Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 309
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses very much for coming this morning. I think you have raised some issues and some questions we, as a committee, need to take a very serious look at.
Before I ask you to comment on some of the statements or questions I might have, I think, in listening to you and to other witnesses, we know why the grey market is there, because people can't get that information otherwise. We know they're paying for it, so I guess we know the cause. The Supreme Court has said that is illegal. That raises the question, and I ask you, should the appropriate acts be changed--and I think Mr. Rogers has commented on this, directly or indirectly--in order to fix the cause, so that it's not an illegal activity? Mr. Rogers has commented, in my interpretation of his comments, that it certainly would be somewhat difficult unless that type of action was taken to have them pay into the fund.
I guess I'm showing my frustrations here. Is the bill as it is written enforceable? Can we do that? Mr. Attallah has said that the present situation and the Supreme Court ruling have made a number of people act in a way that is illegal. The law doesn't exist today to allow that, so do we just leave things alone? It appears this has been going on in the past and everybody has said we can't police it, so do we forget about it?
Finally, I'm not aware how this is treated in other countries. I would be surprised if it were only Canadians who were using a grey market. There must be a grey market in other countries, the U.S., Europe, or whatever. What happens there? How do they handle it?
Because of a number of points witnesses have brought forward to the committee, including excellent witnesses this morning, we as a committee--and I know this is the work of the committee--may need to think about bringing people from Heritage Canada. We may want to consider bringing officials back and raising questions with them, because naturally and rightly, they're the first presenters. I think, as we go forward as a committee, we need to take comments such as those of the witnesses this morning and pose them back.
That's a bit of an aside.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chairman, I think I'm somewhat repeating myself here. I know it's clear in my mind that the witnesses we've heard from have given all perspectives around this bill. The perspectives of the two major suppliers of this out there, Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu, I think we know. With all due respect, they're doing their job from their end, saying why they like the bill. Other witnesses have pointed out that they have different views on this as well.
So in a very brief comment, I think a lot of work needs to be done on this bill. I think a lot of questions have been raised, a lot of points have been raised, and we need to do it as right as we possibly can.
I don't argue with Mr. Rogers that this bill is enforceable. Sure it's enforceable, but is it the right bill? Are there other changes that need to be made, whether in other acts or something in conjunction with this, to address the situation we have, to address, as much as we can, the concerns of everyone? Sure this one is enforceable, but I don't think it will do the job and address everybody's concerns out there.
So I strongly suggest that we should think about talking to officials, not only from Industry Canada but also others who are affected by this, before we move forward. We like to move bills through as quickly as we can, but I feel strongly that we need to do them as right as we can. If that takes more time.... There are rumours that there might be an election. So if we don't do it in this Parliament, then it will be a good job for the next industry committee.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
On page 13 of Mr. Binder's presentation it says that for illegal signal decoding activities, the fine for an individual is $5,000 and the proposed fine is $25,000. I just heard that the maximum fine was $1,000. Maybe you could clarify that. Also, what's the definition of an individual?
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's not on this sheet.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, Mr. Chairman, it's still not clear.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's probably because I'm dense on this.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
But if I look at page 13 of Mr. Binder's presentation, it says, “Illegal signal decoding activities”, for an “Individual”.
I know there's civil and there's criminal. And the gentleman just said that in civil, for whatever reason, it would be a maximum of $1,000. Help me out here, but this chart says, “Illegal signal decoding activities”, with a maximum fine of $5,000 and proposed maximum of $25,000, for an “Individual”.
So if someone—whether it were caused or triggered by another company, or whomever—or if the industry itself is saying, “I know that such and such a person, in their house or home, has a signal decoding piece of equipment for their own use”, what does this mean? They're an individual—they're not marketing it out of there—but are they an individual person? Are we talking of an individual company, because the next line says, “Company”?
Just help me out on what the $5,000 to $25,000 means.
I'm not saying I want to condone this happening, but it's just not clear, because we didn't hear about the $1,000 until a minute ago.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
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?
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
Just to follow up on that--
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
--if we need a mechanism to improve the cross-border illegal movement of equipment, whose court is that ball in? This bill doesn't do it. It just puts the penalty there if you're doing it. What action or whatever is going to force getting the mechanism in place?
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes. I think this is a good clarification. I understand what Joe is saying as well. One of the problems we always have in writing legislation is that you'll read a clause and it's not really clear, and then you ask what it means.
When I read this originally I saw a person. I know this is a country-to-country arrangement, but it's people who make it work. They have to be people who are authorized from both sides, either as suppliers or users and providers on the other end.
I think it's a good clarification and it should be supported.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
What is certified mail? I've never heard of it. I've heard of registered mail.
View Lyle Vanclief Profile
Lib. (ON)
Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I think this clarifies it. One of the concerns we had with this in the past we want to hopefully prevent in the future. Whether it's part of a shipment, a shipment, or the whole thing going in the wrong direction, this only clarifies that when there's a shipment made, everybody has to make sure it's recorded, as they've said they're going to and as we've said in other places. Everybody can find out who had it in transportation, in their hands, etc., so that it doesn't go down the wrong trail.
Results: 1 - 15 of 309 | Page: 1 of 21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data