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.