It assists, but I humbly suggest that we need some clarification. For the person on the street out there reading the bill, or looking at this chart, they're likely going to see themselves as an individual, and they're going to say, well, I could be subject to a $25,000 fine. So the explanation you gave I think clarifies it for me, but it's pretty hard to clarify it out there amongst the general public.
If you look at clause 6, and this amendment, that's what people are going to look at with this bill, with all due respect. They won't go back and sit this bill down beside the act that it's amending. As it says in clause 6, “in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $25,000”. So the explanation you just gave, sir, is fine and dandy, but with all due respect, I don't think there would be many people out there who would understand it, and maybe there needs to be more explanation given.
To get to what I was originally going to talk about, Mr. Chair, I think we could have the numbers discussion, which Mr. Rajotte raised. I respect that, but I don't think anybody's denying that there's piracy out there. None of us is saying we want to condone it. We do want to stop it.
There have been some good comments and suggestions with regard to why it's taking place, which Mr. Savoy raised. I think the answer of Mr. Binder and others was that a relatively small group, I think, wants access to it. But if we're going to be able to address the desires of those people, and in order for them to have access to the type of communication they want, then it will take action broader than the scope of this bill.
Now, I know we can't address that, because it's not here within this bill. This is a penalties bill, or an enabling bill, to put penalties in place if they are doing that. But there will have to be consideration of that type of thing, because there will be a demand. In our society, if there are demands, unfortunately there will always be suppliers, whether or not they are legal demands or legal suppliers.
So how do we remain proactive as an industry, and as the CRTC, etc., in order to reduce that as much as we possibly can? In other words, what is the cause of this? I think we're having that discussion. We know the cause, but not the solving of the problem. It will help if this act is there, and I support it for that reason, but I don't think any of us are naïve enough to think it will be the total answer. It will help, and it will give more availability for the industry and others to solve this.
I'll just close, Mr. Chair, with the issue of border enforcement of equipment coming in. This was addressed somewhat as well. I think it was stated that it's difficult. It's been illegal in the past to bring this equipment in, and we're saying it's going to continue to be illegal. If we haven't been able to do anything about it in the past, what confidence do we have that we're going be able to do anything about it in the future? It's like a local police force, if the public wanted to lower the speed limit, being asked by the public, “If you can't enforce the speed limit at 50, how can you enforce it at 30?”
We haven't been doing as good a job as we maybe could have or should have in the past, so what's going to change to hopefully improve the cross-border movement of equipment?