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.