No. With respect, if Quebec, as I say, or any other province is going to regulate at or below 60%, then section 347 can simply apply as well, and there's simply no conflict and no need for an exemption. If there's going to be an exemption from section 347, there are simply two requirements: that there be a consumer protection regime that applies to these payday loans, and that it include alternative limits on the costs of borrowing.
Section 347 sets a limit on the total cost of borrowing. The legislation would simply provide that if a province is going to operate an alternative regime, there has to be another limit on the cost of borrowing that replaces the limit under section 347. That's all it requires--and that there be consumer protection measures that apply to these arrangements. That's all.