INST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 6, 2004

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, CPC))

Ms. Heather Black (Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

1120

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC)

Ms. Heather Black

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Heather Black

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Heather Black

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny)

Ms. Heather Black

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1125

Ms. Heather Black

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Heather Black

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.)

Ms. Heather Black

1130

Hon. Lyle Vanclief

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Ms. Heather Black

Mr. Brian Masse

1135

Ms. Heather Black

Mr. Brian Masse

Ms. Heather Black

Mr. Brian Masse

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

Ms. Heather Black

1140

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Ms. Heather Black

Mr. Carman Baggaley (Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Ms. Heather Black

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Ms. Heather Black

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Ms. Heather Black

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

Ms. Heather Black

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte)

The Chair

Chief Superintendent Mike McDonell (Director General, Border Integrity, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

1155

The Chair

1200

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

The Chair

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

1205

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

C/Supt Mike McDonell

1210

Mr. Gérard Binet

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1215

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

C/Supt Mike McDonell

1220

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

C/Supt Mike McDonell

1225

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

C/Supt Mike McDonell

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

1230

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

1235

C/Supt Mike McDonell

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

Mme Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

NUMBER 015

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 6, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1115)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, CPC)): I apologize for our tardiness here. We have quorum now.

I want to welcome the witnesses here for the first hour. We have, from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Heather Black, assistant privacy commissioner of Canada, and Carman Baggaley, the senior policy adviser.

I believe you have presentations of about five minutes, and then we'll take questions from members.

Ms. Heather Black (Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee for inviting us here today. We appreciate the opportunity to appear today to comment on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.

We understand that this legislation is controversial for a number of reasons, and we are aware that the committee has heard from witnesses who have expressed strongly opposing views on the bill and its objectives.

I would like to be very clear at the outset concerning our interest in Bill C-2 and the context of our comments. Our interest in the bill is limited to the question of whether or not the proposed amendments will, if passed, have an impact on the privacy rights of Canadians. In particular, we have focused on clause 5, the proposed amendments dealing with the powers of inspectors. We have reviewed these amendments carefully and we do not believe they significantly increase the powers of inspectors appointed under the act in a manner that adversely affects privacy rights.

We have also reviewed recent jurisprudence dealing with administrative searches. Our reading of these cases suggests that the charter sets a reasonable standard for administrative searches. This standard is met when the search powers are proportional to the aims served by the legislation, and individuals subject to the regulatory regime are, or should be, familiar with the provisions.

With respect to the powers of inspectors, we note that subsection 8(2) of the act, as it is currently drafted, states that:

an inspector may not enter that dwelling-house without the consent of the occupant, except

(a) with a warrant or (b) where there are exigent circumstances that make it impractical for the inspector to obtain a warrant.

We appreciate that circumstances may arise when an inspector, for public safety or related reasons, might need to use this authority to inspect radio equipment in a dwelling that is causing interference or otherwise disrupting radio communications. However, we hope and expect that this power would not be used to enter a dwelling place for the purpose of identifying individuals who are receiving unauthorized satellite signals. On this point, we are encouraged that the witnesses from Industry Canada who appeared before the committee emphasized that the enforcement focus will be on dealers and not on individual users.

I should add that information collected by Industry Canada and its inspectors is subject to the Privacy Act. In addition, the Radiocommunication Act states that, in exercising his powers, “the Minister may have regard to the objectives set out in section 7 of the Telecommunications Act”. One of the objectives set out in section 7 is “to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons”.

The last point I would like to make is that neither Bill C-2 nor the Radiocommunication Act directly address the duties of inspectors, except in very general terms. The act gives inspectors the authority to do certain things that are “necessary for the purpose of performing any duty of an inspector”. However, one has to wonder how this requirement can be satisfied when there are no actual duties of the inspector set out.

The act gives the governor in council the authority to issue regulations prescribing the eligibility and qualifications of persons who may be appointed as inspectors and the duties of inspectors. This has not been done. Setting out the duties of the inspectors might prove useful in terms of clarifying the authority of inspectors.

Thank you very much.

Á (1120)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Thank you very much.

Mrs. Skelton.

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Chair, in the last two or three sentences that our honourable lady gave us, she mentioned that there are no general rules. Can you tell us if there are any other bills that have inspectors in them? Are there rules and regulations in those bills that have been written for the House?

Ms. Heather Black: I really can't answer that question. It's not something I'm familiar with. I'm here as a privacy expert. I'm not altogether familiar with a lot of these other regulatory schemes.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: But you feel it's necessary to have that written in the bill.

Ms. Heather Black: It's not in the bill. It's a question, actually, of putting in place regulations for which there is already authority that might help to kind of clarify some of these issues. That's all. I mean, the authority is there to make the regulation.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: But there is no clarification.

Ms. Heather Black: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Ms. Black.

You state the following on page 2 of your presentation, and I quote:

However, we hope and expect that this power would not be used to enter a dwelling place for the purpose of identifying individuals who are receiving unauthorized satellite signals.

In your opinion, should Bill C-2 be clarified, as far as this matter is concerned? Now may be the right time to do that, while we're still at the drafting stage, instead of merely hoping that if won't lead to certain things happening.

While we're on the subject, how would you suggest we change, or amend, the bill to replace this expression of hope with words such as: “We are confident that these powers will not be used for the purposes of identifying individuals”?

[English]

Ms. Heather Black: It's not something I've given a lot of thought to. The powers of the inspectors as they now exist are essentially not being tampered with. The powers are already there and the power to enter a dwelling house is already there.

I think what we have with this bill is sort of an expansion of the scope, if you will, for looking.... Because of the target of the bill, which is the illegal satellite activities, it kind of opens up more the possibility that the regulator will go after people who actually possess the decoders or are pulling in illegal signals of some sort.

I listened to the testimony of Mr. Binder and officials from Industry Canada, who are assuring us that in fact they are going after the distributors and people like that.

I would say that probably as a practical matter it would be.... I don't think there are enough radio inspectors in Canada to go after all these individuals. I agree with you that the potential is there, but I think in a practical sense it won't happen. How would you address the issue? I don't have a solution for it. It seems to me that....

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As you say, the number of inspectors is relative. The aim of the bill is to identify networks that sell satellite cards or decoders, not to authorize entry into people's homes. That's a fact. Therefore, consideration must be given to the way in which the provision covering searches, the duties of inspectors and so forth is drafted.

The officials involved may well state their intentions clearly, but the fact remains that for one reason or another, they may no longer be around one day. That's why we have laws.

You may already have touched on this part of the bill, but to my mind, it's still too vague to satisfy us as lawmakers. Therefore, perhaps some of the duties set out with respect to searches should be clarified. Is that what you're telling us this morning?

Á (1125)

[English]

Ms. Heather Black: It would have required us, I think, to look at specific legislative language, which we did not do, honestly.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I really have no idea, but do you know if other federal laws, whether it be the Criminal Code or some other piece of legislation, contain definitions regarding searches that could be used in the case of this particular bill?

Forgive me for saying this, but it isn't always necessary to re-invent the wheel. Are there other definitions, either in the Criminal Code or in some other federal act, of the power of inspectors to execute searches that could be appropriate and be applied to Bill C-2?

[English]

Ms. Heather Black: A lot of regulatory schemes do not allow for the entry of inspectors into dwelling houses. For example, in our own statute—in both of them, in fact, and particularly the one dealing with the private sector—we have powers to enter premises, but not the power to enter a dwelling house. So yes, it is possible to limit it.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Merci, Monsieur Sauvageau.

Mr. Vanclief, do you have questions?

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I know and appreciate the fact that our witnesses are here—and I thank them for coming—as they made very clear in their presentation, just to talk about the privacy rights in the bill. Maybe our witnesses don't wish to or are unable to comment on this, but would this bill not have, particularly in some jurisdictions, where the RCMP are the...?

I'm sorry, that's for the other witness.

You noted that the Industry Canada officials said it's—in my words—not their intention to go after the individual. I raise the question, if it's not the intention to go after the individual, then why do we spend so much time in the bill talking about the individual and the level of penalties that could apply to the individual? My guess would be that an individual out there who read this bill would say, yes, this can happen.

You point out here very clearly the privacy rights of Canadians and how they should be respected. But it concerns me that there is some thought being given in this bill to talking about things concerning which some people are saying, we wouldn't have any intention, or we'd hope not to enforce them, but they're there.

Ms. Heather Black: I agree with you. I guess my comment would be the bill that's drafted here does not expand on the powers of inspectors. That is quite clear. I mentioned Industry Canada is regretting having opened up that whole issue, because it was just for clarification, as I understand it, that they are amending some of the provisions that deal with the powers of inspectors.

That being said, however, the subject of this bill, as I said, does open the potential for going after individuals who are in possession of these decoders and what have you. Why the penalty was up, I don't know; your point is well taken. I suppose the notion is they will be consistent, and if circumstances arise where they might consider going after an individual, you would want to have a penalty that is commensurate with the nature of the infractions we're talking about, which is to say theft and fraud.

Other than that, we have to bear in mind always that the power to enter a dwelling house is really only under the authority of a warrant. I can't imagine exigent circumstances applying in any of these situations. It's normally a circumstance where you have something emitting a radio signal that's interfering with a police frequency or airline frequencies—that sort of thing. In all circumstances, someone is going to have to convince a judge that these premises should be entered.

Á (1130)

Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I thank the witness for the comment. I think she's being very helpful on this in repeating it. I have a concern about our endorsing or putting in place legislation about which some people—officials or otherwise—say, we're going to do this, but we don't have any ability, or we don't have any intention, to enforce it. However we do it, we need to be more realistic in legislation or in enabling—all legislation is enabling—what that legislation enables.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Thank you, Mr. Vanclief.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the concerns related to privacy is not just always one particular bill or moment where people become concerned about infringement of privacy; it's a series of things that happen and become incremental, or later on come out and have repercussions that were never anticipated. I have the same concerns over the fact that there is a lot of discussion about “intent” and language like it in the bill, rather than about just eliminating it altogether, if we so choose.

Turning specifically to how many other bills you are aware of allowing dwellings to be entered, there is a remedy from the industry itself. If you want to ensure that privacy is always put at the forefront, a couple of the companies already have the ability to make sure their products aren't being unduly used—by either scrambling, or changing technology, or actually having the technology built into the system, in some cases—and are much more difficult to take from the company source.

Could you respond in terms of whether there is any other legislation out there we could point to, and if not, wouldn't it be better for privacy to have the company provide the remedy that's already there?

Ms. Heather Black: As I said earlier, I'm not really an expert on federal regulatory schemes. I'm generally familiar with some of them.

I think if you were to remove, say, the ability to enter a dwelling house, it could hamper the ability of the regulator to implement the intention of the scheme, which is to shut down some of these illegal activities. It's a bit of a cottage industry, I suspect, and there might be circumstances where in fact you have a distributor who has this nice business going in his basement. It's a dwelling house, but he's engaged in an illegal commercial activity, if you will. Absent some sort of authority to enter a dwelling house, it couldn't be done.

Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, that's an interesting point. I think the other thing, too, is it would be interesting to see how, if it is a cottage industry operating out of people's homes illegally, it also affects municipal laws, and provincial laws as well, and not just this change here. Looking at those too might be helpful.

The only other question I have—I think they've all been pretty well put to you—concerns your last paragraph, which is interesting. Is there any possible way, or should there be a process—I guess you're pondering what the regulations would be—whereby we could actually have the involvement of yourself in it? Is that something that could be done?

Á (1135)

Ms. Heather Black: That's always possible, yes. We frequently work with government departments on issues like this.

Mr. Brian Masse: Have they approached you about that at this time?

Ms. Heather Black: No. We identified this. We were looking through the Radiocommunication Act and the bill, etc., about what the duties of inspectors are, and we searched for regulations and couldn't find anything, so it piqued our curiosity a bit.

Mr. Brian Masse: That might be helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry I had to be late. I had to speak in the House on an opposition day motion, so I did miss your presentation, although I have read it quickly. I hope I'm not repeating questions of my colleagues.

One of my colleagues, actually sitting at the table, mentioned to me a scenario where a new Canadian family from some other country where police forces are heavy-handed may not be used to the responsible police forces we have in this country. I don't want to name a country, but imagine a country where there are very difficult regimes and police forces are not given the respect that our police forces here are, the respect to which they are entitled.

Coming from that kind of a background and they are in Canada and maybe now receiving a signal, a grey market paid signal, from a supplier who they found by reading an ad in the newspaper, and they are paying for a service, not hiding anything, in fact believing they're doing something quite legal...and then they see a bill like this, keeping in mind that there may be literacy issues, there are cultural issues, there are memories of where they used to live, and maybe some personal family experiences with police in that other country.

I believe you when you say, as you do in your third or fourth paragraph, that you do not believe measures in Bill C-2 significantly increase the powers of inspectors, but I just wonder, how absolute is that?

There's an uncertainty about those powers. I understand and I heard your comment that generally domiciles, personal residences, are not included among these search and access to premises laws, but how absolute is that? How do you make people who come from another culture, with different experiences, feel comfortable with their privacy in their home, having come from a different context, when we can't say absolutely that nobody will ever go into their home?

We might have an industry official say that, we might have all the assurances in the world, but if it's not in black and white somewhere, how do we give them the assurance--which is your job, I guess, to ensure their privacy? How do you, or does the government in some other fashion, give them the absolute assurance that they need not worry with respect to their use of a dish, a signal they have paid for, that they will never be visited some evening unannounced?

I might believe that, having lived here and not ever having seen it happen, but somebody else might not.

Ms. Heather Black: I don't think we can give anyone an absolute assurance like that, quite frankly. I don't think the situation you're talking about, a grey market satellite subscription service, is necessarily going to attract--and I don't think it will--the attention of the police. I doubt it will even attract the attention of radio inspectors.

Our office does the best we can in essentially educating Canadians about their privacy rights. We all have to live--all of us--with the possibility that if you're breaking the law, you're going to attract the attention of the authorities.

It seems to me that if I'm subscribing to a grey market service that requires me to essentially mislead somebody about where I actually live, in that I have to provide a U.S. address before the U.S. service provider is going to give me the ability to decode the signal, that should be a clue that perhaps one is on the wrong side of the law.

But as I say, I don't think people watching illegal satellite signals in their living room of an evening are likely to hear the police pounding on the door. It's not something that's going to happen, in my view.

Á (1140)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Thank you, Mr. St. Denis.

Colleagues, if I'm not seeing any other hands, I'd like to exercise the prerogative to ask a couple of questions of the witnesses.

The first question deals with the second page of your presentation. You're encouraged that Industry Canada has identified that the enforcement focus will be on dealers and not on individual users. There's been a concern raised, though, that there is not enough of an emphasis in the bill itself, or in the act, on commercial uses, either by individuals or by dealers themselves; and that the act, even though the government says the intent is not to go after the individual consumer, basically states that it allows agencies to go after the individual users who simply purchase either grey or black market services for themselves and are not dealers.

Do you see that concern as justified at all? If so, is there a way in which we can amend the bill to make it clearer that the intent is actually to go after dealers or individuals who are doing it for commercial reasons?

Ms. Heather Black: We did not prepare, as I said, any specific language to deal with the possibility of amendment to this bill.

Our view is it has a minimal effect on privacy rights. The unintended side effect is that it raises concerns about enforcement activities against individuals. I'm not sure the concerns are altogether justified. Perhaps they are—I don't know—but we did not spend any time thinking about how one would go about amending the bill to take those things into account.

Mr. Carman Baggaley (Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): I think there is an inherent problem in the fact that these provisions have been added to the Radiocommunication Act.

Certainly the intent of the Radiocommunication Act is very unlikely to affect individuals unless they are doing something that is either inadvertently or maliciously harmful, in the sense of using radio equipment that causes interference that could pose a threat to public safety, etc. In that sense, the powers of the inspectors, as they were written before this issue arose, did not cause any concern, because it seemed unlikely those powers would be used against individuals who were not engaged in an activity that was at least potentially harmful.

The problem is in adding these provisions to an act that has that purpose, creating a regime in which it applies to a significant number of people who rightly or wrongly don't perceive they're engaged in anything that's either illegal or that poses a problem to society as a whole. It's mixing those two issues together in one bill, I think, that's causing some of the anxiety.

As Heather suggested, we don't really, to be honest, have any suggestions on how you split those two issues. They seem to be an inherent problem in using the Radiocommunication Act to address a problem that is quite separate from the other types of issues that, for the most part, are addressed in the act. It's that inherent use of this act to deal with the separate issue that seems to be causing the problem.

Á (1145)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Thank you for that.

My second question is related. It deals with the inspection powers. You mention in your presentation that you do not believe they significantly increase the power of inspectors.

Again, it relates to individuals as well. If you look at paragraph 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act concerning who would be prosecuted for decoding unauthorized signals, the answers we got from Industry Canada, I thought, were fairly mixed, in the sense that the person who actually decodes it could be interpreted as the person who turns the TV on.

Is the consumer, under, I believe, paragraph 9(1)(c)...? If you look at the bill, it's on page 2. But paragraph 9(1)(c)....

I don't know whether you have the Radiocommunication Act.

Ms. Heather Black: I have the act. I have:

decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): In an earlier session, my question to the Industry Canada officials was, is the actual decoding done by the person who sells the equipment, or is it done by the person who's sitting home watching TV, who actually turns the TV on? My understanding was that under paragraph 9(1)(c) it would actually be the person turning the television on.

If that's correct, and that's the person who's actually breaking that part of the Radiocommunication Act, and then if we add, on page 2 of Bill C-2, the power of the inspectors

to enter and inspect any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that there is any radio apparatus, interference-causing equipment

then basically this bill, if I'm reading it correctly, would give licence to inspectors to enter the home of someone who is a black market or grey market consumer.

If that is all correct, then my concern is that while we may say we're intending to go after dealers, we're actually enshrining in law the ability to go after consumers in a very broad manner. I don't know whether you have a substantive answer now or want to look at it more deeply, but that is one of the concerns we're certainly going to face with this.

Ms. Heather Black: I would tend to agree with your interpretation of it. Still, if it's the person sitting in front of their television set at night, no one can come into their house except with consent, or under the authority of a warrant, or in exigent circumstances that are extremely unlikely to apply. There's virtually nil chance of their applying.

If the inspector knocks on my door, I don't have to let him in. He may come back with a warrant, if he can convince a judge to issue a warrant.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): But isn't it, if you read on page 2 of Bill C-2 at the bottom, that the act is amended “by adding the following after section 5”? Then subclause 5(1), in that very bottom paragraph (a), says “enter and inspect any place”.

Ms. Heather Black: Yes, but you have to—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): You're saying this argument has to be made to a judge before you inspect.

Ms. Heather Black: That's right. You have to go back to the Radiocommunication Act itself. It says that where the place referred to is a dwelling house, the inspector has to either have the consent of the individual or a warrant.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Rajotte): Okay, thank you very much for that.

Colleagues, are there any other questions? If not, I think we'll suspend for a couple of minutes, and then we'll change the witnesses.

But before we suspend, I want to thank you very much for coming in. Thank you for presentations and your responses to all of our questions.

Á (1149)

Á (1153)

The Chair: We're going to resume our suspended meeting, our May 6 meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We are continuing the study of Bill C-2. I want to thank James Rajotte for chairing the first hour this morning.

We have Chief Superintendent Mike McDonell, director general of border integrity, federal and international operations. I'm sure the clerk has talked to you, Mr. McDonell, about your presentation of five, six, seven minutes; then we'll ask some questions. We thank you for being here and we invite you to proceed.

Chief Superintendent Mike McDonell (Director General, Border Integrity, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police):

Good day. I am Chief Superintendent Mike McDonell, director general, border integrity, of the RCMP. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting the RCMP here today.

While Industry Canada is the regulatory body for the Radiocommunication Act, the RCMP is mandated to enforce the law as it pertains to satellite television. This includes investigations under both the Radiocommunication Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. The RCMP has been taking an integrated approach to the investigation of illegal satellite communications offences, working in partnership with a number of federal government departments and with private enterprise to ensure that our people have the best information available on this issue.

The RCMP and Industry Canada have been working together, and in fact have entered into a memorandum of understanding that outlines each other's roles and responsibilities in these investigations. This has led to the creation of an interdepartmental working group. All members of the group recognize that to combat this emerging crime there must be a multi-faceted approach that includes education, prevention, legislative improvements, and intelligence-led enforcement. As a member of the working group, the RCMP has been consulted and has been an active contributor during the drafting of Bill C-2.

The RCMP has found signal theft to be a growing industry with limited risks. Because of these factors, we're finding more and more people who have been involved in other forms of criminal activity getting into the signal theft business.

The Radiocommunication Act is a summary conviction offence that does not impose a criminal record on persons convicted under the act and has traditionally drawn disproportionately low fines from the courts. This is appealing for people who have already shown a predisposition for criminal activity.

It is the RCMP's assessment that the fines should be in line with the severity of the offence and proportionate to the illegal profits derived from these activities. The fines need to be a significant deterrent as opposed to the cost of doing business. The RCMP is therefore pleased to see the fines being increased.

The courts must be sent a clear message that signal theft is a serious offence. This is why the RCMP would have liked to have seen the act amended to make signal theft a dual-procedure offence so that under appropriate conditions the perpetrators of these offences would receive a criminal record upon conviction. There have been several occasions where dealers have returned to their activities shortly after being charged or convicted under the act. These dealers would be ideal candidates to be charged with an indictable offence.

Illegal satellite access cards that have been pirated for the express purpose of allowing people with reception equipment to receive satellite television signals without paying for them have become an increasing concern for the RCMP. Signals from this illegal equipment can interfere with search and rescue, aircraft emergency, and police radio frequencies, posing a substantial health and safety threat. The people involved in the manufacturing and distribution of these hazardous cards should be facing punishment that is consistent with the severity of the situation.

The RCMP primarily targets businesses, that is to say those distributing illegal cards to people, rather than individuals who use illegal satellite equipment. However, both individuals and businesses can be charged under the Radiocommunication Act. Although the increased penalties prescribed in the act are for both individuals and businesses, our target is clearly commercial piracy.

The RCMP also supports the implementation of import certificates to control the importation of equipment used to decode encrypted network signals. This will make the illegal equipment crossing the border much easier to identify and detect for the Canada Border Services Agency. Although this will not prevent all illegal equipment from entering the country, it will reduce the flow considerably and make the detection and processing much more efficient.

Once the illegal equipment has entered the country, it becomes much more difficult to prevent the illicit sale and distribution. Therefore, it would only seem logical to cut the flow directly at our border crossings. The new legislation would make the seizure, detention, and disposition of the equipment at the border much more efficient, allowing investigators to concentrate on the domestic theft of signal activities.

The bill sets out to enhance the powers of inspectors to enforce the act. The proposed amendments are designed as an update to the existing inspection powers in keeping with modern investigational techniques. The modifications provide for the examination of equipment and copying of data relevant to the enforcement of the act. The information obtained from the relevant data is essential to provide the courts with an accurate picture of the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity of the businesses under inspection.

Á (1155)

Many dealers are using the Internet extensively in their day-to-day illicit activity. These amendments give the inspectors clear authority to examine and copy data and bring the information before the courts.

The RCMP further supports the provisions allowing for statutory damages. As I've previously stated, the theft of satellite signals has become a very lucrative industry, and we encourage any part of the legislation that will act as both a deterrent and a mechanism for restitution.

Finally, the RCMP is here today to support the amendments to the Radiocommunication Act. The legislation is in dire need of modernization, and this is a positive step toward that end. We would like to emphasize once again that we're not targeting individuals but are seeking more efficient ways to deal with illegal commercial activities.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McDonell.

We'll start with James Rajotte, please.

Â (1200)

Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, Mr. McDonell, for coming in today.

The first question I want to touch upon arises from the second paragraph on page 2 of your presentation, where you talk about how the RCMP is targeting primarily businesses in commercial activity. You confirm here what we've heard before, which is that the increased penalties prescribed in the act target both individuals and businesses, but the intent behind them seems to target the dealers.

Industry Canada officials say this, but whose decision is it? Is it a policy directive from Industry Canada outside the legislation? Is it a decision made by the RCMP at the top level and directed downward? Is it a local decision of the RCMP on the streets saying, I'm not going to target this person as a consumer, I'm going to target the dealer down the street?

Where is that decision made?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: In the first instance, it's an overriding principle of philosophy of the RCMP always to go higher and to go to the root cause of the problem.

However, in this case it's articulated in our memorandum of understanding that there are only certain offences we will investigate for Industry Canada. They centre around public safety in the first instance. One particular one is when inspectors are being obstructed, which any police service would respond to. But primarily it spells it right out that it must be a commercial venture for us to become involved.

Mr. James Rajotte: Can we see that memorandum of understanding?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: Yes, I can provide copies. I brought one copy, but I can provide the committee with copies.

The Chair: If you have it in both languages, we'd be glad to take it right now. If not, you could get it to the clerk and the clerk will distribute it to all members.

C/Supt Mike McDonell: I actually have it tabbed by sections that we....

Mr. James Rajotte: My follow-up question to that is this. One of my broader concerns with this piece of legislation is we're dealing with up to six or seven or eight hundred thousand Canadians who are involved in this activity, which is a very sizable proportion of the population. I'm just not sure doing it in a punitive way, engaging the RCMP, is actually the way to address the root problem. In light of that—I know the RCMP is supporting this legislation—can you indicate to us how many officers in the RCMP are involved currently and how many, if this bill is passed, will have to be added, just so we have an idea of the extent of police resources used to actually enforce this act?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: Just to cut to the chase, I see no need for a request for additional resources. Within the federal enforcement branch—one of the branches I'm responsible for—we have in excess of 500 investigators; however, they cover a large number of federal statutes.

In my previous experience I was responsible for our detachment in Toronto, and I can tell you at that point I had four people involved in this type of activity.

Mr. James Rajotte: Can you indicate to us how successful this unit has been and will be, assuming this legislation passes? I'll play a bit of the devil's advocate here. I know someone who is involved more in the grey market but who obviously knows people in the black market. His response to this legislation was, you're just going to drive it further underground. You may get the dealers with the storefronts, but you'll drive this underground and won't actually put an end to it.

This is what he's challenging me with as a legislator, so I'll put that challenge to you to respond. With this bill, do we just drive it further underground and actually not deal with the problem in and of itself?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: I don't see that. One of the key words in my presentation, for me, was “prevention”, and from it, education. I see this bill advancing the cause.

There was limited enforcement in this area because of court decisions that were overturned in 2002. I spoke of my experience, being responsible for the Toronto detachment. We ceased this type of investigation when the courts turned them down. Now that it's back on and we're applying resources to it, the big thing for us—the overriding principle, as a detachment planner and as a police officer—is to protect the legitimate industry within the community I'm responsible for.

We do that by engaging the service clubs and getting the word out so that we protect that legitimate industry. This bill coming forward, and our actions, as you've perhaps seen in the last few weeks in the newspapers, with rather big investigations concluding with respect to this, serve as a deterrent to those who may enter into it.

I can't speak from the regulatory side, but I see the support that's coming from United States service providers—where they're not allowing the skating around, or turning a blind eye to the fraud, if I can say that, of the grey market—as further legitimizing the Canadian market and the Canadian spirit behind this bill.

Â (1205)

Mr. James Rajotte: Let me also ask about the first page of your presentation. In the fourth paragraph, you say:

...we are finding more and more people that have been involved in other forms of criminal activity getting into the signal theft business.

Can you just elaborate for us what other forms of criminal activity? Is this organized crime that's getting into signal theft, or is it just people who are...? I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you talk about the other forms of this criminal activity.

C/Supt Mike McDonell: Again I can speak from personal experience. Organized crime is driven by power and greed and the almighty dollar. I have a case in point, when I was in Toronto, of outlaw motorcycle gangs coming and extorting an individual who was involved, taking over his business in the illegal satellite field, coming aboard and saying, “This is pretty good, low-risk, and it looks like our business today”, and actually approaching the person. After two or three meetings it was decided that for his health, his business was better run by someone else.

Mr. James Rajotte: Is there evidence of large-scale involvement like that? The industry has painted a picture of about 700,000 people and $400 million, but does the RCMP have an overall macro-picture of how many people are involved, perhaps in the illegal distribution, or acting as dealers, and what types of people they are—their backgrounds, how much of it would be linked to organized crime—just so we have an idea who exactly is doing this?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: We do not have that today. Having just taken over these responsibilities, I am having a program review done of our federal enforcement to get that type of information so that we can apply our resources where they're most sorely needed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. Binet.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I represent a regional riding, one that includes the municipality of Mégantic, Thetford Mines and Plessisville extending from Highway 20 down the Maine border. I wouldn't say that satellite signal theft is a problem in my region, although many people do have satellites. Stealing satellite signals isn't one of my worries.

However, speaking of borders, Mégantic used to have five officers assigned to duty, but now it has only three. Furthermore, rumour has it that the Mégantic office will be shut down. How can this form of organized crime be better controlled from a remote location? Do things really only happen at border crossings? Some crossing points are unofficial and forestry workers use them to get from one site to another. Lots of things can happen at night.

What type of activity is taking place in the regions? As you yourself said, in so far as satellites are concerned, organized crime focusses its attention on Toronto and on other large cities. But the fact remains that this material has to make its way across the border.

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell:

Thank you, sir, for your question.

As my working title suggests, I am responsible for the border integrity component of the RCMP, so I'm quite familiar with the proposal that has been put forward to close some of our detachments, and specifically the detachment in the Lac Mégantic area.

In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec we are not the police force of primary jurisdiction. We are in Ontario and Quebec to enforce federal statutes. We have a limited number of people to do that and we are intelligence-led. We look to what is the greatest threat to our community, what is the greatest threat to our economy, and then apply our resources to that threat.

In order to do it, we require a critical mass of investigators. We're finding that in what we call non-contract provinces, Ontario and Quebec, three members do not give you critical mass.

We are also going towards more organized crime involvement in smuggling, be it of human cargo or of goods such as we're speaking of here today. That is controlled for the most part out of larger centres. Certainly if it was in that end, we would direct our resources there.

With respect to patrols along the border, within the province of Quebec we have the integrated border enforcement teams, which are taking over that role in a much more intelligence-led fashion. Rather than routine patrols that just go out and, if I may use the term, play “go fish”, we actually collect large amounts of information, collate it, and then look to that information to provide us with enforcement opportunities, so that when our people go out to patrol at night, they're going out to a specific area looking for a specific target within a specific timeframe. We're linking our border efforts in information intelligence that is linked to investigations further inland.

We find for the most part those working the border are the pawns. Certainly we will arrest them to move our way up in the sphere of influence, to get to those who are controlling the organization. We have found, and in my view—I was also responsible for a border detachment in Cornwall just recently—that type of patrolling is very ineffective. It's predictable, and they work around us. We have to fight smarter, and we're doing that with the integrated border enforcement teams that have been put in place, in lieu of the members who are coming out of the small towns.

Â (1210)

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet: Are you saying that the Sûreté du Québec conducts routine patrols?

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell: A routine patrol, yes, would be done by the police force of jurisdiction. We want all our patrols to have a purpose in mind. Certainly there will be days when we will go out for no other purpose than prevention, but those would be limited.

We have joined with the United States to share information, to share technology, and to be much more efficient and effective at how we become aware of how our border is being breached.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Sauvageau—Benoît, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to meet you, Mr. McDonell. You state the following in your presentation, and I quote:

The modifications provide for the seizure of equipment and data relevant to the enforcement of the Act.

The previous witness—her name was Ms. Black, if I'm not mistaken—said this, and I quote:

The Act gives inspectors the authority to do certain things that are necessary for the purpose of performing any duty of an inspector. However, one has to wonder how this requirement can be satisfied when there are no actual duties of the inspector set out.

Ms. Black seemed concerned about the bill's shortcoming in this area. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that the bill clearly give inspectors the authority to seize equipment and so forth.

Are you saying that you disagree with Ms. Black, and that her concerns are unfounded, since the bill is, in your view, quite clear?

Â (1215)

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell: Thank you very much, and I apologize to the committee. Perhaps I should have put that forward. When I took the materials home to study, I picked up on that within the briefing and had it changed as recently as this morning. They do not have powers to seize. In fact, my office contacted legal, having written this presentation with our legal people, to verify that. In fact, my catch was correct. They can copy. The broadened powers are to open certain things that may be closed and to copy, which is in keeping with the way we do modern information heavy investigations. The seizure would come from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the Criminal Code.

I apologize. We will provide the committee with the revised notes that I received this morning, just shortly before I came here.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much for clearing that up for me. Still in your presentation, you state the following:

The RCMP primarily targets businesses rather than individuals who use illegal satellite equipment.

Do you feel the bill's provisions are sufficiently clear on this score? Even though Industry Canada officials claim that they want to target businesses, not individuals, and even though you, speaking for the RCMP, maintain that you want to target businesses and networks, not individuals, do you think some abuses may occur in a given province or territory because the legislation is not clear enough on this particular point?

Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states the following:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Clause 5(1)(a) of the bill notes that inspectors may:

(a) enter and inspect any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds [...] any other thing related to such...

Paragraph (b) further notes:

(b) examine any radio apparatus, interference-causing equipment or radio-sensitive equipment found there, as well as any other related to such apparatus or equipment;

Paragraph (c) further notes:

And lastly, paragraph 5(1)(d) says this:

(d) open or cause to be opened any package or container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains anything referred to in paragraph (b) or (c).

Given the way in which it is now worded, in your opinion, could clause 5 potentially violate section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Should this provision be clarified?

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell: If I may, sir, I would like to go over section 5 again, or if it would suffice, to give you the RCMP position. In order for us to enter into a residence, we require a higher test than reasonable grounds. We require reasonable and probable grounds. The charter is all-bearing on everything we do, especially sections 7 and 8. That overrides everything we do, and our members are constantly reminded of it. The memorandum of understanding that is being shared with you that directs that the RCMP will only involve themselves in commercial ventures is actually shared with all the federal policing officers across Canada, and then directives go out to the divisions. I'm satisfied being responsible for those resources.... This has been a contentious issue within the RCMP, one well debated because of the fact that the court decisions where we took our resources away from doing this type of activity. Now we're encouraging them to go back. In doing so, we're providing them with the memorandum of understanding, but also clear and defined parameters of what they will do. We do not have the resources nor the will to get into, in police jargon, the mom-and-pop offences. We are there for the large commercial entity that is a threat to the legitimate commerce.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Merci, Benoît.

Carole-Marie Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Good day, Mr. McDonell and welcome to the committee. During the course of your discussions with Industry Canada—and I assume you held a number of meetings to draw up this plan to counter satellite signal theft—did anyone explain to you the difference between the black market and the grey market? Did you know that in Canada there are 93 authorized foreign services, 75 of which are American? Of the remaining 18, only four are broadcast by satellite. Are you aware that cultural communities in Canada are clamouring for more programming from their native countries? In other words, were you asked to adopt a different attitude toward rebroadcasters that supply cultural communities, or were you instructed to treat everyone the same way?

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell: I was not involved in that, but it was in 1994 that the memorandum of understanding was put forward. It deals specifically with the black market. Where it does deal with the grey market, where we would become involved, is when there's a danger to human life. That is very limited, and that is where the signals would be going out, such as certain instances in the city of London that interfered with a police emergency call and in Cold Lake, Alberta, where it interfered with aircraft. I know of one instance from my own experience in Toronto where it was interfering with aircraft. We've worked with Industry Canada to help locate the source of those signals, and that is the only time, in my view, when we would become involved with the grey market. And again, if you look at our MOU, it's expressed in there. We are there for the security of individuals, be they in flight or on the ground. If there is interference with police search and rescue or aircraft signals, we will react immediately. In most instances, if I may go a bit further, it's easily done, in my experience, by just knocking on the door and educating people, and I would say 99 times out of 100 the police officer is going to walk away with the card.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I want to understand how you plan to respond to these requests. Two companies in Canada broadcast by satellite, and then there's Industry Canada. Will Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice advise Industry Canada that in their opinion, some people are operating on the black market? Who is instructing you to carry out the search and seizure operations? Is it Industry Canada? Could some of these orders be coming from the private sector as well?

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell: To have us intervene...it would be Industry Canada in the first instance. Certainly, we work with private industry, share information with private industry, but our memorandum of understanding and the way we work dictates that partnership with Industry Canada. We would check with them and see if they have reasonable grounds to proceed. With the large number of things we have to pick through, there would actually be a process to determine if a case is one we go forward with, recognizing that we've had a hard time with the court. It's not just, pick up your bags and go get it. You want to make sure it has a good probability of going through the courts. The process by which you pick out a case to act upon is pragmatic, and a number of factors are taken into account. We have a model, which we call the Sleipner model, that fills out a matrix of the different complaints, and from that model you take the one that is the greatest threat to your community. We have limited resources, so we triage, to use another term, the files, but always looking for one that will have a positive outcome. We don't need bad case law.

Â (1225)

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Do I have time for another question, Mr. Chairman?

This committee discussed the case of Canadians who spend the winter in the United States and take their dishes with them in order to pick up Canadian programs. Have you received any special instructions for dealing with these snowbirds who cross the border with their ExpressVu satellite dishes? According to the Supreme Court's ruling, it's against the law to bring these dishes across the border. The US has similar legislation on the books. Do you plan to make allowances in future for Canadian snowbirds heading south for the winter?

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell: To answer the first part of your question, we do not have a plan in place to deal with this. Your mention, though, of the situation does give rise to an educational component that could be needed now that the Canada Border Services Agency has been given powers along the lines of prevention and education, much the same as our having posters up in a lot of places warning people about trafficking in drugs in other countries and the penalties. It could be something as simple as putting together a plan now with our partner agency, CBSA, with respect to notifying Canadians. Again, from a Royal Canadian Mounted Police point of view, once they're in the country, that's one person with a dish, which is not our interest. Certainly, it's in the interest of Canada that the law be respected, and in that case I would suggest that education is the way to go.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Then if I understand you correctly, their equipment will not be seized at the border. Correct?

[English]

C/Supt Mike McDonell: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police would not.

The Chair: Merci, Carole-Marie.

James Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In your presentation you said “signals from this illegal equipment can interfere with search and rescue, aircraft emergency, and police radio frequencies, posing a substantial health and safety threat”.You talked about London, Cold Lake, and Toronto. One of the witnesses we had on Tuesday said the signals from this illegal equipment should not be substantially different from signals from the legal equipment or from any other apparatus. Therefore, they doubted this claim. Can you explain to us why the signals from this type of equipment are substantially different from those from other equipment and how they actually do cause this interference?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: I cannot give you an in-depth answer on the specifics, as a layperson in the field of electronic engineering. I can have our experts from technical services come down here. This is something we're dealing with in respect of working with American police officers on the border. It's my understanding that the American spectrum that's allowed to their satellite transmission actually rides off into another area of the Canadian spectrum that is assigned to search and rescue aircraft or police. Therein lies the interference for a very short space as it comes up from the house towards the dish. That's how it has been explained to me. I'm not an engineer, so I can't help you much further.

Mr. James Rajotte: I do want to follow up a little on the snowbirds issue, because I think it's important. Your answer was that it is not the RCMP that would be active at the border. The Industry officials seem to indicate that they would not frown on the snowbirds going down, the couple going down to Arizona, and taking their dish. They would not really focus on that. You're saying it's not the RCMP, but is there another agency that would focus on that? Can we get assurance from them as to what their focus will be?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: I would respectfully submit that the people to respond to that would be Industry Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. I can't answer for either of those agencies, but I can say definitively that the RCMP would not be involved in that sort of investigation.

Â (1230)

Mr. James Rajotte: On the powers of inspectors, I appreciated your answer earlier that you wanted not just reasonable cause but probable cause. Should we make that more specific in this bill? Sections 7 and 8 of the charter certainly guide you. In the bill itself the “reasonable” and the “probable” were not clear to me. So is this something we should perhaps clarify in the bill?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: It didn't raise any alarm bells for me, and I speak as a citizen rather than a police officer, coming back to the charter and my rights to secure living and freedom. The inspectors themselves would be knocking on your door, as mentioned by the previous witness. You can let them in or not, and for something to be seized from your house, as I understand the amendments to the act and the act itself, it would be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police coming along to do it, and we require those reasonable and probable grounds. We take those then before a justice or a judge and explain our case.

This is not an area where we would be concerned about a large police presence, unless there is other intelligence information coming to us. I'm quite satisfied with the term “reasonable” for inspectors. We are governed by a higher standard, so nothing is coming out of your house unless there's reasonable and probable cause; it's not coming out unless we've satisfied ourselves that it's there.

Mr. James Rajotte: So if you had reasonable cause to believe that someone out of their home, as an individual, was using equipment for commercial purposes, you would knock on their door, and if they said they would not let you in, would you go to a judge before--

C/Supt Mike McDonell: That would be the inspectors, in the first instance.

Mr. James Rajotte: Would the inspector go to a judge before they even knocked on the door?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: I can't speak for Industry Canada.

Mr. James Rajotte: Okay.

C/Supt Mike McDonell: The RCMP might, just to have a chat. Why kill a fly with a hammer if you can just go and have a chat? The point may not be to take the person to court, but just to stop it.

Mr. James Rajotte: And if the person refuses the inspector or the RCMP, at that point there would have to be some sort of warrant issued, correct?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: If the officer on the scene decides so. The police enjoy discretion in the exercise of their duties, and not everyone we deal with is charged. So they could just go and talk to the person and try to find a compromise, without getting bogged down in legalities and ways to fix this. If you decide to proceed with a charge, you need evidence. Evidence can only be collected for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in this instance, with a warrant from the authorities of the Criminal Code.

Mr. James Rajotte: My final question is with regard to a specific section of the bill, on page 3. Do you have a copy of the bill before you?

C/Supt Mike McDonell: The amendments to the bill or the bill?

Mr. James Rajotte: The bill itself, Bill C-2.

C/Supt Mike McDonell: Yes.

Mr. James Rajotte: This is page 3, lines 12 to 15:

open or cause to be opened any package or container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains anything referred to in paragraph (b) or (c).

That is radio apparatus or a record or book of account. Is that a common provision in regard to opening mail?

Â (1235)

C/Supt Mike McDonell: To me, this speaks of the broadening of powers. It could be a cardboard shoebox that contains a collection of paper. It could be altering a computer cover to implant a tracker to provide you with the means to copy data. In the previous paragraph it's saying you can access and copy data. You may have to move something to do that, and this provides you with the authority.

Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you. I just wanted clarification.

The Chair: The snowbirds take their dish from here and bring it back at the end of winter, in the spring. If they take their dish to the U.S., it's not a Canadian issue. If they bring it home, it's not an issue anyway. So I'm wondering what the issue is.

Mr. James Rajotte: They wouldn't be bringing it home.

The Chair: Bell ExpressVu, for example, sells in the States, so if they're customers of Bell ExpressVu, do Bell ExpressVu or Star Choice care, as long as they're subscribing customers?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: They would be infringing American laws, but the fact is, the Americans don't care.

The Chair: So it is not our issue anyway. It's an issue--

Mr. James Rajotte: It is an issue, because you're bringing it back and forth across the border, and you're supposed to have an import certificate to bring it back and forth across the border.

The Chair: Even if it's just a regular Star Choice or Bell ExpressVu receiver and dish?

Mr. James Rajotte: That's actually what we'd like clarification on from the minister's office, whether the snowbirds will be guaranteed import certificates to bring back their equipment.

Mme Carole-Marie Allard: They need this certificate before going, because they will want to bring it back.

The Chair: We will, by whatever reasonable means, get that question clarified.

If there are no other questions, I will thank Mr. McDonell for spending time with us today, and we'll adjourn.

I'll just let you know, colleagues, that on Tuesday at 11 o'clock, for the first hour, we're going to have the Coalition pour la liberté du choix dans la télévision satellite, the Coalition for Freedom of Choice in Satellite TV, and we may have another witness. After that we will have an in camera business meeting, where you might have other suggestions as to witnesses. On Thursday we're going to have officials back from Industry and Heritage so we can ask them questions that have arisen since their first visit with us. We'll see if we can take good advantage of what may be our last two meetings before the break on Bill C-2.

Again, thank you, Mr. McDonell, and thank you to the previous witnesses from the Privacy Commission.

The meeting is adjourned.