Industry Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête, I'm advised by the clerk that this motion is technically in order because it is on the subject matter we are discussing and it is in both official languages, so Mr. Carrie does have the right to move this motion.

Is this on the same point of order?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

No. He has the right to move the motion, and I have the right to speak on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie, do you want to speak to your motion?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think the motion speaks for itself. It's quite clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête, you can speak to the motion.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you.

I will read the motion, since that has not yet been done.

Department officials from Justice and Industry have fully explained the rationale for Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rates), and its benefit for the protection of Canadian consumers. This bill is supported by the payday lending industry as it gives legal certainty to the industry. Bill C-26 is generally supported by the provinces because it allows them the option to regulate payday lenders through an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code to those that have measures in place to protect borrowers. I move that the committee is ready to continue through the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-26, with the objective of completing our review, and sending the bill back to the House of Commons today.

Although the motion reads “I move”, I am not really the person moving this. However, I will be moving the following amendments to the motion. I would like to add the words “with the exception of Quebec” after the words “is generally supported by the provinces”; replace the phrase “is ready” with the phrase “is not ready” with respect to the clause-by-clause review; and replace the word “today” with the words “at a future sitting”.

I would like to know whether my amendment is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can you read the amendments?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes. On line 5, after the word “provinces”, we would add the words “with the exception of Quebec”. Rather than use the word “today”, I would say “at a future sitting”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Both amendments are in order, so we will then discuss—

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I will explain my first amendment, and then my second amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You can move only one amendment at a time, so we will take the issue, with the exception of Quebec--the first amendment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

The objective of the bill we have before us may ultimately be desirable. However, the fact is that Quebec has long had legislation on loans and it provides for a maximum interest rate of 35%. That is something I can state now.

Earlier, I referred to tab 4, but we find the same thing at tab 5 of this document. I will start by reading what it says at tab 4 regarding clause 2, subsection 347.1(3):

This amendment sets out the procedure by which a province obtains a designation from the federal government. The designation shall be issued, upon request by a province, if the province demonstrated that it has legislative measures in place that protect recipients of payday loans and which include a limit on the total cost of borrowing.

And then we have the reasons for the change:

The federal designation of a province is necessary to enable the exemption of authorized payday lenders from section 347 of the Criminal Code. The requirements to demonstrate the existence of applicable consumer protection legislation, including a limit on the total cost of borrowing, ensures the provincial consumer protection measures are in place prior to enabling the exemption from section 347.

At tab 5, the following comments are made regarding clause 2, subsection 347.1(4):

This amendment enables the ratification of a provincial designation, for the purposes of this section, in two situations: (1) upon request by the province where the designation exists; or (2) when the pre-conditions that form the basis for the designation are no longer in force.

This ensures that section 347 of the Criminal Code will resume application to payday loan agreements that previously could have been exempt because the provincial designation is a pre-condition for an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code.

I was trying to show that in the case of Quebec—and this is why I put forward the amendment—we would like to have the bill amended to ensure that in no way must the provincial legislation be required to obtain the federal government's blessing.

We agree that the government should inform the province that it has passed legislation of this type, but we do not think the province must ask for the federal government's blessing. The current wording of the bill presents a problem in this regard.

I have been in touch with people in the Office of the Quebec minister to find out what his position is, and I was given a verbal reply. I hope to get it in writing in the very near future. I also hope that the Quebec minister will contact the Canadian Minister of Industry so that we can get some assurance that the federal government will not pass legislation in an area that has come under Quebec jurisdiction for a very long time—namely consumer protection.

In light of the foregoing arguments, I think it is important that the committee accept the amendment.

In his presentation, Mr. Jenkin spoke about a council on which the provinces and the federal government are represented that has been studying this issue for a number of years. He also spoke about provinces that would like to see legislation of this type as quickly as possible. However, nowhere does it state that the Quebec government agrees with this legislation. I think it would be inappropriate to pass this bill without the agreement of the Quebec government.

This bill would mean that a province that had legislated a maximum interest rate of 35% would have to get the federal government's blessing. I agree with Mr. Bartlett that that is not the intention of the bill. However, my experience as a parliamentarian has taught me that the intention of the bill is one thing and its interpretation by the courts is quite another. Judges do not interpret interpretations: they interpret the written text. According to the text and the information provided to us by the department, an evaluation will have to be carried out before a province is designated.

When I read this, I wonder whether it will not ultimately be the Prime Minister who will make this decision. The bill does state that it will be the governor in council, so to some extent that will be done by cabinet.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête, we have a point of order.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Crête brought up the point. He said the designation must be given by the federal government. I think the witnesses have answered that, and only one government can give the exemption to section 347, and it is the federal government. The officials have said that Quebec is neither for nor against this. They didn't raise any concerns that were against this bill when you did your consultations.

So we could go on debating this all night, Mr. Crête. The officials are here, and I think they've answered that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Un moment.

Mr. Carrie, I'm advised that's just a matter for debate. It's not a point of order, so I'm not ruling that point of order out of order.

Monsieur Crête, did you have another point of order?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I'm using a point of order to say that our comments are relevant in the context of the debate because we are interpreting what the witnesses said. I am prepared to start over and to discuss the amendment itself, in the hope that I can convince you of its relevance and fairness as I see it.

I think it is quite astounding that in the same session we voted in favour of the motion stating that Quebec is a nation recognized by the federal Parliament within a united Canada, as the resolution states, and that here we have a bill, part of which runs counter to the Quebec government's position. I am prepared to listen, but I think the motion we have before us would cause us to rush unduly. That is why I put forward my amendment.

We have not heard from any witnesses on this matter. I would like to hear from the representatives of the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec, for example, which is the organization in charge of this issue in Quebec. They could come and tell us about the unique situation in Quebec. We could perhaps even have a written opinion from the Quebec government on its views of this issue. I am also prepared to hear from people who defend the opposite position, those who would have different views on the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête, there's another point of order. Mr. Carrie has another point of order.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to the motion. Now we have had officials here, and they have given—

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Wait.

Mr. Carrie, you introduced the motion, and then Mr. Crête introduced the amendment, and he's speaking to his amendment, so technically he's allowed to speak to his amendment before you speak to the main motion. Procedurally, that's the way it works. We're debating the amendment now, not the main motion. Mr. Crête is talking to his amendment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That is the case. Would Mr. McTeague like to make a comment?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

No, I'm waiting for my pillow, my sheets or the other things I will be needing this evening.

Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Crête wants to ask me a question, I am quite prepared to answer any question he would care to ask, but I am ready to vote on his amendment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Fine. I do hope to take the time to convince you, Mr. McTeague, that my point of view is relevant. In the past, you have often been open to Quebec's position, to its view of things. Thus, it would be important that we be able to—

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I have Mr. Crête's agreement.

That is quite possible, and I accept Mr. Crête's comments. He is quite right. Would he at least agree to let the witnesses go, or does he want them to stay here? I do not think this question is addressed to them, and I do not think the current circumstances are such that all the witnesses need stay here for a number of hours.

I will leave that up to you, Mr. Chairman.