Evidence of meeting #40 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was surveillance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay. You mentioned the spoofing of UAVs being a potential problem. Is it possible to spoof a commercial airliner?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
With a pilot aboard, we'd like to think it's not. We'd like to think that the pilot is ultimately loyal and can understand what he's being given as instruction. I think that gives us a fair confidence that they won't be taken over.
There was an era of hijacking airplanes, and of course the 9/11 attacks were hijackings, but I don't think that's the spoofing you're talking about.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
No, I was thinking of another missing airliner.
UAVs are being used militarily, commercially, for civil security as was mentioned, and even by hobbyists. You said there should be or will have to be a special airspace for military and civilian. Do you foresee a problem with air traffic control insofar as individuals and commercial organizations using UAVs goes as they seem to be more commonly doing these days?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I think integrating UAVS into the existing flow of air traffic is a big challenge. Air traffic control can be the mechanism, I suppose. It tends to require radio responses that a UAV can probably acquire.
Reserved airspace is the way it's handled now, but I don't think that's the solution forever. They're in small numbers and so it can be done that way. The Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. has been given a target date of next year to come up with the procedures and process in order to integrate UAVs into regular general aviation.
I'm not given any reassurances that's really going to come to pass.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Major-General, I would first like to thank you for your presentation today.
In terms of the possibility of using armed drones, I would like to join you in saying that we must not overlook the potential psychological effects on the people operating the drones. It is rather unthinkable to say that there would be no consequences for the soldiers or to set aside the possibility that they would develop post-traumatic stress disorder or something like that. That is part of the ethical and moral dimensions that we must consider before planning such a use, which does not seem likely, necessary or desirable in Canada. Thank you for highlighting those dimensions, which we sometimes overlook, but are important.
Just now, my colleague talked about the Joint Uninhabited Surveillance and Target Acquisition System, JUSTAS, which seeks to deliver a tested and long-range unmanned aircraft to meet the mandatory capabilities of national and international operations.
How could only one type of drone meet all our needs, especially in terms of surveillance here in Canada? Is that possible or should we consider the option of having a mixed fleet?
I would like to hear what you have to say on that.
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
To whether a mixed approach would be preferable in some ways, I think the answer is yes. I think there are particular tasks that the drones are better for, and there are particular tasks where the control of a pilot and the human interface is desirable. I'd be considerably supportive of that sort of approach.
Commonly it's thought that drones are good for dull, dirty, and dangerous tasks, so the long endurance, repetitive sorts of things in hazardous areas are perfect really for surveillance drones.
When it comes to applying armed weapons, I think that you're better off in the manned world, frankly, and that it's easier to assure yourself that you have the kind of control you actually want.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you.
I will ask you one last question before I share my time with my colleague Mr. Brahmi, giving him an opportunity to ask you questions as well.
You mentioned the possibility of using drones in the north for surveillance. In your view, which federal departments or agencies should be able to use them?
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm thinking in military terms myself, so I think this is about NORAD, so I imagined that it would be the Department of National Defence.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
You talked about taking control or spoofing. I would rather talk about jamming because it is easier to jam than to take control.
In practice, does that mean that there are two types of situations? Let us take the case of a power that has the same technology and interference capabilities, and the case of a terrorist organization that does not have the interference capabilities; would those be two types of intervention?
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm not sure that I fully captured it. There are a lot of methods of managing communications so that they are reliable and cannot be intercepted, cannot be interfered with or jammed. There are frequency agile, jumping, hopping, techniques that apply really to the control of aircraft as well, but those are not foolproof.
The whole thing comes to being able to hack...the kinds of capacities we find in the Internet. I don't think airborne communications are going to be very much different from that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
That is your time.
Thank you, General.
Mr. Williamson, you have the final five minutes.
November 27th, 2014 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
General, I don't have too many questions, but I'm curious to know this, as you've thought about it. What are the privacy issues in the nation if these drones are used by the military? Have you considered that at all in terms of the implication, particularly in populated areas?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I've given it very limited consideration. I start with the belief that things that Defence does are for national security, are well intentioned, and can be well controlled, and that inadvertent breaches of personal privacy wouldn't be exploited. That's not to say they wouldn't happen.
I really don't have a refined answer for you on that.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
I suppose, based on your answer, you would agree that some sort of control or oversight would be important to be considered by Parliament or some body.
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
By some body, yes. Typically I take comfort that the military has a fair bit of oversight. I feel pretty proud of the way our military manages ethical challenges like that.
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I feel more confident in them than I might in commercial operations or something.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
That's fair enough.
Chair, I'll pass my time to Ms. Gallant.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Can drones be equipped with infrared sensing?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
To Mr. Williamson's question, if we had a drone conducting surveillance and it happened to fly over a marijuana farm, would the military be allowed to report that to the civilian authorities, or would that be a matter of privacy?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
My inclination would be to say that if it's something evidently criminal, which I believe you're talking about, that it would be quite reportable. The only analogy I can think of, and it doesn't fit terribly well, are infrared sensors in geostationary orbit watching for missile launches. They occasionally find forest fires and report them. To me it's a fairly likely event.