Evidence of meeting #38 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quebec.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The motion is that we move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-26, and the amendment by Mr. Carrie is that we move immediately.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
With a subamendment by Paul Crête. In the subamendment, we add the words: “after we have heard all the witnesses proposed by the members”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'm advised that you can't move an amendment to an amendment, but you can move a subamendment. Mr. Crête has moved a subamendment.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I want to speak about the subamendment. I certainly have the right to do so.
Conservative
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
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.
It is dated Monday, December 11, 2006, regarding BillC-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate)., 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.
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.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Excuse-me, but I was interrupted by some noise.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
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—
Conservative
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
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.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Chair, he's talking about another bill, Bill C-55. It's irrelevant to what we're talking about here.
Conservative
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I gave the example of Bill C-55 that was rammed through, too quickly and with good intentions. A year later, it is still not being enforced because there is no way of enforcing it. Therefore, we must discuss this bill because the same thing could happen again. It would be most unfortunate, and we would not be serving our population.
Imagine if we adopted this bill and then realized that it could not be enforced because we were too hasty. In three months, this could raise a paralyzing constitutional debate. Imagine what would happen if the Quebec government asked the Supreme Court whether this is constitutional. I do not think that that would help one bit. We have the responsibility, as legislators, to ensure that our legislation respects the Constitution.
That is what I wanted to say regarding the point of order raised by my friend Mr. Colin Carrie.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Crête, you did ask that the motion be read, and the amendment and subamendment. Could I please have the clerk read that?
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I think that we had expected to finish at 5:30 p.m. It is past 5:30 p.m. The vote will have to be held at a subsequent meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
No. It's my understanding, and perhaps the clerk can clarify the rule, that the committee is not actually adjourned until there is a motion to adjourn, because we're on the subject of Bill C-26.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Do the Standing Orders not say that the hearing is to be adjourned at 5:30 p.m. and that if it is to be extended, a motion has to be adopted?
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, this is not like in the House, where there are many written rules and provisions about when the House shall adjourn at a certain time. As you well know, a committee chair technically cannot adjourn on his own,
on his own.
It takes the agreement of the committee to adjourn.
