Paule Brunelle

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree.

If a family with a very low income needs to borrow a sum as small as $280, it is certain that an additional $10 will perhaps make the difference and enable the family, at the end of the month, to have had the food that they needed. It is not unusual to see this in the poorest families.

The fact that there is a need for companies like these should lead us to ask why there are still poor children and poor families in Canada, when we have been promised so often that there would be no more. I believe that more and more people are being locked into poverty, in a spiral from which they can never escape. They are never able to pay all those charges.

This bill also makes me think that these companies could also profit from people who are compulsive gamblers, for example. Will those people go to these companies and become caught up in the spiral? We must be very careful and try to understand why these companies exist and how we could try to improve the economic situation of families in Canada.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks.

In our respective provinces, companies clearly sell furniture by saying there will be no interest for one year. However, something else is going on. It is very easy for businesses to increase the price of something and then give us the impression that they are giving us some kind of discount.

That being said, it is not that we are opposed to an interest rate limit at the outer edges of what working people can afford when they have to deal with payday lenders. What we oppose is the federal government administering this program. In our view, this is a provincial jurisdiction. Quebec is already handling it very well, together with the Office de la protection du consommateur.

Our position is always the same. The government that is closest to the people is the one that is best able to understand the situation, set standards, and exercise its constitutional jurisdiction.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the bill sets the interest rate at 60%. To me, that seems usurious.

As I said, the Office de la protection du consommateur limits the rate to 35% in Quebec. Even that strikes us as too much.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-26 is to provide for stricter regulation of the payday lending industry, which could also be called the wage advances industry. In Canada, the industry began to take root in the 1990s. Its growth has not been uniform, however, since it falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces over local commerce and civil rights and is thus subject to the rules governing contracts and consumer protection in each jurisdiction. Accordingly, while the federal government believes that this industry now has over 1,300 points of sale, they are unevenly distributed and there are not very many in Quebec.

Several payday lending companies have joined together to form the Payday Loan Association of Canada. That association represents 22 companies that operate a total of 850 points of sale for financial services across Canada, but none in Quebec.

What is a payday loan? To the Payday Loan Association of Canada, a payday loan is an unsecured small-sum short term loan typically for a few hundred dollars. The average payday loan is around $280 for a period of 10 days. We can see that payday loans are really meant for low income earners, and this is why, at this point, I want to talk about poverty.

When someone needs to borrow at a high rate from this payday lending industry in order to make it to the end of the month or the end of the week, the reason is that the person is poor in Canada. The most recent Statistics Canada figures, from the year 2000, tell us that there are 1.3 million more poor households in Canada than there were 25 years ago. So the poverty rate among the working population, among people who earn low wages and who will have to do business with this payday lending industry, has gone up.

Poverty is rising among the working population. There are poor families, and poor children, in Canada. The most alarming increase in the poverty rate for families has occurred in young families where the head of household is between 25 and 34 years old. We also see that in 1997, 56% of families headed by a single mother were living in poverty, and they accounted for 43% of poor children.

What we are seeing is rising poverty. We are going to try to deal with it by legislating, and this may be legitimate, but the fact remains that what we have seen during that time is that single-parent families, aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of visible minorities and people with little education are the poorest people in our society. At the same time, the government is cutting funds for literacy training, social housing, the status of women—all measures that are genuinely going to help people deal with what lies at the heart of the problem. It seems to me that we cannot legislate to deal with only one aspect of the situation.

Obviously, the Criminal Code did not include a definition of payday loan. Nonetheless, it is important that we find a way of solving the problems of poverty in a more comprehensive manner, not going at them piecemeal with a bill like this. According to the federal government, a payday loan is defined as:

—a short-term loan for a relatively small amount, to be repaid at the time of the borrower's next payday.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, which falls under the responsibility of the Department of Finance, indicates that it is possible to borrow via a payday loan. This is limited to 30%. I see this amount of 30% on a paycheque after the various deductions and income tax. It is often said that a family should not spend more than 30% of its income on accommodation. This leads to a very problematic situation in which payday lenders will ask their clients to give them a post-dated cheque or pre-authorized withdrawal directly from a bank account, and will add various fixed service charges as well as interest.

This seems to be a downward spiral that is difficult to stop for these less fortunate families, who, I would remind the House, are becoming even more impoverished. Certainly, more prosperous people do not resort to these lending agencies. They are more likely to go to their bank or credit union, as is the case in Quebec.

Quebec has its Consumer Protection Act. Payday lenders were once numerous in Quebec but the consumer protection bureau decided to intervene. After that, the combined efforts of the police and the consumer protection bureau all but eliminated that industry within our territory. Furthermore, the Consumer Protection Act contains strict provisions to regulate the entire lending industry.

Thus, we see that opinions are divided on Bill C-26. The Quebec government shares the Bloc Québécois' concerns because we see that, under this bill, any provinces can be granted an exemption by the federal government under certain conditions.

We feel that by placing conditions on exemptions, the federal government is interfering in one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Indeed, Quebec is already regulating this industry, without having to account to the federal government. The maximum interest rate is set at 35% in Quebec, which is far less than the 60% in the Criminal Code. In addition, with its designation provision, the federal government is reserving the right to veto the measures taken by the province that requests the exemption. Although the mechanism for granting the designation is still unclear, it appears that ultimately, the Prime Minister will determine whether or not to grant the designation. Such a veto, in an area under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction, seems inappropriate to us.

I will remind my colleagues in this House that Quebec does not always welcome vetoes.

The Bloc Québécois is therefore opposed to the principle of Bill C-26. However, the Bloc Québécois feels that although the federal government has the authority to include in the Criminal Code a maximum interest rate beyond which it becomes illegal to lend money, it does not have the authority to regulate industry trade practices.

The federal government does not need to decide to implement a licensing system or judge the merits of how Quebec and the provinces regulate the practices of this sector.

In our opinion, Quebec is free to regulate the trade practices of the companies under its jurisdiction, and the federal government does not need to impose a veto for the legislation to apply. Despite the Conservatives openness and respect during the election campaign, the fact is that the Harper government is carrying on the federal tradition of interfering in the jurisdictions of—

[Committees of the House, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, people involved with museums in Trois-Rivières have certain expectations with respect to a museums policy—they want the stable, recurring, long term funding this government promised—but they are in a precarious position.

Education, which is key to any society's progress, must be alive, and we want people and youth to be interested. This often happens in museums, which are places where we can express our culture.

I would like to ask my colleague to what extent we should do as they do in Europe, where they are well aware of the major economic benefits of tourism, and where they recognize that museums are places for culture and education, and places to bring tourists. Money spent on museums comes back in the form of tourist dollars.

Consequently, funding museums is an investment. It seems to me that Canada should have some vision and introduce the long-awaited museums policy.

[Fiscal imbalance, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on December 19, 2005, the Prime Minister solemnly declared in Quebec City that he would eliminate the fiscal imbalance in Canada. The summer was barely over and Parliament was not yet back in session when his first move was to cancel a scheduled meeting on this very issue with the premiers of Quebec and the provinces.

The Prime Minister has kept backing out of commitments ever since.

In his 2002 report on fiscal imbalance, Yves Séguin clearly identified three causes: the balance between expenditures and revenues is too precarious in Quebec and the provinces, while Ottawa is swimming in surpluses; transfers from the federal government are inadequate and insufficient; and the federal spending power is trampling on Quebec's jurisdictions.

The Bloc Québécois denounces the attitude of the Prime Minister, who is being obstinate and continuing to renege on election promises made to the people of Quebec.

[Status of Women, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is adding its voice to that of the Fédération des femmes du Québec and every one of its presidents, who denounced the $5 million cut to Status of Women Canada. To make cuts in this already underfunded program while the government is sitting on a $13 billion surplus is a sign of being dangerously ignorant and insensitive.

Also, the new funding criteria imposed on women's groups that advocate women's rights and are involved in political lobbying could prove fatal for a number of groups which are doing a tremendous and necessary job.

I say “necessary” because, while enshrined in official documents, women's equality is often de facto non-existent in many regards. Violence against women still prevails. The income of women is significantly lower than that of men. Women represent only 21% of elected representatives in the Parliament of Canada.

In 2006, women's groups are still necessary.

[Government Programs, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government also drastically reduced the budget for Status of Women Canada.

What can possibly lead this government to slash by 30% the budgets to promote equality for women, considering that these budgets have already been significantly reduced and are totally inadequate?

[Government Programs, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government severely cut spending in literacy programs, thus seriously jeopardizing initiatives to reach users, including a number of workers hurt by the softwood lumber crisis.

Why is the government stubbornly cutting funds for literacy programs, which help workers laid off in the softwood lumber, textile and clothing industries? Why go after these people?

[Hydroelectricity, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during a media scrum last Wednesday, the premier of Newfoundland stated that it was in Canada's best interest to give greater support to hydroelectric projects in Labrador rather than those of Quebec because he believes that the political climate in Quebec is unstable. Furthermore, the premier is urging Ontario to not buy its electricity. Quebec has every right to sell its electricity to whoever wishes to buy it, including the United States.

Nothing in Quebec suggests an unstable political climate. The Quebec government is fully responsible for developing its hydroelectric potential within its territory, which it will continue to do. Once Quebec becomes a country, it could then develop and sell its electricity to whomever it likes. One province's thin skin will not change anything.

As the Governor General would say, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is completely out of touch.