Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand the position taken by the Bloc member here in the House of Commons. It is a fact that this bill does not change a thing in the province of Quebec. If Quebec has effective laws for dealing with money mart-type problems, that is well and good. That is very good for Quebeckers. There is a problem, though, in the rest of Canada. It does not have a bill of this kind or a way of protecting the victims of payday lenders and money marts.
This bill is therefore an opportunity for all us to make a difference everywhere in Canada. This is not a jurisdictional problem. Nothing in this bill affects the ability of the Bloc members or the PQ or anyone else in Quebec to determine their future. This is really a bill that addresses the problems of people who have been victimized by money marts and payday lenders. That is all.
Why does the Bloc want to turn every bill into a jurisdictional debate, even when that is not the case?
Our support for this bill does not mean that we support the Conservative government in general, but we will work together with anyone in the House to make changes that are important for people everywhere in Canada. That is all.
The Bloc’s position simply does not make sense. I want to go back to the article written by Pierre Jury in Le Droit:
If he had really wanted to do something for poor people in this country—
I imagine that that is what the Bloc members in the House really want. They want to work on solving the problems of poor people. Consequently, as other people in Quebec say, if we are interested in changing the conditions that cause poverty in Canada, we must deal with the financial service operators that victimize people. They are like vultures. They are going to set ultra-high interest rates that push people into poverty.