Indeed, Mr. Bagnell, the purpose of proposed section 347 is to provide a mechanism to deal with what we all understand to be loansharking, with its attendant violence, threats of violence, coercion, and those kinds of well-known criminal aspects. It was never really intended to be a consumer protection measure simply regulating business transactions. It has acquired a certain consumer protection role.
The purpose of providing an exemption here is to allow provinces to regulate, in a lawful environment, the payday lending industry. Nothing is going to be opened up for criminal operators. In fact, I suppose the concern might well be on the other side. If there is a market for this kind of loan and no lawfully regulated environment in which it can operate, you might get more loansharking that would develop in violation of proposed section 347 and not in the open, transparent way that payday lenders operate. If anything, the regulation of the industry by the provinces should contribute to making it less likely that there will be that kind of criminal loansharking that section 347 was originally intended to deal with.