Transport Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Again, I want to be clear, we're talking about being reactive. That's what you're suggesting with vests and lines of sight. That's all reactive, but frankly, again to be clear, I'm not concerned about that because it's after the fact. The incident has already happened.

What I'm getting at is how we can be proactive, and what technology the industry has thought about. Let's face it. The market will mature only at the rate of your technology—not government technology, but your technology—that will protect public privacy and ensure safety.

When we look at the attempt to be proactive so the incidents don't happen, how far has industry gone to ensure that, and what products may become available to ensure that public privacy as well as public safety?

[Ian Glenn]

I'll take a stab at this. There are two parts to this. One is operational and one is technological. You stressed the technological part. That's why I suggest this as a way forward, because any of our law enforcement folks will know exactly who, what, when, and where.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Let me just interject. That's if you're playing by the rules. Let's take a look beyond.

You're not supposed to use guns in certain ways or in certain situations, but people do, and this is no different. You're going to have situations where people aren't going to play by the rules.

You're going to have situations where incidents are going to happen, and you can have all the policing and regulations, but it has already happened.

[Ian Glenn]

Right.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

So how do we prevent it from happening? How do we prevent the drone from being used in a situation, for example, with a great number of people, or where there's a privacy issue? How do we prevent that?

[Ian Glenn]

Let's switch the topic not to professional UAV operators but rather to counter drone, which is a field emerging in and of itself.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay, let's talk about that, because that's the thought I had.

[Ian Glenn]

I did 22 years in the military. I was an armoured officer. There was a whole armour...anti-armour thing. We're in that world now where law enforcement worldwide has this challenge. We have to look at the threat and calculate how we can intercept anyone who wants to use these technologies for the wrong reasons.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

So there is actual technology that can be put in place whether it be at a stadium, at a public event, people's private properties, airspace, that can actually counter drones so it eliminates them from being able to enter that space.

[Ian Glenn]

I will say parts of that have emerged. It is an emerging field, and it's a very rapidly evolving one. It will really be up to our law enforcement folks to support that with the right research and development and technology.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

No. Let me just take it a step further. It's not up to law enforcement. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, it's up to you as the industry to ensure public safety and public privacy, and to ensure that while you're putting these on the market, you also have available on the market the ability for people and/or organizations to purchase these space-free drone devices.

[Ian Glenn]

I would offer a counter thought, which is we lost privacy eight years ago when the iPhone came out, or when every camera came out.

Privacy is about social responsibility. What we're stressing is we are like any other aviation activity. A private pilot or a guy in a helicopter can look out his window and see you—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

One minute.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I can interject, I disagree. It's your responsibility. This is a new norm for industry. This is a new norm for society. On privacy, yes, you're correct. There are methods, and I'll use that word “methods”, but I'm more concerned with security. If it's not a moral obligation, it's an economic obligation on behalf of the industry that you make those available. Not government, not passing the buck to someone else, but you as an industry will be required to ensure that public safety and public privacy based on the products you put on the market.

That's an opinion, yes, but also it's going to be up to us to ensure that public safety and public privacy are preserved.

What I'm throwing back at you folks as an industry—

[Ian Glenn]

Yes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

—is that solution so we don't find ourselves three, five, or 10 years down the road having to react to it then versus being proactive now. That's what I'm throwing on the table at you, and I'm challenging you to, in fact, come out with those technologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey. Your time is up.

I have to acknowledge that we also have the president of EXO Tactik Air Support, Stéphane Bouvier, who has joined us a bit late because of traffic issues and so on.

Your colleague has handled it very well.

I have to move on to Mr. Rayes, but I acknowledge that Mr. Bouvier has brought a UAV and put it on the table so that we can look at it when we switch witnesses, if you like, or beforehand discreetly, if you prefer.

We'll start with Mr. Rayes, for six minutes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I saw that you had your hand up and I felt that you wanted to react to the previous comments. I have a question for you and then I will let you continue with the subject. If there are things that you want to add, I will give you the rest of my time to do so, since my colleague who had the floor before me asked essentially the same questions that I find very interesting and wanted to ask you too.

Having said that, I do not quite agree with my predecessor’s comments. I believe that the industry and government have a common responsibility to establish clear rules. I am convinced that this technology is here to stay. In any case, evolution cannot be stopped. The industry is clearly going to keep adapting. I don’t want the government to pay. Mr. Berthold emphasized that just now. The industry can do its work itself, without anyone needing to interfere in its business.

My question is about all the technologies you were talking about, like the transponder. I’d like to have your opinion about it. You can both answer first, then you can continue later.

The government has just passed legislation about rearview cameras, for the same safety reasons as it did for airbags. They will now be mandatory. The industry will adapt and will include the technology for everyone. I think that we should not even question it. All the most recent safety technologies should be included. Airbags should even be installed on all sides. Why should it just be the richest among us who can afford safety systems of that kind? They should be mandatory and the costs should be spread out through the entire system.

As a basic step, could we require companies to install those safety systems in all new drones on the market, as well as putting regulations in place that would require those who already have them to go and get those safety systems? It would automatically result in lower costs, in greater access to the new safety systems, and in a greater assurance of safety.

With other regulations, we could require users to take training in the rules of proper use, in the same spirit as driver training courses, for example.

I would first like to hear both of your opinions.

[Stéphane Bouvier, President, EXO Tactik Air Support]

Actually, today, we use a number of technologies to make the safety of the vehicles more reliable. One of the principles is redundancy. In aviation, redundancy as a concept is common. Passenger aircraft have up to two redundancies for each system in use.

For example, the vehicle you can see here is much larger. One of the reasons explaining its larger size is that everything inside is redundant. Redundancy is the fact that all systems are duplicated. So, if one system fails, another takes its place.

The vehicle you see here. the little Phantom 4, has no redundancy. At the moment, it has four motors. If one motor or one propeller gives out, the vehicle fails and crashes.

So redundancy is one of the characteristics of this kind of vehicle.

In terms of passive and active safety, there are parachute system that—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt you. Your colleague explained all that earlier.

What I would like to know is whether, in your opinion, we could require companies to install those redundancy systems, those security systems, in these vehicles. We are not experts here, but we can imagine that it might be possible. Why not have regulations to require them to be already included in the vehicles in the same way that the government already has regulations for airbags and seatbelts, and that it intends to have for rearview cameras?

The government's role is to make legislation and it is the private sector's role to conform and to come up with technologies to make that happen if it wants products to appear on the market. Otherwise, they would be illegal, in which case, steps would be taken, of course.

[Stéphane Bouvier]

At the moment, Transport Canada is doing very good work in this area. It is assessing companies and their missions and it is granting flight certificates to those that prove that they have adequate safety measures for the missions they carry out.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yes, but the department issues flight certificates to individuals or companies who want to get one.

Could we require the companies that manufacture these vehicles to instal the best safety system, either a transponder or any other redundancy system to back up other systems that might fail? We are not the experts, but there are those who could tell us which system would be best. Is thinking that such a system could be required so illogical?

[Anne-Sophie Riopel-Bouvier]

It is not illogical, in my opinion. It was required for airbags, as you said, and the industry came to terms with it.

As of now, I do not believe that other countries have imposed technological conditions, but I do not see why we would not take the initiative in that regard.

At the moment, the entire responsibility rests on the shoulders of the public and the operators. If all the vehicles on the market do not meet the safety criteria we are looking for, it becomes impossible for the operators to meet them. That is why we should impose some regulations on those manufacturing or selling these vehicles.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Glenn, Mr. Aruja, what do you think of the idea of imposing those requirements on companies?