Transport Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I could just interject, that's fine; it's great that you have that technology to use for those situations. What I'm speaking of is the person who owns a drone who flies it in someone's backyard or in front of someone's window and takes pictures inside the window. I mean things of that nature.

[A/Commr Byron Boucher]

Yes, we get calls, requests for assistance, or requests for service on files like that. In terms of developing any legislation, I think there are already sections in the Criminal Code for us to be able to charge the individual for doing anything like that.

We're working closely with Transport Canada on all things related to drone safety, but I don't know that we'd require anything else beyond what's currently there to deal with this.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I would just take it a step further. That's great that we have laws in place so that we can take care of the individual after the fact. What I am getting at is before the fact, so it doesn't happen in the first place.

Again, I'll go back to my question. Are there any recommendations, whether it be by Transport Canada or law enforcement agencies in general, that would prevent these situations from happening, whether it be a drone flying in front of somebody's window and taking pictures inside the window, or, secondly, and probably equally or more importantly, in situations where these drones carrying a weapon of some sort may go into a stadium with 50,000-plus people?

Is there technology, or recommendations for technologies, or recommendations in general, that Transport Canada or law enforcement agencies are currently entertaining to therefore prevent us lay people from having to delve into those areas? We're actually counting on you folks to give those recommendations to Public Safety so that they can be part of legislation. Is that happening right now?

[A/Commr Byron Boucher]

The laws in place, as I said, I think are already sufficient.

That's almost like asking if we have a law in place to make sure that someone doesn't take out a gun and commit murder. Everything is already there. It would be almost impossible, short of limiting where you can fly drones...but then again, it's another law. People will do things that they're not supposed to do no matter how hard we try to stop them.

We work continuously in serious situations—what you referred to as a drone entering a stadium that may be armed with weapons—on the national security side, to look into any incidents where we have specific targets that are capable of doing things like that and try to—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may, Madam Chair, I do appreciate the answer with respect to the laws and that we can react to those situations that happen.

Again, I'm going back to the proactive. Are there recommendations, whether it be to the industry itself, or actually a move afoot, to encourage that we have more effective geofencing, so that situations like that simply won't happen? Are there recommendations by Transport Canada and/or law enforcement agencies to deal with these situations before they happen, versus reacting to them after the fact?

[Laureen Kinney]

From Transport Canada's perspective, there is some work under way on that. For example, in our special flight operating certificates, we remind users about the requirements to follow privacy requirements, which do exist, but, as you say—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, if I may, I appreciate that, but tell that to the family after the fact, or to the 50,000-plus people after the fact. What I'm getting at is before it happens.

Let's face it, we have a new norm here. This is something that can be wonderful—I appreciate the economy of it—but there's also the downside of it. I would expect that you folks who are in the business would actually look at being proactive side so that it doesn't happen.

I understand that there are people who can go away to jail and all of that, after it happens—I get that—but let's not have it happen in the first place. Are there technologies, or is there encouragement to those technologies being developed, so that we can get ahead of this, versus having to react after the fact?

[S/Sgt David Domoney]

Sir, I think it's important to note that with the proliferation of UAVs in the airspace, this whole technology is relatively new, and it's expanding at a very large rate. Because the whole industry is so new, geofencing and detection technology is also very new. It's hard to put a timeline on when we will have a solution to that issue.

I can tell you that we are looking at countermeasure companies right now, and we're looking at the technology of that equipment. We are seeing a significant increase in what the technology can do. I am hopeful that in some time we will be able to have good detection and tracking of the UAVs.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie is next.

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

Following on Mr. Badawey's question of being able to keep these things out of places where they are not supposed to be, I guess, regrettably, the answer right now is no.

[S/Sgt David Domoney]

Some of the manufacturers of these aircraft are starting to put geofencing on their systems. An example of this is DJI, which is a Chinese company. Their UAVs, in the newest firmware upgrade, have a number of restricted airspaces in Canada that are already put into the program, so people who just buy this off the shelf wouldn't be able to fly in that area. Some companies are starting to do that.

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

Obviously the concern will be about the expert hacker who manages to reconfigure a unit to do things basically outside the law.

For Transport Canada, although the safety, security, and privacy piece is a concern, you're more interested in these things showing up at airports, bumping into people, and all the rest of it. Some of our earlier witnesses were talking about performance-based standards that will shape the regulation. Is that the path you're going down as well, in terms of your own thoughts on regulations?

[Aaron McCrorie]

The short answer is yes. We're looking at it. What we heard from the witnesses today was about performance-based design standards. We're very much looking at that. That's for the UAV itself.

Mark can elaborate on that.

[Mark Wuennenberg, General Flight Standards Inspector, Department of Transport]

The current regulations being proposed follow exactly that methodology. As an example, there is a design standard proposed for the construction of the aircraft itself, so that over higher-risk and complex areas it meets a higher standard of reliability.

The designs have been built on a performance-based standard. It doesn't dictate that you must do x; it says you have to come to this outcome. How you get there is up to you. We've taken that approach, and I believe it's similar, as our CTA representative mentioned at the meeting they held in the spring with the FAA, to their type of performance design standards as well.

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

What has been the quality of the liaison with the industry itself, the people who design and manufacture these drones? I think history is full of situations where some bright-eyed person creates something that goes bigger, higher, faster, farther, etc., and, as has been mentioned here, the technology can gallop ahead of you guys so quickly that keeping reasonable limits on it will be difficult. At the same time, you don't want to choke off innovation and cut off the good things that could happen.

As Vance has said, we don't want to be chasing this. I think we need to have co-operation and work very closely with the industry itself to make sure that those innovations, those developments, are happening in a somewhat manageable way.

Do we have that environment established right now, both from the law enforcement and the regulatory side?

[Laureen Kinney]

Perhaps I can start from the regulatory side.

I would say yes. There are very strong relationships, and have been for a number of years, as we've developed what we consider to be safety precautionary approaches and implemented them through the special flight operations certificates. That has been done in close consultation with the people using this technology. I've sat at a number of round tables and different discussions, conventions, etc. The industry is very aware that they have a lot of opportunity to do things, not just for economic purposes but to actually promote safety, and they are very concerned that it be handled responsibly. Of course, that doesn't cover every individual who may go awry, so that's why we need regulations.

I would add that it is not simply a division between risking safety for better economic opportunity. There are safety improvements with UAVs. A lot of low-level work that's currently being done by manned operations will be much safer if some of the more risky elements can be addressed by drones. A good example is in the provinces that have major forest firefighting endeavours. There is a lot of work over the next few years that they will be able to do better and with much less risk to humans, so there is a lot of safety benefit, not just a safety-economic trade-off.

[S/Sgt David Domoney]

I would also say yes to that.

We have liaised with Transport Canada, Nav Canada, and the National Research Council. We attend conferences and whatnot and deal with the manufacturers on a daily basis. I can tell you that some of the manufacturers have taken our recommendations and improved their system for the next generation. This is happening right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Berthold, go ahead.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to return to Ms. Kinney.

I have before me the Auditor General of Canada's report 4 on the oversight of passenger vehicle safety. I will get to the drones. You will see what I am getting at.

The office of the Auditor General makes several recommendations regarding the way Transport Canada met with the various stakeholders before it published passenger vehicle safety regulations and on the way it made collision risk predictions.

There is a new technology and draft regulations are being prepared for publication in the Canada Gazette. One of the criticisms of Transport Canada made in report 4 is the following:

Transport Canada frequently did not seek input from stakeholders other than manufacturers. This meant there was little opportunity for others to influence regulatory initiatives.

The following example is given:

We found that, when developing regulations in advance of publication in the Canada Gazette, Transport Canada generally did not consult with stakeholders such as consumer associations, safety advocacy groups, vehicle parts and equipment suppliers, the insurance industry, medical associations, and police.

There is a new technology and it concerns all Canadians. How will we proceed? In your comments, you said that you will publish something in the Canada Gazette in 2017. Have you made sure that all these groups will be consulted before these draft regulations are published in the Canada Gazette?

[Laureen Kinney]

In terms of the UAV regulations, maybe I can step very briefly through what we have done to date to address exactly that question.

These are regulations that will affect a very large and previously unregulated population, and a variety of groups have interests exactly as you are highlighting. When we were developing our initial approach with a risk-based strategy to see where the risks were and how to address those direct risks to the public, etc., what was put together, as Aaron McCrorie mentioned, was a notice of proposed amendment.

How do we see potentially approaching this? It was developed with a whole series of what the regulations could look like to address all these questions. In some areas, it actually included questions. There were issues such as the age limit for younger people to operate these devices. We wanted to hear from people about how they felt about this.

That process was public. It was disseminated broadly. There were meetings held across different provinces. There were discussions with provincial authorities and local law enforcement authorities throughout that process. There was a very wide attempt to gather the input on the structure of what we were thinking about. That is the stage that was referred to in the audit. It was before getting to Gazette part I consultations.

We've done that process. We think we've done a good job of that. There has been a lot of discussion, and the education and outreaches filled that in as well. Now, when we come forward with a draft regulation and publish that in Gazette part I, hopefully in the spring of 2017, as early as possible, we believe that this will have encompassed many of those conversations and all the disparate views.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

The way Transport Canada publishes its regulations is something new to me, you know. I still have a lot to learn. If I understand correctly, the publication of draft regulations in the Canada Gazette is the second consultation phase.

In a very short period of time, we have received a great many recommendations and suggestions from people who have important things to say about drones. To what extent have these people's input been considered thus far? Did you meet with representatives of the Union of Quebec Municipalities and of the Consumer Technology Association, who just appeared before us this morning?

It is possible to move quickly, but also, as you said and since it is new, it is also possible to do things properly and better than others. To that end, we need an overall picture of all aspects of the industry, including users. I think this is in a way what the Auditor General's report says.

Have you also heard the views of average citizens, people who are victims, airport boards, and citizens who are being spied on by their neighbour's drones, whose interests might be something other than photography?

[Aaron McCrorie]

Thank you for your question.

Again, the NPA that we produced is a very public moment to share, and we extended the timelines for consultation for that. I heard this morning, for example, on the need for registration and marking, knowledge requirements, and licensing. We've heard those ideas loud and clear, and they're well reflected in what we'll be proposing in our regulations.

The challenge we have is that there are new sectors. We've been pulling in the Canadian Real Estate Association, for example. They are not our traditional stakeholders, but we've been pulling them in and hearing from them. I think we've been very democratic, if you will, in terms of who we've heard from, and incorporating that feedback to get a balanced feedback. Ultimately it's to make sure that we have a safe system but that we also recognize the opportunities there as well.

[Laureen Kinney]

If I could just close on that, to go back to the process, normally the process, depending on the scale of the regulation, would have these preliminary consultations, which in this case were very large because of the special circumstances.

Then the next important phase is to publish in Gazette part I. The purpose of that is to provide, taking all that into account, what the actual regulations look like, so that people can then comment on a more concrete product, as opposed to ideas, which are always more of a challenge. Once it's published, then depending on the feedback we get, the determination of the period of time will be set in the regulation. Then, depending on the comments back, next steps would be taken. We could hopefully then move forward quickly, but with as good a package for Gazette part II.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Iacono.