particular, I want to highlight the work of the Manitoba NDP government which has long been a champion of action in this area of unregulated payday lending and has led the country with a progressive legislative approach. That legislative approach, however, requires the federal government initiative to set aside the Criminal Code.

As members will now know, the Criminal Code sets an interest rate of 60% as the limit of interest that can be charged on a payday loan. We know from the past decade, that has seen an exponential rise in payday lending all over this country, that this approach does not work. In fact, I would like members to think hard and tell me if they know of any cases where this 60% criminal rate of interest was used in terms of actually charging a payday lender who has taken advantage of an individual in this country.

I can think of one. There was a recent case in Manitoba where charges were laid and a trial is ongoing. There has been one charge, one action after a decade of payday lenders and other fringe financial services flooding our marketplace. That is not a record of which to be proud. It speaks very much to a problem in our whole legislative system. It speaks to an issue that has not been dealt with and it needs a new approach.

The desired approach would be to have a national solution. I would much prefer to have one set of standards for this whole country, so that there is a rule that all payday lenders must abide by wherever they live, whatever province they reside in, and that we avoid any possibility of these outfits closing down a shop in one province and moving to another to take advantage of more lax rules or a more lucrative environment.

I would prefer to have seen the provinces and the federal government get together and come up with one plan, but they tried for years and they could not do it. Numerous discussions were held at the federal-provincial level among consumer affairs ministers and officials. Numerous forums were held, dialogues and discussions took place, but there was no solution and no one united position that came out of that prolonged set of discussions. All the while payday lenders and other fringe financial institutions have been popping up everywhere in this country. In the last decade, we have gone from zero to 1,350 such outfits in our society today.

I speak from direct political experience coming from a constituency like Winnipeg North which has, in the space of 10 years, lost all of its banks. The north end of Winnipeg, which covers a significant area from the tracks in the south end to Inkster Boulevard in the north end, from Red River in the east to McPhillips Street on the west, has a huge area of residential neighbourhoods with small, large and medium size businesses. However, there are no bank branches left in that entire area. They have been dropping one by one over the last decade.

What has happened in the interim? What has happened as a result of that kind of negligence on the part of the banks, their decision to abandon an older community like Winnipeg North? I am sure it is not unlike many other communities in this country: inner city, north end, and older neighbourhoods that are not quite as lucrative for banks as suburban outlying areas. They pick up and leave without accountability and consequences, leaving people abandoned, high and dry, and without access to banking services.

In the case of Winnipeg North, we are talking about a community that has a very high proportion of senior citizens, numerous high-rises and senior citizens apartments and, as well, on average, an income distribution that is at the low end. We are talking about people more likely living in poverty or eking out an existence on a day-to-day basis more so than in other parts of the country. It is an area that has a significant number of people with disabilities, a high number of people who made the transition from living on reserve to an urban environment. And there are no banks. There is nowhere for people to do banking; nowhere to cash a cheque without being ripped off; nowhere to set up a banking account, a savings account; and nowhere to learn how to budget and how to plan for their families. All the banks have left.

At this point, if it is all right with you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Surrey North.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Given the lateness of the request, I would have to seek the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to split her time with the hon. member for Surrey North?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The member does have two minutes and 34 seconds left in her 10 minutes.