Transport Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'm going to allot my time to Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

To our RCMP members, you said you made some recommendations to the industry about what you would like to see. Can those be shared with this committee?

[S/Sgt David Domoney]

The recommendations we've given so far are recommendations on how to make the system better.

An example would be with one of the systems we fly. You fly it by a tablet, so you basically have a pen, and wherever you push on the screen, that's where the helicopter is going to fly. We made a recommendation to add joysticks, so that if you needed to, you could take physical control of the aircraft and fly the aircraft manually, as opposed to tapping on a screen. In our opinion, as pilots, it made it so that we had more control of the aircraft, and it increased the safety of it. The company looked at it, and they decided to implement that recommendation.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Very good.

You mentioned that there are existing laws that apply to things like privacy breaches, etc. To your knowledge, have any charges been laid? Have you charged anyone for being a peeping Tom by drone?

[A/Commr Byron Boucher]

I don't know if Dave knows of any.

We would capture it strictly as a mischief file on the system, and we would have to pull up every single file to see if there had been a specific charge. I don't know of any specifically that would have come up that way, but maybe Dave can comment.

[S/Sgt David Domoney]

As I stated earlier, with the new technology, we're just starting to get more calls on that type of incident. I don't know of any charges laid at this time for the peeping Tom issue. I know that we are getting a significant number of calls for UAVs being in an area where they shouldn't be, and the public just doesn't seem to know that they can't be there.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Very good.

I'm going to turn what's left of my time over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Folks, I just want to drill down on this technology.

To be very specific, what kinds of technology do exist today to counter the drones that present a danger in public areas to public safety? How do we control their use at, for example, major events and situations like that?

[S/Sgt David Domoney]

Last year I entered into a project with Defence Research and Development Canada specifically to deal with countermeasures and what we might be able to use to intercept a UAV that's flying in a location that it shouldn't be. We tried everything from paintball guns to our intervention options, such as a taser, a water cannon, our service pistol, and the C8 carbine. We tried all of that kinetic response. What we found was that a net gun may be an effective tool for us.

We have looked at different net gun companies. This technology is brand new. The net guns were basically designed to capture wildlife. Now, with the UAV component, some of those companies are changing their technology. In addition to capturing animals, they're trying to increase their range to be able to capture a UAV. We also tried jamming technology.

We came up with a recommendation for the RCMP through the DRDC project. At this time, with the technology the way that it is, an effective response would be either a net gun or jamming technology.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Do you find that it would be more prudent for us to count on the industry to come up with more advanced technology, or would it be prudent for us, as government, yourselves, Transport Canada, or others to come up and innovate that kind of technology?

[S/Sgt David Domoney]

What I've found today is that we need to look at both, because they are working on it at the same time, but because of the issue in front of everybody right now with drones, I think that companies themselves are working at a faster pace.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I think, for the most part, especially with the Christmas season coming around, if you think you have a challenge now, post-January it's going to be a huge challenge.

My last question is with respect to liability. I hope it it never happens, but if it does happen, and I expect it may, who would shoulder the liability?

I guess this would be more for Transport Canada. Who would shoulder the liability, or exposure to that liability, when these kinds of situations occur?

For example, suppose pictures are taken of someone's house. They are not very appropriate and they end up on the Internet. It's worldwide, and you can't control it. Or it could be with public safety: something happens in a stadium. Something goes off and people get hurt. Who is exposed to most of the liability here?

[Laureen Kinney]

If I can just start off on that, you're talking about a variety of different kinds of liability, obviously. Not all of them are within Transport Canada's purview. In particular, we have looked at the liability for danger and damages that might be caused by their operation, in a more general sense. There are some provisions that we've put in place to partially address that at least, but not necessarily on the broad scale.

Aaron, do you want to go into that?

[Aaron McCrorie]

From an aviation safety point of view, whether we're issuing a special flight operating certificate or whether it's within the proposed regulations, we are going to have insurance requirements to cover those liability issues. It's outside of our mandate to deal with some of the other liability issues that may be there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rayes is next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My questions are for the Transport Canada representatives.

In your speech, you said that your provincial, territorial, and municipal counterparts are also struggling to find a way to make sure that this technology is used safely and respectfully.

I am a former mayor of a municipality of 45,000 people. At that time, we had a lot of concerns about protecting privacy, especially as regards citizens using surveillance cameras. That was even before drone use became widespread.

Moreover, our clerks did not have much information about this when we had to manage security and privacy issues involving the use of surveillance cameras. We were not even talking about drones, but people were saying that something was certainly going to happen. They also wondered who would manage the issue, the Sûreté du Québec, municipal police, or the RCMP.

My first question is as follows. Which municipal stakeholders have you consulted, whether organizations or individuals? I would like to know a bit more about this because, to my knowledge, it has not been discussed in Quebec, at least not at the two municipal groups.

[Aaron McCrorie]

Our primary interaction has been through organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. When we did the round tables across the country last year, it was an open invitation. In some instances—I think it was Winnipeg, for example—the City of Winnipeg showed up. However, to date, our primary interaction has been through forums like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

[Laureen Kinney]

If I may add to that, through our provincial, territorial, and federal council for ministers of transportation there have been various levels of conversation through that forum as well with the provinces. As noted, there have also been individual conversations with the municipalities.

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

My question is for Mr. Boucher or Mr. Domoney.

As regards safety, do you have discussions with your counterparts on other provincial or municipal police forces?

[A/Commr Byron Boucher]

We have considerable discussions ongoing with all of our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners about issues of concern for them in priority-setting for law enforcement for a particular year. At this point in time, drones or UAVs have not come up as a hot button issue.

As we're discussing this, internal to the organization, I've explained the ways we use them. Going forward, obviously one of the most important things for us is the way to control them when they get into those restricted areas or areas where they are infringing on the privacy rights of another citizen. That control factor, or those countermeasure factors, are where we're headed next, and we're really pushing hard with industry and other government agencies.

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

As regards public safety for airports and businesses, I am not worried about you finding the right regulations or procedures. At the municipal level, however, my first reaction is to say that there could be a number of problems.

At events held in the municipalities, for instance, people often use drones for recreational purposes, whether to fly over a site or to take pictures and videos. There could be risks, however, when there is a crowd or a mob. Consider the summer festival in Quebec City where 100,000 people gather on the Plains of Abraham.

I have a number of concerns in this regard. Does this enter into your thoughts or your preparations in order to give tools to the municipalities?

Among municipal by-laws, police security, and Transport Canada security, I think people's natural reaction is to say it is under federal jurisdiction, that it is their problem, everyone washes their hands of it. Citizens, however, will turn to the municipality, the municipal council or the mayor in search of a quick solution. The objective is something effective for companies and individuals.

[Aaron McCrorie]

That's really the heart of our new risk-based approach to regulating unmanned aerial vehicles.

Regarding the distinction between whether you're operating for commercial or recreational reasons, we're dropping that distinction. If you're operating a heavier drone that poses a greater risk to people on the ground or aircraft in the air and you're operating in a more complex environment—for example, Quebec City during a festival—there are going to be much more stringent operating requirements to comply with, including design standards for the UAV, licensing requirements, marking and registration requirements, and limits on how and when you can operate. If you're operating in a lower-risk environment with a smaller drone, then the operating requirements and the regulatory requirements would be lower.

Having those clear regulations in place gives our partners in law enforcement, or even our own inspectors, the tools to go after people who behave irresponsibly in those situations.

Our focus isn't just on the airport. It isn't just about the aircraft in the air. It's also about people on the ground.

[Laureen Kinney]

I would add that I think there is a whole area that is being referred to.

As you start to expand beyond the safety requirements and how you operate such a piece of equipment safely and you get into the approvals of an event, for example, at the city level or the municipality level, or at another level, you're going to need to connect the dots and make sure that we are having that kind of a conversation when you get into the bylaw development that a number of communities are looking at, or when you talk about the commerce that may go on with drones operating in city areas and perhaps operating in a city's residential areas.

We're looking at the safety and we're looking at all those issues, but we do need to work together on that. There are beginnings of conversations on that, but there is more work to be done.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We are coming to the end of our meeting. I expect the bells will also be going off.

Does anybody have a short pressing question that didn't get answered?