Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2016

[Bernard Gervais]

We can't go back. What's going to be out there will be very prolific. I think it's training at the onset, before we even allow the sales of these things. Technology has to be somehow.... If it doesn't work out, eventually it could be limited in some way.

As I was saying also, and as COPA is saying, it's making sure people have the competency and that whoever they are, they are linked to their UAV someplace so that we can do the tracing. It cannot be a free-for-all thing out there in the airspace.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

You're saying it should be highly regulated. Okay.

Those are the only two questions I had. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You still have two minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Sure. I may get another crack at this, I hope, before we're done.

Mr. Fraser, for you initially, you mentioned the existing laws in place for privacy purposes, for example, and for nuisance and otherwise, and that we don't need to adopt an entirely new legal regime. Where I have some consternation is around the enforcement of those laws. Is the answer to best protecting privacy interests really the registration phase, to make sure we know who the owner is of any drone that might be used for an improper purpose?

[David Fraser]

Certainly that information would be much more accessible in the event of an investigation. I don't think there's any doubt. I don't see significant defects in our existing laws.

I also see a problem from a big-picture public policy perspective in regulating activities of one particular technology. It's not focused on the mischiefs; it's focused on the means. Theoretically, I could hover a helicopter 500 feet above your house, with a very long lens, and commit a worse mischief than flying my small Phantom drone 100 feet over your house. We should focus on what the mischief is rather than the means by which it's carried out, and be consistent across technologies.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

One area with which I struggle conceptually is that with a helicopter that's well marked, you could presumably see that from the ground and identify the owner through just a visual confirmation. Again focusing on the means, as you've suggested I shouldn't, I have trouble conceiving of how you would identify a small drone if it doesn't crash. If there's an incident and it falls to the ground, you can pick it up, find the code, and identify the owner. Are there any tools that law enforcement would need to identify someone who is being mischievous with a UAS?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Someone can give a short answer to that question.

[David Fraser]

I think marking will help, but obviously it's going to depend largely on the size of the drone and the size of the marking on it.

I don't know whether, for example, Transport Canada or others are working on technology to use triangulation to find the controller. That is, in fact, one of the challenges with UAVs generally. If you see something flying up there, you don't necessarily know where the person is who's controlling it. I think that is going to be one of the regulatory challenges.

However, registration and marking would take us a significant step forward compared with where we are now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Aubin is next.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for your participation.

My first question is for Mr. Adamus.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned 764 incidents that have occurred over a relatively short period of time.

What are the criteria for an incident to be considered an incident?

Among those incidents, could you give me an example of the least and most serious situations? For example, I imagine that seeing a drone while flying is already an incident, but not necessarily a risk of an accident.

[Capt Dan Adamus]

The 764 reported incidents are reports from aircraft to the air traffic controller that a drone is in their sight. It doesn't necessarily mean there's a risk of collision, but they're close enough that they can see them. Whenever it's close enough to see, that's a significant event.

For example, when aircraft are flying above each other, there has to be a 1,000-foot separation, or three nautical miles horizontally, so you have to be a long way apart. If you can see a drone, that's a significant event. That would be categorized as a near miss with another aircraft.

As an example that I was involved in, I was getting ready to depart out of, I believe, Atlanta. The aircraft in front of me, just as it was climbing out through a couple of hundred feet, reported a drone, and they actually had to turn to avoid it. When we were given takeoff clearance, we were given a turn right away to avoid it. That's the closest I've come to a drone, and I didn't see it.

The incident that was reported over Lake Ontario last week or the week before—again, we don't know what it was—would be the most severe type of case, where pilots have to take drastic action to avoid hitting a drone. We all know what birds can do to aircraft. We are all very familiar with the Hudson River incident. A drone is a lot more dense. If it's ingested into an engine, it's likely to take out the engine. If it hits a control surface, control of the aircraft could be in jeopardy. If it hits the windscreen, it could crack the windscreen. There's a lot of damage these drones can do to aircraft.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

You have the opportunity to take off and land in a number of countries all over the world. In your opinion, which country is the most advanced in terms of regulations and should therefore be used as a model? Do you have an idea? Earlier, we talked about the United States, but I assume there are other models. Drones are now everywhere. Which country could we use as a regulatory model?

[Capt Dan Adamus]

That's a very good question.

I'm not that familiar with what other countries are doing. I know ICAO is working on some guidance material for the member states, but I don't have any specifics on which country is ahead of the game. I'm sorry.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Gervais, did you want to add a comment?

[Bernard Gervais]

Actually, I was taking notes for the model.

The person representing us at the International Civil Aviation Organization is a member of our association. I was able to talk to him a little earlier. As Mr. Adamus said, all member countries are working together. Everyone is trying to figure out how to do this. We are in the very early stages. That's where we are. We will do this together.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Fraser.

You are clearly an amateur photographer and now a videographer. You said that 90% of the photos were taken at eye level. We understand the phenomenon, but once you go up in height with a drone, how will privacy be protected? If my neighbour takes a picture at eye level, he may well not see what is going on in my backyard. However, when he takes photos and images with a drone, what recourse do people have in terms of the possible publication of those images?

[David Fraser]

Thank you for the question.

In my own experience, I generally do landscape photography, so I'm not looking in anybody's backyard. Certainly when it comes to these sorts of questions, I think we have to ask, do we need additional rules? Is it justified?

You can currently get very high-resolution satellite images of every single square foot or square metre of Canada. Already, if I was curious about whether you had a pool or a hot tub in your backyard, I could publicly go and buy that information. Does the fact of using a different technology change that dramatically?

One thing that I am mindful of is that most of the drones that are out there.... You often hear about what will be under the Christmas tree. There are going to be millions of them under Christmas trees this Christmas. Most of them have wide-angle lenses, and they are intended for landscape—to take in the vista, the amazing view that you have from up there. In most cases, you are not actually close enough. I've flown near people. I've obviously flown near myself, and when you get up to a certain level, I am unrecognizable.

Privacy law is about personal information, identifiable individuals. Most drones or UAVs that you find in Consumer Reports for recreational purposes really don't have all that big an impact on privacy. It's more a perception than a reality.

However, I've certainly heard from people who feel that having a drone fly over their neighbourhood or their house is, in and of itself, an intrusion. I'm not sure there is a whole lot more that could be said about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Fraser, go ahead.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

One of the things you mentioned, Mr. Gervais—and a few of the witnesses touched on this—was the need for a licensing process, to some degree.

One of my concerns is that we have this tremendous new industry that could be a breeding ground for innovation, whether it's gas leak detection, package delivery, or a thousand things I've never even dreamed up. How can we design a licensing process that isn't so cumbersome that it prevents people from going and seeking to become a drone owner?

[Bernard Gervais]

The way Transport Canada has already prepared some of the draft legislation seems fine to me. It depends on the operation that you are going to be doing and on what the need is. If you're going to be doing a complex commercial operation, then you would need a pilot permit somewhat similar to what I have, which is what we are doing right now in aviation. If you're just going to be doing a recreational portion, then you would need the basic information, something like a competency card.

It's a tiered approach. It depends on what you are going to be doing and on the UAV that you are going to be using. That's entirely possible.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'll open this up to the other witnesses. Maybe we'll start with you, Mr. Gervais, since you have the microphone.

Do you envision this as a sort of Government of Canada weekend training course, or would you license someone to sell these things at point of sale? Would Best Buy or whoever it might be say, “I guarantee that the purchaser has qualified to operate what I've just sold them”?

[Bernard Gervais]

I wouldn't put the responsibility on Transport Canada or.... Obviously there would be a fee to get that little competency card. It could be a possibility, but I haven't really thought about it. It could also be done on a third party website or through third party schooling.

There is some official training for complex operations, that's for sure, depending on the operation, but if it's just the weekender doing a recreational portion, it could be anything, really.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Sure.

Mr. Adamus, do you have any suggestions on what an appropriate licensing process would look like?

[Capt Dan Adamus]

Yes. Our position is that if you are going to be flying the UAS for commercial purposes, you must be a licensed pilot. You are in the airspace, so you have to adhere to the rules of the airspace. You have to understand it. You have to understand that there is a risk with this UAS if there are malfunctions. For commercial purposes, they are going way beyond the line of sight, so we believe you absolutely must be trained, just like other commercial users.

Just to be clear, a commercial pilot's licence means you can get paid to fly. That's what a commercial licence means. A flight instructor is a commercial pilot. Somebody towing banners is a commercial pilot. Sometimes that's misunderstood, so I had to make sure.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Should I take it, then, that if I want to go buy a drone at Best Buy so that Mr. Fraser and I can go back to Nova Scotia and take pictures of each other's drones for recreational purposes, there is no licensing process that you think would be required?