Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal code (criminal interest rate), proposed by the Minister of Justice. This bill, which may appear minor and generous, is in fact a good illustration—despite the promises made by the Conservative Party during the election—of the fact that they are once again taking a back-door approach to a very important matter, trying to have veto power over decisions that come under provincial jurisdiction, particularly Quebec.
Although the bill appears very generous on the surface, that is, a way to fight a new form of financial exploitation of the most vulnerable employees, it is nonetheless understandable that the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill due to a number of points that are not clear enough and, as I mentioned, that leave the door open to federal government veto powers over how things are done in Quebec, which already monitors similar activities, for instance, under the consumer protection act.
I will remind the House of some of the content of Bill C-26. Its objective, as stated earlier by my colleague, is to meet the demands of certain provincial and territorial governments, and consumer advocacy groups that feel that greater regulation is needed in the payday loan industry. Provisions already exist in the Criminal Code and the Interest Act, however they do not specifically target this new form of loan, which has developed over the past 15 years or so.
Bill C-26 is the response to those demands, because the payday loan industry is largely unregulated. Furthermore, some very dubious practices employed by such companies have been identified, for example, very high rates for loans against future salary, contractual terms and conditions that are insufficient, unclear, or often absent or completely set aside in contracts between lenders and borrowers, as well as unfair collection practices.
In a moment, I will return to the definition of a payday loan.
Obviously, as I said, this is something that affects a certain number of low-income working men and women and illustrates some hard facts. I would note in passing that it is interesting to see that the Conservative government, which in fact tends to minimize the problems associated with poverty in many regards, has been obliged to recognize those facts by the back door, once again. The fact is that right now, in Canada, as is the case in a number of western countries, it must be noted, a person can work, earn a wage, have a full-time job, and be living in poverty. People can then find it necessary, before the end of the two-week pay period, to take on this kind of debt in order to be able to make ends meet temporarily and to get the money that is necessary to meet their basic needs.
This bill is therefore recognition of the fact that, right now, the face of poverty is quite different from what it might have been in the 30 years after the Second World War, when a full-time job, for an employee on a payroll, was normally a guarantee that while the person might not live in the lap of luxury, he or she would be able to make ends meet and not have to take on these new kinds of debt. This is something new, in that in Canada the industry mainly began to develop in the 1990s, but we must recognize that its growth was by no means uniform.
What we see is that as a result of existing laws governing local commerce, because we have civil law and rules governing contracts, in particular those in the Consumer Protection Act, even though there may be 1,300 outlets identified by the federal government throughout Canada, there are very few in Quebec. An association has even been created: the Canadian Payday Loan Association. It represents 22 companies that operate 850 financial services outlets all across Canada, but none in Quebec.
This certainly tells us something, because with the tools that the Government of Quebec already has available, we have been able to oversee and regulate this industry to the point that people who wanted to use this niche to get rich quick did not think it wise to set up shop in Quebec and went elsewhere in Canada to do it. Obviously, that does not mean that we do not need to be vigilant and constantly careful to modernize, improve and update consumer protection legislation in Quebec.
What is a payday loan? The Canadian Payday Loan Association defines it as follows:
Payday loans are unsecured small-sum short-term loans typically for a few hundred dollars. The average payday loan is around $280 for a period of 10 days.
To date, as I said, the Criminal Code has not provided a definition of payday loan, so one of the primary objectives of Bill C-26 is to define what it is.
Here is how the government defines a payday loan:
A payday loan is a short-term loan for a relatively small amount, to be repaid at the time of the borrower's next payday. In order to qualify for a payday loan, the borrower must have a steady source of income, usually from employment, but also from pensions or other sources, and a bank account. The lender will typically lend up to a specified percentage of the net pay, for a period of 1 to 14 days, ending on the payday. The borrower provides the lender a cheque, post-dated to the borrower's next expected income payment date, for the total amount of principal, plus interest and other fees.
A payday loan is therefore a loan against future pay. This may give the people who are watching a better understanding of the new reality that is payday loans. Payday loans are also called payday advances. These advances come with all sorts of administrative fees, which are sometimes abusive, and interest rates that, if not usurious, are very high.
Payday loans are therefore an extremely expensive way for consumers to meet their temporary credit needs. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, which reports to the Department of Finance, says that the amount of a payday loan is usually limited to 30% of the net amount of the borrower's next pay cheque, that is, the final amount after the various deductions, including income tax.
The agency gives the following example: a person with net pay of $1,000 every two weeks could usually obtain a payday loan of roughly $300.
As mentioned in the definition I gave previously, to ensure that the loan will be repaid, payday lenders ask their clients to provide a post-dated cheque or authorize a direct withdrawal from their bank account for the amount of the loan, plus applicable fees and interest charges. As I said, there are numerous fees. The interest charged on the principal adds considerably to the amount to be repaid.
This is a new situation that corresponds to the reality that I was describing earlier whereby it is now possible to have a job and live in poverty. Bill C-26 seems to be a response to a growing and worrisome social problem. At first glance this might seem to be an interesting initiative by the federal government.
I will describe the initiative of Bill C-26. This bill essentially contains two measures. First, it enshrines in the Criminal Code the definition of a payday loan and it also adds section 347.1 to the Criminal Code, establishing a mechanism for exemption at the same time.
I will reread the new definition of a payday loan:
An advancement of money in exchange for a post-dated cheque, a preauthorized 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, a line of credit or a credit card.
The first measure of the bill is to enshrine this definition in the Criminal Code. And the exemption mechanism has two parts.
The first part is to specify that section 347 of the Criminal Code and section 2 of the Interest Act no longer apply to the payday loan industry of a province when the amount of money advanced is $1,500 or less and the term of the loan is 62 days or less and the lending company is licensed or otherwise specifically authorized under the laws of a province to provide such loans.
It is therefore the responsibility of the province to regulate this aspect of the industry. The other aspect is that any loan less than $1,500 with a term of less than 62 days falls under the Criminal Code.
The second part—and this is where we have a problem—involves a political act by the federal government. We could describe it that way since it exempts from the application of section 347 of the Criminal Code and section 2 of the Interest Act provinces designated by the federal government for passing legislation that the federal government considers to be consistent with its objectives for regulating this industry.
The provinces have to apply for such designation, but must also have passed legislative measures that protect payday loan recipients and set a ceiling on the total cost of the loans.
Unfortunately, there are limits to that designation since it can be unilaterally withdrawn when, in the eyes of the federal government, the province concerned no longer meets the conditions, and therein lies the problem; for example, when legislative measures are no longer in force or do not meet the expectations of the federal government.
Clearly, section 347.1 would permit the payday loan industry within a given province, to be exempted from a criminal interest rate if the province in question makes a request to the federal government and if it complies with a number of conditions established by Ottawa.
It is important to make it clear that these amendments will not apply to financial institutions regulated at the federal level, such as banks. That is understandable because we are not talking about the same industry.
As I have said, that creates very real difficulties for us because, in our view, very clearly, the federal government is giving itself the power to be in a position to say yes or no to legislation, to authorize or not authorize an exemption from section 347 of the Criminal Code and section 2 of the Interest Act.
I remind members that in Quebec there is a Consumer Protection Act that already includes nearly all of these aspects and as a result of that, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, this industry is less common, or at least less flourishing, in Quebec than in other parts of Canada.
We know that payday lenders were once more numerous in Quebec and the Office of Consumer Protection decided to step in. The joint action of the police and the Office of Consumer Protection has meant that this industry is nearly non-existent in Quebec because the Consumer Protection Act contains strict obligations governing all types of lending. Whether it is a payday loan, a pawnbroker or others, the annual interest rate must be stated on loan contracts. In addition, all fees must be included in the interest rate. It is not possible to add fees for opening a file, for forms, for closing a file or other fees.
Finally—and I believe it is extremely important—case law has established that an annual interest rate of over 35% is unconscionable, while under the Criminal Code the rate called “criminal” is set at 60%.
It is very evident in regard to Bill C-26 that Quebec has no need for this legislation. The Government of Quebec is concerned, as is the Bloc Québécois, about the effects that the passage of Bill C-26 could have.
I remind the House of the Government of Quebec’s position.
The Government of Quebec believes that the federal government is imposing on compliance exemptions conditions that infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.
The proof, as I said, is that Quebec already has rules governing the practices of this industry without being accountable for them to the federal government. Why would we start now being accountable to the federal government when we have managed very well so far to limit the growth of this industry, which often, unfortunately, takes advantage of vulnerable working people who are in temporary financial difficulty?
I repeat: the maximum interest rate in Quebec is set at 35%. This is substantially less than the 60% in the Criminal Code.
The designation feature is another point of considerable concern to the Government of Quebec. Through it, the federal government retains veto rights over measures taken by those provinces that request an exemption. That is true of the other provinces and of Quebec as well. All the successive governments of Quebec have been extremely sensitive about federal infringements on areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and the provinces.
Although the mechanism for designating a province is still rather murky—I suppose we will have a chance to clarify this in committee—it seems that ultimately the Prime Minister will determine whether or not he wants to designate a province depending on what he thinks of its legislation. This kind of veto in an area of jurisdiction that belongs to Quebec and the provinces is totally inappropriate and unacceptable as far as we are concerned.
In short, the Bloc Québécois is opposed in principle to Bill C-26. The Bloc realizes that certain provinces and territories wish to manage the payday loan industry themselves. It feels, however, that the federal government, even if it has the authority to set the maximum lending rate beyond which a loan becomes illegal, does not have the jurisdiction required to regulate the commercial practices of industries. Quebec, for instance, with its consumer protection act, already supervises this industry and prohibits unreasonable practices. This is why the Bloc Québécois is criticizing the conditions imposed by Bill C-26 on the provinces—Quebec in particular—that wished to be exempted from section 347 of the Criminal Code.
The government has no business to decide on the implementation of a licensing system or on the merits of supervision of practices in this area of activity by Quebec. This is also true for the other provinces. In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, the Government of Quebec and all Quebec stakeholders in this file, Quebec is free to supervise the commercial practices of businesses under its jurisdiction. The government has no business using its veto so that the legislation can apply or not through this non-application mechanism, which I have already talked about.
In conclusion, in spite of the open-minded and respectful discourse of the Conservatives during the election campaign, we must conclude that the Conservative government is demonstrating the same determination to encroach on the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec as the former government, but packaging things differently.
It is still that same reflex of believing that the federal government knows better what the solutions are to certain real problems and that it must supervise the provinces to make sure they are on the right track. This paternalistic attitude—which characterized the Liberal reign from 1993 to the last election—is the government’s trademark. This is very clear in the example of Bill C-26 and in other files.
I will establish a parallel with the Kyoto protocol. The Minister of the Environment took the liberty of judging the validity of the plan put in place by the Government of Quebec. This plan could perhaps stand to be improved, but it is in stark contrast to the denial of global warming by the Conservative government. We took the liberty of saying, in a play on words, that this plan did not contain any mandatory regulations or conditions, which is true.
When the other provinces, in particular the western provinces, have met the targets that Quebec has already met, then we can have a serious discussion of the whys and wherefores of the Quebec act. Until we have evidence to the contrary, Quebeckers, the National Assembly and even the Liberal government of Quebec are in a better position to know what Quebeckers need in terms of the environment and of payday loan regulations.
