I think we might need the witnesses because we are studying two amendments to a motion. Later on, we will see what happens with the motion. I cannot assume that I am going to win or lose the vote, but if I should lose the vote on the motion, I have four amendments to put forward to the bill. When we are studying amendments, clearly we need to have expert witnesses here so that I can rely on their expertise regarding the interpretation of my amendment if I should require it. Personally, I think their presence here is essential. Since they have been here, we have found out that Quebec did not grant its approval, that the situation was very different in the various provinces and that Quebec has a maximum interest rate of 35%. Our witnesses provided us with all this information. They even told us about the situation in the U.S., and it would be a good idea for us to examine this matter in depth.
Mr. Clarke told us that in the United States this is a matter that comes under state jurisdiction, just as consumer protection comes under provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Mr. Clarke did not tell us whether American states have to get the federal government's blessing on this—perhaps we can find out from him during the debate—or whether they can simply forward the information to the federal government. Information about how the American system works might be helpful in what we are doing here, even though we do not intend to copy it in all its details. I think it is important to have witnesses here.
In the amendment, I left in the words “generally supported by the provinces” and I added “with the exception of Quebec”, because I had the clear impression that—