Mr. Speaker, the member may want to rethink the use of the name Luigi in his speech, fraught with sensibilities, as the stereotypical lender. I know the member has more respect for the many multicultural Canadians to probably do that.
However, the pith of his statement, in my mind, goes to an abdication of Parliament in not having laws to protect its citizens and in the completely antiquated state of our Criminal Code.
The member will know that a colleague of his, the justice critic from the New Democratic Party, stands with many Liberals in requesting that the Criminal Code, in its entirety, be renewed and revised.
As the member has been a parliamentarian for some time, he would know that section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which has been on the books for some time, does cover square on all fours with the crimes that are associated with 2,000% interest administered by some of the payday loan companies. How is it that it has escaped Parliament all these years and escaped the Criminal Code for protection of our citizens, and what would he suggest in terms of revamping the Criminal Code in specifics and in generalities?