Ken Boshcoff

[Petitions, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from eight communities across Ontario: Atikokan, Kakabeka Falls, Lac La Croix First Nation, Nolalu, Ottawa, Sapawe, South Gillies and Thunder Bay.

The petition deals with the issue of literacy and the need for the reinstatement of the adult and youth literacy components to ensure that funding for these programs comes back for social and economic development and all the attentive needs of making it easier for all citizens to have access to all the things to which everyone else is entitled.

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there has been widespread media attention to this. Some of the provinces, such as New Brunswick, state that they welcome the news about the introduction of legislation at the federal level. Others say handing the regulation of payday loans over to the provinces is the best thing the federal government could do to fix the situation that has allowed financially troubled consumers to be victimized by predatory lenders.

When the hon. member makes his case, he does it very logically and fairly. I hope that hon. members of the House would consider that.

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the legislation before us, Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

The legislation seeks to amend section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which criminalized the charging of usurious interest rates. Section 347 limits interest charges on loans to 60% per annum.

When it was enacted, section 347 contemplated larger long term loans. As such, this section of the Criminal Code requires the interest on a loan to be calculated annually, even if the loan is for a short term, such as only five days. Therefore, the interest is calculated by compounding daily over 365 days, even if the loan is only held for a few days. One hundred dollars lent for five days at a cost of $1 therefore amounts to 107% annual interest. This would be the equivalent of requiring hotels to post their annual room rates at $55,000 per year, rather than $150 per night. Similarly, this would be the same as requiring a car rental agency to post its rates at $13,000 a year rather than $35 per day. We use many such short terms devices in our daily lives and we calculate the services using short term pricing, not annual rate, a meal in a restaurant or a tax trip across town.

Payday loans are also a short term product, so annualized rates are the wrong measure of the products cost.

What is a payday loan? This is defined as an advancement of money in exchange for a post-dated cheque, a pre-authorized debit or a future payment of a similar nature, but not for any guarantee suretyship, overdraft protection or security on property and not through a margin loan, pawnbroking, line of credit or a credit card.

In order to qualify for a payday loan, the borrower generally must have identification, a personal chequing account and a pay stub or other proof of a regular income. Payday lenders typically extend credit based on a percentage of the borrowers net pay until his or her next payday. The borrower provides the lender with a post-dated cheque or authorized direct withdrawal for the value of the loan, plus any interest or fees charged.

Who uses payday loans? In early 2005 the Consumer Agency of Canada placed questions on the Canadian Ipsos Reid Express, a national omnibus poll of Canadian adults, about Canadians experiences with and motivations for using cheque cashing and payday loan services. The survey found that approximately 7% of survey respondents had used a cheque cashing or payday loan company. Cheque cashing was the most frequently used service at 57%, followed by payday loans at 25% and tax refund anticipation loans at 5%.

Certain respondents were more likely to have used these services, including men, those between the ages of 18 and 34, urban residents, residents of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, those with household incomes less than $30,000 and those with some post-secondary education. Some of the reasons cited included that it was faster, it was more efficient and they needed the money more immediately, that the hours were more convenient, that they were open later than other financial institutions and that they had previous credit card problems, no credit card or no chequing account.

Although I personally never needed to use a payday loan, I can imagine how the service could be very helpful. There are so many scenarios that would require such instantaneous access to cash such as car repairs on a long distance trip, provision of a rental deposit to secure that just right apartment, a sudden illness or death of a family member that requires an unexpected trip to another province.

For those who are living through the challenge of a previous bankruptcy, life is a cash only society, with no access to credit cards to help bridge the wait between paydays. Clearly, payday loans are a required services for many Canadians, but they need to be regulated to ensure that consumers are protected.

The Canadian Payday Loan Association indicates that the payday loan industry first emerged in Canada in the mid-1990s. As of 2004 there were nearly 1,200 outlets, and as the parliamentary secretary advised, there are more than 1,300 right now. In my riding of Thunder Bay--Rainy River, I have recently witnessed the opening of nearly half a dozen payday loan businesses where just 10 years ago there were virtually none.

Why are amendments needed?

As stated earlier, section 347 makes it a criminal offence to charge more than 60% per annum. Section 347 was initially introduced to combat the practice of loan sharking and its links to organized crime. It was not intended to be a consumer protection tool for economic price regulations.

If the rate of interest on a payday loan transaction is calculated according to the definitions and methods specified in the Criminal Code, some payday loan companies appear to be charging in excess of 1,200% per annum. However, it is clear that interest rates on such short term loans should not be calculated the same as those on long term loans. It is also clear at the same time that there is increased demand for payday loan services.

The problem arises because of shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. Financial institutions are regulated either federally or provincially and territorially, depending upon which order of government incorporated them. The federal government has jurisdiction over interest rates, but the day to day regulation and licensing of payday lenders most likely falls under provincial jurisdiction as part of the provinces' power over property and civil rights.

Because of this confusion in jurisdiction, payday lenders have been left essentially unregulated. Provinces are unable to regulate the price of a loan, since any attempt to do so would conflict with section 347 and could therefore be challenged. However, section 347 has not been used in a criminal context to curtail the activities of payday lenders because the consent of a provincial attorney general is required to prosecute an offence.

Provincial governments are wary to prosecute a payday lender for fear that the lack of a payday loan company alternative would result in consumers using illegal alternatives such as loan sharks. The payday lending sector is one of the only segments of Canada's financial services sector that remains unregulated.

All other countries that have experienced rapid growth in the industry, including the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, have rules in place to protect consumers. The United States, for example, has 22,000 retail store outlets. Forty states have put in place consumer protection rules. To date, no fewer than five provinces have openly called upon the federal government to change section 347 so that they can move ahead with provincial regulation of the industry.

If the payday loan industry is not regulated, its future may ultimately be determined by a number of class action lawsuits that are currently proceeding through Canadian courts. These lawsuits claim that consumers were charged fees in excess of the Criminal Code rate and seek to recover hundreds of millions of dollars worth of interest. Should these class action lawsuits succeed, they could potentially bankrupt the payday loan industry.

There have been significant federal-provincial-territorial consultations regarding regulation of the payday loan industry. Through this consultative process, they have all agreed that section 347 is an inappropriate control for payday loans and that it should be amended to enable provincial regulation of the industry.

In October 2005 the Liberal federal minister of justice acknowledged that section 347 does not make sense and should not apply to payday loan companies. The minister sought and obtained cabinet approval to amend section 347 accordingly.

I am very pleased to see that that Conservative government has chosen to follow through with the introduction of this legislation, which was developed through the hard work of the former Liberal ministers of justice and industry. The dropping of the writ and subsequent election are its own story.

What has been changed with Bill C-26?

The bill adds a definition of payday loan. This is an important addition because it provides a clear definition of a second kind of loan where previously there was no differentiation and all loans were treated equally.

Clause 2 introduces new subsection 347.1(2) which exempts a person who makes a payday loan from criminal prosecution, if the loan is for $1,500 or less and the term of the agreement--

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you would seek it, you would find unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for Malpeque.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that in communities such as mine, the experience is that this type of issue does not come up as much as it would in intensely urban areas. It may be the nature of proximity to large populations and their density, meaning the number of people per square mile, that there would be that opportunity to be led into temptation, to take advantage of a situation. Perhaps in a high-rise apartment building there may be several hundred voter cards sitting there or subject to borrowing or temporary use, and those kinds of things could happen.

The rule of one person, one voucher and not being able to reverse that is a very solid step forward. Again, as the hon. member mentioned, if Canada is going to be used as an example, we would really want to show that we really have covered the bases, that we have a model that protects people. I view it strictly as protection. People should be really glad to go there and be proud to know that they are voting--

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my support for Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act. The bill would make many positive changes to the Elections Act that would protect against voter fraud and misrepresentation.

One issue that the bill addresses is the current practice of using federal income tax returns to update the Elections Canada register. Certainly tax returns are an excellent tool to obtain current information on our citizens. However, I have had numerous experiences where an individual is listed on the electors list who is not a Canadian citizen.

As we know, only Canadian citizens over 18 years of age are qualified to vote. The bill adds proposed section 46.1 to the Canada Elections Act authorizing the Minister of National Revenue to amend tax return forms so that individuals may indicate whether they are Canadian citizens. I believe this is a very positive step and will reduce significant confusion among foreign citizens who reside in our communities. I will have an anecdote toward the end of my speech on this very issue.

The bill would also implement new requirements for proof of identity to be shown at the voter's booth. I am sure we have all heard stories of voter cards being stolen. Until now there has been no requirement to show any proof of identity, which meant that anyone who had a voter's card could cast a vote, regardless of whether he or she were actually the citizen whose name was on the card.

Clearly, under the former system there was a very big loophole and any person or group with dishonest intentions could steal voter cards and use them for their own purposes. This deficiency put the entire election process in a bad light and had the potential to cause significant damage to the rights of Canadian citizens. Often, the perception of wrongdoing is just as harmful as the actual immoral act. As such, just having such a deficit in the system can add to the distrust felt by voters.

I am pleased that this new process will be implemented to ensure that all Canadian citizens who are eligible to vote cannot have that right stolen from them by the dishonesty of another.

Under this process, a voter would be required to provide identification at the voter's booth. That identification consists of: one piece of ID issued by any level of government that contains a photo and the name and address of the voter; or, two pieces of identification with the name and address that have been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer would be required to publish a list of what will be acceptable identification; or, alternatively, if the elector does not have suitable identification, he or she can take an oath as long as he or she can be vouched for by another person who is listed on the list of electors.

I am very pleased with this third alternative being added to the bill. There are many people, whether seniors or disabled individuals, who do not have the above identification items. Through this option to take an oath, these Canadian citizens would still be able to vote as granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights.

The bill also addresses the practice of serial vouching by limiting each elector to be able to vouch for only one person. In addition, it bans vouching by electors who have been vouched for by another. That is a good rule. I am confident that this new provision to require proof of identity will be an excellent deterrent to fraud.

As the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, there are 11 first nations in my riding: Fort William, Lac Des Mille Lacs, Lac La Croix, Seine River First Nation, Nicickousemenecaning, Couchiching First Nation, Naicatchewenin, Manitou Mounds, Rainy River First Nations, Stanjikoming First Nation, Big Island and Big Grassy.

The residents in first nations such as those often share one joint community postal box. As such, door to door enumeration in those areas is vital to ensuring that all eligible first nations people are included on the voters list.

One can imagine the difficulties when fathers, sons and uncles or mothers, aunts and daughters have the same name and surname. This can create terrific problems. It has in the past and I believe it has led to considerable discouragement of the voting process.

I am pleased with the committee motion calling on the Chief Electoral Officer to strengthen enumeration in reserve communities and areas of low enumeration. I believe this extra effort will go a long way to help the disenfranchisement of our first nations people in federal elections.

We have all heard of the horror stories in the big urban ridings of people being bused in by the dozens or the hundreds, voter cards missing from apartment buildings and those kinds of things. This amendment would certainly correct that. It is important to instill that last vestige of security that we need for our democratic process.

As elected representatives, we are all familiar with the process of volunteers calling people who have received voter cards and then being asked whether they can vote with their card. The volunteer must ask whether they are 18 and whether they are Canadian citizens. From a campaign standpoint, we can give them the best advice but they still have the card sent to them.

I believe that with this type of identification we should be able to eliminate those last vestiges of people taking advantage of the system.

In the last round of municipal elections in Ontario there was yet another decrease in voter participation. In my previous life I was the mayor of the city of Thunder Bay. Although I did not run in the last municipal election, many people actually congratulated me and advised me that they had voted for me. We know there is considerable confusion in the democratic process. It is flattering, but then I know for sure these people did not vote for me.

If we want to set an international example, when we go to other nations that ask us to consult and be the model on which they establish their democratic process, it comes down to presenting them with our great rules and our great process. However, I only hope that they have not watched question period when they ask for an example of how a democratic nation should behave. Indeed, our own decorum is probably where we should be starting to set an example, not only for ourselves but for the young people in the galleries. They know that if they behaved and used some of the language that they hear, they would rapidly be in detention or out of class.

If we can restore that decorum part, it will let people know that if we think they are important, then they will realize that they are important and that their vote has much more value and importance. By knowing that they count, that actually means our country counts for more. In this way, we would actually increase the value or the significance of someone's vote. People would not feel that their vote has been wasted. People would feel that they were all pretty much the same.

Standards of respect and recognition in decorum, in tandem with Bill C-31 on the technical side, would certainly restore voter confidence. We know as a nation, when we compare ourselves to nations such as Australia with compulsory voting or others with much higher voter participation, that we can do more.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-31 to increase voter participation.

[Scouts Canada, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill S-1001, An Act respecting Scouts Canada, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee and reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed.

[Government Programs, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, organizations across my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River are outraged at the funding cuts made to the youth employment strategy. Dozens have written to express their concerns.

The Township of O'Connor writes:

—it is deplorable that the Conservative Government would make such a significant cut to this most valuable program.

The Northwestern Ontario Innovation Centre says:

The BizKids has taught over 300 students about entrepreneurship...in our community....If we are unable to receive a summer student, I am concerned that we will not be able to offer the BizKids program this year.

The Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame writes:

—I am “living proof” of the success of this program...it was a summer job, funded through this program, that led me to my current position...and...having just celebrated my 20^th year as a museum director.

These testimonials and so many others express the value of the youth employment strategy.

I once again call upon the Prime Minister to reinstate the $55.4 million that he recently cut from this most valuable program.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the president and CEO of the Wheat Board and the chair of the Wheat Board made some interesting statements to which I believe the House would like to have a response.

The first statement was made by the CEO, Mr. Adrian Measner. He states:

The government's actions are also going to cost farmers money. You cannot make wholesale changes to the board of directors of a corporation with $4 to $5 billion worth of sales, gut its management team and restructure the grain-handling system without causing major upheavals and concern throughout the grain trade and most notably among buyers. I want to echo Ken [Ritter]'s comments about process and how it is most unfortunate that the government has chosen this precise moment—when some prosperity is finally returning to the grain sector—to create this degree of chaos and uncertainty both domestically and in the international marketplace.

Mr. Ken Ritter, the chair, said:

Western Canadian grain producers have just been through what could easily be called a “perfect storm”: a cycle of low commodity prices, severely curtailed crops and high input prices. We are just rounding the corner. The 2006 crop, for the most part, was favourable both in terms of quality and quantity and prices have rebounded.

As a grain producer myself, I can say clearly and unequivocally: now is not the time to foist major changes on our industry. We need to catch our breath, we need to recover from the crisis we've just been through, we need to make sure that in growing and improving our industry, we do not take a step back into the abyss.

I would ask--

[Publications Assistance Program, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a $15 million cut punishes rural Canada. The Fort Frances Times, the Atikokan Progress and the Rainy River Record are papers in my riding that depend on the publications assistance program.

The integral services they provide in their communities are being put into severe jeopardy by this funding cut. Where will local businesses promote their wares? How will local charities advertise their fundraising events?

Certainly members can understand the harmful effects of this cut to this program.

When will the Minister of Canadian Heritage stop the bleeding?