Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 19 - Evidence - Meeting of Feburary 12, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, February 12, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1:03 p.m. to examine and report on Canada’s national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities (topics: kidnapping of Canadians abroad; emergency warning system); and in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Welcome to the National Security and Defence Committee. Before we begin, I would ask senators to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: I am Patrick Brazeau from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: This afternoon, under the auspices of our order of reference to examine and report on Canada’s national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities, we begin to hear evidence concerning kidnappings of Canadians abroad.
In this first session, which will last 90 minutes, we will hear from government departments and agencies involved when a Canadian is kidnapped. On this panel, we are pleased to welcome David Drake, Director General, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Intelligence Bureau from Global Affairs Canada; James Malizia, Assistant Commissioner, National Security and Protective Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Jeff Yaworski, Deputy Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service; and Shelly Bruce, Associate Chief, Communications Security Establishment. Welcome to you all.
Mr. Drake and Assistant Commissioner Malizia will now make some opening remarks, after which we’ll proceed with questions. Welcome to all of you.
[Translation]
David Drake, Director General, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Intelligence Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today. It is always a pleasure to be here. My name is David Drake, and I am Director General of the Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Intelligence Bureau at Global Affairs Canada. I have had direct responsibility for and operational oversight of Global Affairs Canada’s response to terrorist hostage takings involving Canadian citizens since 2014.
I am joined here today by my colleagues from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment. The Department of National Defence has also asked me to comment on its behalf.
I will make a few brief opening comments, following which I would be pleased to answer your questions. I will make every effort to be as open as possible and to answer your questions fully. However, cabinet confidence and classification of information may restrict what I am able to share.
More critically, I cannot reveal any information that could jeopardize current and future efforts and put the lives of hostages and others at risk.
If you will allow me a moment to focus on a matter of semantics, I would like to point out that the Government of Canada refers to the incidents under review today as hostage taking rather than kidnappings. This is consistent with the definition under the Canadian Criminal Code, which defines hostage taking as a situation in which a hostage taker holds someone against their will to induce a person, persons, state or international or intergovernmental organization to do something, such as pay a ransom, release prisoners or make a policy concession.
In my remarks today, I will speak first to the Government of Canada’s hostage response structure; second, its policy on the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups; and third, Global Affairs Canada’s role in supporting hostage families. I will then turn to my esteemed colleague, assistant commissioner James Malizia from the RCMP, an agency with which Global Affairs Canada works exceptionally closely on these matters, for his remarks.
My understanding is that the committee today is primarily interested in discussing terrorist hostage takings, which we term “international critical incidents.” This qualification is important as the Government of Canada’s response is driven by the nature of the incident.
Hostage taking is a tactic of choice of terrorist groups and individuals seeking to raise funds or obtain concessions from governments. Incidents are common in states where authorities do not have effective control or capabilities and in conflict zones.
Most Canadians kidnapped abroad are the victims of organized or individual crimes, or in some instances may be unlawfully detained by security authorities or militias in circumstances that resemble a hostage situation.
These kinds of cases are managed by my colleagues in the Consular Branch in Global Affairs. Terrorist hostage cases, however, are managed by a unit in the department called the Task Force on International Critical Incidents. This division of labour reflects the fact that terrorist hostage takings require a different tool kit as well as specialized expertise in skills because of their national security implications.
Of course, the distinction between criminal and terrorist is not always so clear cut. There are elements of terrorist hostage taking that require distinct support from consular, and there are some consular cases that require specialization of the critical incidents team, so we do work very closely together.
National security implications or not, the Government of Canada treats the safety and security of all Canadians as a matter of fundamental importance. Since 2005, the Government of Canada has responded to over 20 cases that qualify as terrorist hostage cases, either because a terrorist entity claimed responsibility or because a Canadian citizen was taken hostage in an area where the sale or trade to a terrorist group appeared imminent.
For a terrorist hostage case, Global Affairs Canada coordinates the interdepartmental task force, a whole-of-government response that draws on the combined efforts of diplomatic, law enforcement, intelligence and military spheres. This includes support from trained negotiators and investigators, intelligence gathering and assessment. My colleagues from the RCMP, CSIS and CSE who are here with me today are the best placed to speak to these activities.
The primary responsibility for the response to a hostage case lies with the country in which they were taken hostage. Therefore, the Government of Canada’s response also includes significant diplomatic efforts, which of course is led by my department.
In this regard, Canada works closely with foreign authorities and allies, at every level, to free Canadians and bring them home.
Global Affairs Canada also provides support to families for the duration of a hostage taking, and to victims once released to facilitate their return to Canada. I will return to this in a moment.
Canada’s approach to the management of these cases tracks very closely with our closest allies and partners, who also employ whole-of-government hostage response structures. When pursuing the safe release of a Canadian, the government always assesses all possible options. That being said, the Government of Canada will not disclose operational planning before, during, or after a case.
To do so would put the lives of future hostages and others at risk. As such, I am not in a position today to speak to any questions about military hostage rescue operations.
However, I can share, with considerable relief, that as of a short while ago, for the first time since 2007 we are not currently managing an active case. This could change at any moment.
I will next speak on policy. The Government of Canada’s policy against paying ransoms is long-standing. The Government of Canada is firm in its resolve to deny terrorists the resources they need to conduct attacks against Canada, its allies and its partners.
Furthermore, the payment of ransom creates greater incentive for terrorists to resort to hostage taking, increasing the risks for Canadians travelling and working abroad, and thereby would endanger the lives of millions of Canadians around the globe.
I will close by making a few comments on support for victims’ families. A hostage taking is a horrible and unimaginable ordeal for families and loved ones. Family engagement remains an essential part of our response to these situations. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Global Affairs Canada provide advice and support to hostage families over the course of a case, mindful of Canadian law and Canada’ international legal obligations.
Our family support officials strive to work as closely as they can with families to assist them during these trying ordeals. The RCMP’s role in this regard will be addressed by my colleague.
The Government of Canada constantly reviews its practices and procedures in complex cases such as these, with an eye to identifying areas for improvement. Recent efforts have included interviews with family members who received direct support from officials during a case, as well as consultations with close international partners and other experts on best practices in supporting hostage families.
Hostage takings are enormously complex, are all unique and therefore require highly varied responses. Nevertheless, we study each case in great detail to better understand the particularities and commonalties. We compare and discuss cases with our counterpart hostage response structures in like-minded countries. We meet and seek feedback from hostage families. Through these activities, we continuously add to our best practices. The Government of Canada is actively applying these lessons learned, on an ongoing basis, of course.
With your permission, I will now turn the floor to my colleague from the RCMP, Assistant Commissioner James Malizia.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Drake.
James Malizia, Assistant Commissioner, National Security and Protective Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear before this committee. The questions you are examining here are important to all of us and to Canadians.
I will be focusing my comments today on the law enforcement perspective, specifically the role of the RCMP in responding to Canadians taken hostage by terrorist organizations.
[Translation]
As Canada’s national police force, national security criminal investigations fall within the RCMP’s mandate. It is clearly stated in section 7 and section 83.01 of the Criminal Code that Canadian police and Canadian courts have a role to play whenever and wherever a Canadian is a victim or a perpetrator of terrorism.
While the RCMP has the primary investigative role, we are not alone in our response. As my colleague from Global Affairs Canada pointed out, we take a whole-of-government approach in responding to terrorist hostage takings of Canadians abroad.
[English]
Under the lead of Global Affairs, the RCMP works closely with our government partners to achieve our primary goal, which is to ensure the safe release of Canadians taken hostage abroad. Our secondary goal is to gather and document evidence that would permit, whenever possible, the laying of charges and a successful prosecution against the perpetrators of a hostage taking.
Criminal investigations of this nature are extremely complex and resource intensive. Hostage takings often occur in high-risk areas and in countries with a questionable human rights record. The RCMP is dependent on the host country and must adhere to their legal requirements, all the while trying to ensure the release of Canadian hostages as well as gather evidence that can be utilized in a Canadian prosecution.
Despite these challenges, Canada has had a recent success with the 2015 arrest of Ali Omar Ader after a five-year undercover operation for his role in the 2008 hostage taking of Amanda Lindhout in Somalia. This investigation continued long after Ms. Lindhout’s return to Canada. Mr. Ader was convicted in a Canadian court in 2017, and in the months to come, he will likely be sentenced to serve time in the Canadian penal system.
In June 2013, the RCMP laid criminal charges in absentia against Mokhtar Belmokhtar and Oumar Hamaha in relation to the hostage taking of two Canadian citizens, Robert Fowler and Louis Guay, along with their driver. In October 2013, at the request of the RCMP, an Interpol Red Notice was issued for both Belmokhtar and Hamaha. Hamaha was subsequently reported dead in 2015, and though Belmokhtar has been reported dead on several occasions, he is believed to be alive.
[Translation]
Both of these cases are important as they demonstrate to Canadians, our allies and those seeking to do harm to Canadians that our justice system extends beyond our borders and that we have the will and the skill to bring perpetrators to justice for such acts of terrorism. We also have the patience and commitment to continue such investigations despite the fact that they may take years — even decades — to bring to fruition.
While these investigations are challenging for the families and victims of terrorist hostage takings, in this regard, the RCMP supports the victims of these crimes through its Family Liaison Officer program, which works in concert with Global Affairs Canada. Their role is to ensure the families of the victims are as well informed as possible of the efforts undertaken to secure the release of their loved ones.
[English]
The family liaison officers also assist the families of victims through the investigative stages that will be undertaken, including but not limited to the collection of physical or other evidence that may be needed to advance the investigation and to support a prosecution.
The needs of the families are complex, as they are victims of crime as well. The families must make complex decisions that not only may determine the fate of their loved ones but also could have a long-term personal and financial consequence for themselves. The RCMP continues to listen to victims and their families in order to improve and to continue to learn from their experiences.
I want to close by reiterating our commitment to both hostages and their families. As police officers, we naturally want to see victims safe and criminals convicted, but we recognize that these situations are extremely complex. Each department and agency represented here today has a role to play. We will continue to work with our partners to do everything we can to ensure the safe return of a hostage, to bring perpetrators to justice and to support their families as they manage a situation that would be unimaginable to most people.
Thank you again for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I’d like to thank our witnesses. My first question is for Mr. Malizia or Mr. Yaworski. I don’t want to go into the details of the Boyle case. Mr. Boyle was kidnapped and held in Afghanistan for five years before his return to Canada. Mr. Boyle met the Prime Minister in his office, where there was a photo op. When people meet with the Prime Minister, do they have to go through a special security screening process? Is the Prime Minister’s protection detail advised if a person that the Prime Minister is about to meet is under police investigation?
Mr. Malizia: Thank you for your question, Senator Dagenais. I cannot discuss specific cases, but we do have a process in place to carry out checks when individuals meet people that we are protecting, like, in this case, the Prime Minister. Requests are submitted to our office to carry out checks of certain information.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Yaworski, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Jeff Yaworski, Deputy Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Yes. I would say, similar to Mr. Malizia’s response, when we become aware of visits of that nature, certainly with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Office, we often proactively provide any information that we may have. If there are any concerns, we also respond directly to any questions that come to us.
Again, I can’t speak on the specifics of Mr. Boyle’s case, but that is generally how things work.
If we have something significant, we will share it proactively. If questions are asked of us, we will respond accordingly.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have a question for Mr. Drake. You said that the government did not give in to ransom demands. However, we know that some private agencies protect CEOs or lobbyists that travel to at-risk countries. On occasion, these people are kidnapped and these private agencies negotiate with the terrorists, which means that they may negotiate ransoms. Have such events been brought to your attention, and, if so, do you cooperate with these non-political organizations?
[English]
Mr. Drake: With your permission, I’ll respond in English simply because the jargon is in English.
First of all, what you’re referring to is a very specific set of possibilities. The Canadian government’s position, which is also that of the G7, is clear, that we will not pay ransom or be involved in any kind of concession, political or otherwise. In most cases, in a pure kidnapping, you may have a private firm which would be involved. If it’s a pure kidnapping, or it does not involve terrorists, it is unlikely to involve us, although generally we will watch it. In most cases, they don’t want the government involved because it complicates matters.
If there was a situation where there was both private company work involved and a terrorist nexus, we would certainly work with that private company. But in the end, the Canadian government will maintain its position about paying ransom, and that’s very clear.
Senator Oh: Thank you, gentlemen. When Canadian authorities are notified that a Canadian has been kidnapped abroad, what steps are taken by the various Canadian departments and agencies between the time of the notification and the return of the nationals to Canadian soil?
Second, is the process different if the kidnapped nationals have dual citizenship? A lot of Canadians have dual citizenship. If so, how do we handle this situation?
Mr. Yaworski: For CSIS, in accordance with our mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada and provide advice to government, we provide intelligence support to any kidnapping. It applies to hostage cases and applies equally to a Canadian citizen versus a dual Canadian and some other nationality.
It’s important that timely collection, analysis and dissemination of our information and intelligence gets to the right people to inform key stakeholders and decision makers. We can provide expert insight into the group’s ideology, its motivations, its areas of operations, its connections to perhaps other terrorist groups in the area. We also share and receive information from foreign partners. In accordance with section 17(1)(b) of our CSIS Act, we have established bilateral relationships with these partners. This allows us to gain access to information that would not otherwise be available to the Government of Canada. We naturally share that information as well.
Currently we have over 300 relationships with foreign entities in about 150 countries. Each of these relationships is approved by the Minister of Public Safety, with the support of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. So that is writ large the role of the service in support of such hostage takings. As I said, there’s no distinction between a Canadian citizen or a dual Canadian national.
Mr. Malizia: Senator, from the time that a Canadian or dual is kidnapped, one of the first things we will do is liaise with the host country in question through our liaison officers who are deployed abroad. This will also, of course, require immediate coordination with our colleagues from Global Affairs Canada, CSIS and CSE to determine and get an idea of the type of information we have available in order to start assessing. It also puts into play our national security remit, which is located in headquarters. We start looking to identify whether the hostage takers have family in Canada.
At that point we will work with Global Affairs to basically bring on board our family liaison officers. Our Family Liaison Officer program is specific to provide support, of course, to the families of those taken hostage and start through the process — because your question was right to the return. We’ll work with those families.
We’ve recently split the duties of a family liaison officer, based on recent past experiences. We’ll have a family liaison officer who will focus on identifying either a spouse or a family member who is nominated by the family as the main interlocutor. We will work and, of course, train them in crisis negotiation and counsel them as best we can. We’ll look to provide victims support where it is required. We’ll also identify an investigative liaison officer. An investigative liaison officer will be there throughout the hostage taking to ensure that the family has a touch point should they require any information on the investigative side so that we could, of course, continue and keep that contact.
There are parallel tracks that obviously will run, and one is the coordination, the support, and then, on the other hand, there’s the investigative piece that, although it runs parallel, doesn’t conflict but works in concert. Of course, our primary goal is the safe release of the hostages. That’s really our primary goal in supporting the families as best we can through it.
It’s a bit of a Reader’s Digest shortened version, but that really is a summary of what we do.
Mr. Drake: I really don’t have much more to add, except that, of course, what Assistant Commissioner Malizia has just described from the RCMP perspective is done in extremely close team work with my colleagues at Global Affairs. We have specialized people who work on these things, from the moment of notifying families, to working with the families, right through to release. We work in absolute lockstep and hand in glove with the RCMP and dividing our responsibilities. Some issues are more on the law enforcement side, some are a bit softer and we cover them on our side, but it’s a complete focus from the moment that we’re notified to the moment where the case comes to an end one way or the other.
Senator Oh: So what happens if a family member or someone approaches the country where he immigrated from, the country of origin, to help? Does that complicate the issue?
Mr. Drake: Of course it complicates the issue. These are complicated issues to start with. We immediately deconflict with the country. Once again, as I think both Assistant Commissioner Malizia and I pointed out, the primary responsibility for the hostages in a foreign country is the responsibility of the government of that country. That involves the foreign ministry, the law enforcement agencies and other parts of their government. So immediately we will deconflict at all levels. Sometimes this is easier than others, depending on the circumstances. If there’s a war going on in the area, a conflict or whatever, that can be more difficult.
Of course, there’s a full-court press into all levels and all relevant parts of the country. There’s always a bit of an exploration process too. Sometimes the group you think might be the lead actually isn’t the lead, or the people who say they are the lead aren’t really the lead. There’s a lot one has to discover right from the outset, and this is ongoing.
I would be remiss if I didn’t stress once again that we make no difference whatsoever between Canadians who only have Canadian nationality and people who have dual nationality.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations. My question is a follow-up to Senator Dagenais’ first question.
Again, without getting into the specifics of the Boyle case or of any case, is it conceivable that an individual could have been held captive by a terrorist organization for many years and that information not shared with the Prime Minister’s protection detail or with the Prime Minister’s Office prior to a meeting with that individual? Mr. Malizia or Mr. Yaworski, could we hear from you, please?
Mr. Malizia: Thank you, senator, for your question. As I mentioned earlier, there are processes in place to ensure that, if a request comes in, verifications are made before any type of meeting takes place. Really, I can’t comment on any specific case per se. However, the process is in place to ensure that that can happen.
Senator McIntyre: Once again, is it conceivable that that information not be shared with the Prime Minister’s protection detail or with the Prime Minister’s Office prior to him meeting with a certain individual? Is it conceivable?
Mr. Malizia: So to your question, senator, if the information does not make it to us for us to make the checks, then at that time, of course, we wouldn’t be in a position to advise.
Senator McIntyre: You would not be in a position to advise?
Mr. Malizia: Correct.
Senator McIntyre: I understand. Thank you for your answer.
Senator Brazeau: I have a supplementary on that. Are you saying that information may or may not get to the Prime Minister’s Office in a case like this, and it would depend on getting a request from the Prime Minister’s Office to get that information?
Mr. Malizia: Any request that would come in for a verification would be within the said process. I’m not speaking about any specific case, just that there’s a process that exists. At that time those verifications would be made. Does that answer your question?
Senator Brazeau: So to be quite blunt, if you do not receive such a request from the Prime Minister’s Office or anybody around the Prime Minister for such a meeting that took place — but let’s not get into the specifics — then does the RCMP, for example, offer pertinent and important information, even though it has not been requested?
Mr. Malizia: Absolutely. If we’re aware that a meeting is to take place and we’re aware of the individual, yes, we would proactively do that, and in our own interests as well, because we are responsible for the protection of the Prime Minister. So, yes, we would do that proactively as well. But in the case of the actual process of the request coming in, usually it would be a request that would come in. We do have instances when, if we’re aware that a meeting would occur with someone, yes, we would in some cases do some proactive checks as well.
Mr. Yaworski: If I can add in response to Senator Dagenais, I did indicate if we have any information of concern on any individual with a meeting with the Prime Minister’s Office we would reach out proactively — again, not speaking on the specifics of any characters. That’s natural for us. We wouldn’t wait for a request. We would provide any information of concern that we might have in advance.
Senator McPhedran: Thanks for being here. My question is related to scenarios where a Canadian is taken hostage, but the Canadian is perhaps part of or with one or more foreign nationals from another country. Does that change our approach at all? If it does, could we know a bit more about that?
I had a second part to my question, which is this: When a Canadian is taken hostage, is there a different way of responding, depending on the circumstances, or is it all the same?
Mr. Yaworski: Certainly from our perspective, there are differences to when the case is strictly a Canadian citizen versus other nationalities. I think Mr. Drake can speak to some of the nuances of that. From our perspective, we will likely have relationships with other countries’ intelligence services. We would cooperate on leveraging each other’s access, perhaps developing new access, working collaboratively with those individuals to secure their release, however possible. In terms of our actual collection of intelligence, there’s not much difference between one individual, a number of Canadians or a mix of Canadians and other foreign nationals.
Mr. Malizia: Each case is quite unique and different, depending upon the location of the individual, the agencies that we are dealing with, as well as the composition or the location of the families. They may not be in Canada. The families may be located in other countries. Each case has been very different, one from the other, as we’ve experienced them. It’s very important for us to understand early on what those differences are by consulting with family members. Basically, with every case we have to custom fit an approach and a response to what would work best for that family and that situation. As my colleagues have mentioned, it is very complex, because there are a lot of moving parts. Although we’re in Canada, there are other agencies in the host country that we’re coordinating with. In some cases we’re able to coordinate with them effectively. In other cases it’s a bit more difficult. Things don’t always go to plan or the way that we would hope they would go because they are not in our control. We continue to learn lessons from every case because they’re so unique, but it’s important for us to understand at the front end what those intricacies are.
Mr. Drake: Much has already been said, but the key point, as has been clearly stated, is that every case is different and we need to take the specificity of the case from the outside.
In terms of cases where there are multiple foreign nationals, this is something we’ve dealt with on a variety of occasions. Immediately, of course, we will work very closely with those other countries. In some cases, for example if Canada has more capacity in that area, we may actually represent their interests, at least at the beginning, until they can join up in a more focused way, depending on the part of the world. We’ve done that. In some cases it’s the reverse. If they have more presence in that country, they may be able to help us from the very beginning.
When you have these cases — and, again, we’ve had multiple cases of this sort — it’s a question of very close operational relationships with our colleagues from those countries. As has been said, sometimes it’s easier than other times. For the most part, these have been nationals of Western countries with which we have established relationships across the board, namely, on the intelligence, law enforcement and diplomatic sides. So that’s easier, but it certainly is something we have a lot of experience with. It just makes it more complex, but it’s not unknown to us at all.
Senator McPhedran: Have you seen a situation that started out as a Canadian being taken hostage and then it became clear that the Canadian was actually being detained or jailed by a government?
Mr. Drake: This is an interesting question. I can think of situations where the Canadian was in an area that was not controlled by the government — perhaps by a terrorist group — but we were not clear on whether or not they were actually being held for ransom or for any other purpose. But regarding the other way around, I can’t think of anything offhand, quite frankly.
The Chair: If I can have a supplementary around your specifics and not referring to a case, I’ll use a country like Mali, where there’s a large French presence at the moment. That would be an example where you may not have the direct connection yourself but you may use your connections through the French authorities to be able to do the work that you need to do. Would that be a good example?
Mr. Drake: Actually, no. We have a very strong capacity in Mali.
The Chair: Can you give me some examples?
Mr. Drake: This is won’t be a case, but let me give you an example. To take up the French example, Canada has no full-time presence in the Central African Republic, where there’s a lot of civil unrest at this particular point in time. While we have an accredited embassy, we would look first and foremost to the large French presence there, maybe the United Nations in some cases — that is, if there’s a peacekeeping operation — to get that first response, to get a sense of what’s happening on the ground, particularly if we’re not there. Of course, we will catch up, but that might be a better example. Mali might not be the best example.
Mr. Malizia: Madam Chair, yes, we would work through other agencies, particularly through the Five Eyes, but beyond, and be able to utilize their assets or capabilities in areas where we would not necessarily have them. That would certainly be something that we would look to engage in very early on.
Mr. Yaworski: From a service perspective it’s much the same case as the RCMP. While we have a number of intelligence officers posted in a number of countries around the world, we don’t cover the globe. We will often try to deploy officers in theatre as soon as possible, and we will leverage the capabilities of allied services within that theatre of operations. That’s a standard protocol. It’s something we do on a regular basis. And as Mr. Drake indicated, if we have a better capability than someone else in a certain area and their citizen is captured, we would do the same thing to help them.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: I’d like to come back to the actions that you take during a hostage taking or kidnapping. Do you have a plan or guide that indicates what to do? Who does what when you become aware that there has been a hostage taking? I’d like to get a concrete example.
Mr. Malizia: Senator, we have an extraterritorial response unit dedicated to this. The team follows policies or standard operating procedures, which we regularly revise and update. We draw lessons from each individual case. As I mentioned earlier, we recently created an additional liaison officer specifically for investigations. We split the duties of the family liaison officer. We found that this was necessary given that we have moved from family liaison to what we call family management. It is a broader concept now. We recognize that there are needs for mental health support, among others. So yes, we have a plan for this flexible unit, which is deployed when an event occurs. This team is composed of very experienced members from our various teams throughout the country. As you know, we have Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams, or INSETs, and we seek out people according to our operational or hostage-taking requirements. That is the core group with which our deployment begins.
Mr. Drake: On our side, it is almost the same thing. We have standard operating procedures. Our staff is very experienced and works closely with the entire community government-wide. These standard operating procedures are developed with our staff, but mainly with the RCMP.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you. I understand that these questions are very complex and very difficult. If you have general information on every stage of the response, right from the get-go — without going into the details, of course — we would greatly appreciate your sending it to us through the committee clerk.
[English]
Mr. Drake: If I may come back to something I said earlier, we are very focused on trying to make sure that we do nothing, ever, that might possibly put at risk the life of a hostage or increase the value of a hostage. My concern is that if we release this sort of detail and it becomes public, then it’s clearer to those who are watching us, and they are watching us, what the value of the hostage actually is. We are very careful about this. And while I wouldn’t want to say no straight out, I think you would understand that we need to take this under advisement and look very carefully because we would not want to break our solemn vow towards the people who may be taken hostage by giving away important operational information which could lead to affecting them in a negative way.
Madam Chair, perhaps we can get back to you with a response to your question, which may be no, but if I may, perhaps we can compare notes with the RCMP and see whether there are parts we can share with you and so forth.
Senator Brazeau: That would be appreciated because obviously my intention in asking the question is never to jeopardize any current or future cases, but simply to have any information that you can share, and if you can do so that would be appreciated.
Senator Richards: I believe my question has been answered. I was just going to ask what you do in those many countries where your influence is limited. I think you answered that in the last 15 minutes.
Statistically, I’ll just ask this: Most of the hostage taking is probably done in countries where your influence is somewhat limited, would you think? Statistically the greater amount would occur in those countries, and you would need maybe a third party to help you out?
Mr. Yaworski: I think that’s a fair comment to make. But, as I indicated, it’s likely that we would still have a relationship of some kind with this country, and we would deploy officers as required into that theatre.
We’ve talked a lot about why hostage taking occurs with respect to being economically driven. It’s also important to recognize that some of these groups take hostages to support some sort of ideological narrative or simply to spread fear, or even, in the case of Daesh, to produce propaganda. You’ve all seen those beheading videos and the horror that brings.
While we’ve been dwelling here on the economic driver to finance their operations, there are other things that come into play and that’s certainly the case in some of these other parts of the world. It’s not always economics.
Senator Richards: Just to add, it was a clandestine Swiss man and a Nigerian lawyer who happened to get the young girls out of captivity, wasn’t it, in the last month or so? In the case of the schoolgirls they rescued, the third country operative was a Swiss, I think.
Senator McIntyre: I had a follow-up to my first question, gentlemen. I simply would like to go back to that first question regarding information of concern to be shared with the PMO. You have indicated that information of concern is proactively shared with the PMO if an individual of concern is to meet with the PM. That said, would an individual who is under “police investigation” meet that standard of concern, and how high would that reach as an issue of concern?
Mr. Malizia: There are a couple of things here. It would depend on whether the RCMP was the investigating agency. It would depend on the type of crime. If a police of jurisdiction is investigating someone, and that individual is not necessarily in CPIC or any other database, it’s possible that we may not be aware of it if we’re not the police of jurisdiction. Then I guess it would depend on what type of criminal activity we’re talking about as well.
Senator McIntyre: But if we have a series of charges eventually laid against that individual, ranging anywhere from 10 to 15 charges, don’t you think that would fall under police investigation?
Mr. Malizia: Senator, I know you’re getting into a specific case. However, I can’t speak about specific cases. I think it’s important for me to say to the committee that if we are aware of information of concern, we will proactively act on it. As well, if there’s ever information that’s held by other government agencies or the PMO, that’s always shared with us, so we’re able to make the appropriate checks at that time.
Senator McIntyre: Canada’s official policy is to never pay ransom. That said, has Canada ever paid ransoms indirectly, either through a foreign government or by some other means? If you can answer that question, Mr. Drake.
Mr. Drake: Thank you. The position of the Government of Canada is not to pay ransom. It’s a long-standing position. It’s also that of the G7. Certainly in terms of indirect ransom, this is not something which we would countenance. If you’re asking about whether we have ever paid ransom directly or indirectly, I have no first-hand knowledge of this, and certainly it is my understanding that we have never paid a ransom either directly or indirectly. That’s all I can say.
Senator McIntyre: We know that some insurance companies provide kidnap and ransom insurance coverage. So my question is this: To what extent do the various Canadian departments and agencies dealing with the kidnapping of Canadians abroad collaborate with those insurance companies, particularly with regard to the exchange of information?
Mr. Malizia: Thank you, senator. In fact, our primary focus is the safe release of our hostages. If there is anything that we can do during a hostage taking that could assist or provide a level of comfort for agencies or companies that they won’t be prosecuted or pursued with respect to a criminal investigation, we have done that in the past. We’ve provided comfort letters. So wherever we can collaborate, we do, and there is an exchange of information that will happen around those issues.
The Chair: Before I move to round two, I’m wondering if I can ask a question more in generalities about the type of people. So we hear, obviously, journalists, as Senator McIntyre said, sometimes people working within a company within a particular country. Are there any sort of patterns you could share with us in terms of vulnerability or higher likelihood than others? If the answer to that is “yes, generally,” is there a trend that has shifted one way or the other in the last while?
Mr. Malizia: We’ve not seen a trend per se. Maybe my colleagues have a different outlook on it. What we’ve seen is they are crimes of opportunity. So, depending on where the individuals are, and in some cases even if they do have a security detail, again, depending upon who the assailants are, if they feel they have a tactical advantage. There are all kinds of factors around geography, location, timing and information flow within that country that will unfortunately cause someone to be kidnapped. So we’ve not seen anything specific. It involves a range of victims. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, journalists and aid workers. It’s really a mix of individuals. At the end of the day, the organizations are looking for citizenship, not necessarily someone who is from a Western country more so than a specific group or employment.
The Chair: Anyone else?
Mr. Yaworski: I would echo those comments. Generally, but not exclusively, it is a target of opportunity, and terrorist groups don’t like to take casualties. So if there’s an additional amount of security around that detail, unless it’s a targeted hostage taking specific to that one individual, they will generally look to less confrontational opportunities, whether that’s an individual employed by a company where the security is lower, a backpacker going through the region, anything of that nature is an easier, softer target than would be a diplomatic convoy with security detail attached to it.
Mr. Drake: Thank you. I absolutely agree with what’s been said. I think it’s very hard to establish a pattern, although I would raise one issue, and that is the matter of location. There are clearly some areas of the world which are highly ungoverned, where there is a clear pattern of either civil unrest or terrorism. From the government’s perspective, we try very hard to indicate, through our travel advisories, even down to specific areas, about where people should and should not go. Unfortunately, many of these have taken place — not all, by any means — but have taken place in areas where the government has clearly said Canadians should not be travelling, and that is an ongoing struggle, obviously. But then again, it’s not systematic, by any means.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll move to second round.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Yaworski. I understand that you cannot tell us the details of the Boyle case, but I’d like to know what kind of file is compiled when an individual is held by a terrorist group abroad for a period of five years.
I imagine that a considerable amount of information is gathered about this individual. In such a case, do you open a specific file? Do you look into the individual’s background to understand the reasons why they were kidnapped?
A five-year detention period is a very long one. During that time, do you create a file containing the latest information about the kidnapped individual? I am not speaking about Mr. Boyle specifically, but about any individual who is kidnapped and held.
[English]
Mr. Yaworski: I understand. You haven’t been talking about Mr. Boyle for a long time now. I do appreciate the question. Generally, in any kidnapping case, in any hostage-taking case, we want to know as much information about the individual who is being detained as we possibly can. We want to know information on his current whereabouts. We want proof of life. So we do assign and deploy sources to the region if we can. We try to get whatever technical coverage these folks may be able to provide so that we can build a profile of the hostage takers more so than the individual who is detained. But certainly everything we can find out about the individual and how that individual came to be a hostage is important to us.
Similarly, after a release, we would be very interested in debriefing the individual on his or her experience, what happened during the course of that, and any intelligence of value. The RCMP, I’m sure, will speak to the fact that they’re collecting evidence at that point for ultimate prosecutions. As you’ve heard, these investigations go on for many years.
In terms of the individual who is taken captive, if we know anything about them prior to that incident, obviously that’s relevant, but more of it is obtained through coverage that we’re able to obtain during the kidnapping and then in a debrief after the fact.
So we are interested in those individuals, and as I said, everything we can learn about them is important to help facilitate a positive outcome for that individual.
Shelly Bruce, Associate Chief, Communications Security Establishment: Senator, I know your question was addressed to Mr. Yaworski, but this is a good time to mention, as my colleagues have all indicated, we each come to these problems as a team, and we have our own mandates, authorities, capabilities and expertise.
In the case of CSE, the Communications Security Establishment, we have a mandate to collect foreign intelligence against individuals outside of Canada that are linked to high-priority government requirements, including hostage-taking situations. In this case, CSE is very well placed to use its intelligence-gathering techniques, intercepting the communications of foreign targets who are associated with the case, the hostage takers, for example, to really understand the conditions, the circumstances, their intentions, motivations and their own capabilities regarding the specific hostage taking. This is a case where CSE’s mandate is customized for this purpose, and we do work together with CSIS and the RCMP to make sure we’re not duplicating capabilities, but we’re bringing unique information so that the people at Global Affairs and the RCMP can have more information upon which to base their decisions.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have a last, very brief, question for Mr. Drake. I would like to return to the subject of the private agencies that provide security services. Do you ever work with private agencies that provide protection services to Canadians, specifically when they travel to high-risk countries?
Mr. Drake: The answer is yes. It all depends on the situation, the circumstances, the particular case and the moment that’s been chosen. We may work with them at the beginning, but they may withdraw towards the end. If it is an attack by terrorists, the government will direct all operations, not the company in charge of the file, whether that be an insurance company or a security company. We take the lead. We give the orders. The RCMP decides how things will be done, in accordance with police procedure.
As Assistant Commissioner Malizia just mentioned, we work with any involved party that can be of assistance on the file. However, in cases of terrorism, the government will lead the operations. I hope I have made myself clear.
Senator McIntyre: I would like to follow up on Senator Dagenais’s question, for clarification. In cases where the family or the employer of a Canadian kidnapped in a foreign country wishes to pay a ransom to a criminal group or a person having no terrorism ties, would the government become involved? If it is a case of terrorism, I understand that the Canadian government will become involved. However, if there is no terrorism, what happens?
Mr. Malizia: As you know, families may, if they so wish, work with agencies or private companies to collect the money that is sometimes necessary when negotiating with kidnappers, if they wish to go down that road. That decision will be made by the family. We do not provide that kind of advice. Should they wish to work with an agency and pay a ransom, we will not become involved. However, we do continue to advise the family members that were identified as negotiators in order to help them understand the risks involved in such a decision. We do play that role, because the main goal, first and foremost, is for the hostage to be freed and returned home safe and sound. We do see such situations from time to time. In those cases, we do not hesitate to advise the family and any other person involved.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your answer, Mr. Malizia. Naturally, we must be vigilant, because under the Criminal Code, any person who paid a ransom to a terrorist group could be subject to criminal prosecution.
People who pay a ransom to non-terrorist groups have to walk on eggshells. Is it legal or illegal? It is very important for these people to contact Canada’s law enforcement agencies and the Canadian government.
Mr. Malizia: I can tell you that the RCMP does not believe it is in the public interest to conduct an investigation or lay charges. This is why we advise families that we will not be pursuing a criminal investigation should they choose to go down that road.
[English]
Mr. Drake: If I may just add, our consular colleagues deal with about 15 to 16 criminal kidnappings per year not connected with terrorism; so it’s a much higher level. As I mentioned, we’ve had 20 over the last many years.
In most cases, it’s very transactional. The kidnappers want an immediate payback. Generally, the amount of money involved is not outrageous, and they want a quick turnaround. There is not a lot of time to discuss. The kidnappers, in most cases, are just trying to get rid — in many cases, it’s just a known pattern. There are certain countries where this happens very often, and there is an established pattern. Occasionally things go wrong, but generally people want to respond and get that over with as soon as possible. In many cases, they won’t contact the Canadian government. In some cases, they believe it will complicate things, or, as I mentioned before, even increase the perceived value of the hostage.
It really comes down to the individual circumstances, but as Assistant Commissioner Malizia has explained the police perspective on this, I think, from a practical perspective, in most cases, with non-terrorists, most people want to move quickly and get it done as soon as possible in the fashion which appears to be the pattern in that area. It is very transactional. Thank you.
The Chair: I think the assistant commissioner may have made reference to this earlier — and if I’m wrong, please correct me — what about in the cases where a hostage may be taken by a loose criminal group and then passed on to a terrorist body? How and at what point do you engage?
Mr. Malizia: Madam Chair, that is, in fact, a reality in certain parts of the world. A transaction will occur between a criminal group that may receive a certain amount of compensation for that hostage, or favour, and hand them over to a terrorist organization. Of course, it is at that time that this apparatus, my colleagues led by Global Affairs, will immediately become activated. It’s something that we’ve seen and that happens.
The Chair: You would only activate at the point where the individual may be handed over to the terrorist group?
Mr. Malizia: Not necessarily. Depending on the country, as you know, we have our liaison officers abroad. So even in organized crime or a criminal gang, if our liaison officers will be involved liaising with local authorities, there will be work that’s being done on that side.
The Chair: So it’s a question more of level of engagement?
Mr. Malizia: That’s right.
Mr. Drake: If I may add, as Assistant Commissioner Malizia said, we’ve actually dealt with these situations before. The way it works from the outset is that, first of all, we try to get a bead on who’s got them. And if it appears that this is a gang which is known or is in an area where it’s likely that the Canadian or others will be, as the expression goes, “sold up,” we will deal with that almost immediately based on consultations, but that will almost immediately go to being treated as a terrorist incident, with all the specialized assistance that comes with that.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other questions, senators?
Senator Brazeau: Just one final question. Nothing specific to Mr. Boyle, but would it be conceivable that perhaps any of your departments sent out some information regarding an individual, perhaps red flags, and perhaps that information or recommendations fell on deaf ears? Would that be possible?
Mr. Malizia: Well, I can’t say that I’m aware of a case where that’s occurred. Usually our advice is well taken, especially from a security perspective, and we’re able to deal with each situation effectively from that point on.
Senator Brazeau: Again, hypothetically, and I can be corrected on some of my dates, but we had Minister Freeland in October 2017 essentially saying she was relieved Mr. Boyle had been released. Fast forward to two months after that, December 19, when the alleged meeting took place between the Prime Minister and Mr. Boyle, and then after that meeting between the two of them, basically two weeks later, we had over a dozen charges laid against this individual.
Having said that, is it conceivable that an investigation started on these charges — so a dozen more or so of these charges — after the meeting of December 19 between the Prime Minister and this individual?
Mr. Malizia: Senator, I realize we’re not talking about any specific case.
Senator Brazeau: Absolutely not.
Mr. Malizia: When we look at each case, and let’s not take this case but any other case, would it be possible that a police investigation would have been initiated after that? Yes, absolutely, it is possible. It just depends, at the end of the day.
Senator Brazeau: Case by case?
Mr. Malizia: It is case by case.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you.
Senator Richards: The PMO’s office talked about the rehabilitation of ISIS fighters. Does that put you guys in moral limbo about laying charges for any serious crimes some of them might have committed when they return to Canada?
Mr. Malizia: Thank you, senator. So really, we have three buckets of effort that occur. We have prevention, investigation and response.
Our investigations, of course, are pursued on individuals who we believe are suspected of being part of a terrorist organization. Notwithstanding that, it would not have an impact on our criminal investigation whatsoever. We would continue to pursue it, unless, of course, during our criminal investigation we identify individuals, maybe teenagers who have been radicalized and who have decided to travel abroad, and we’ve been able to intercept and have them returned. They would be good candidates, certainly, to go into a program. There may be others as well.
It’s a very complex issue because with the issue of radicalization to violence, there is no set piece. One person may take a year to radicalize to violence; someone else may take five years; and someone else may take four months. It’s a very difficult and complex issue.
But with that said, there are individuals we need to invest in and make the effort where we can prevent them from becoming further radicalized towards violence. If we can interdict them early enough and get them into programs, there’s at least a possibility. Whether it works or not will still depend on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Yaworski: I can add from a service perspective, and I’m sure the committee is well aware, we are quite interested in so-called foreign fighters. We’ve mentioned before at this committee and others that the numbers are still around 190 Canadians or those with a nexus to Canada who have travelled overseas. About half of those are in the Iraq-Syria-Turkey theatre. A minority of those foreign fighters still remaining in Syria and Iraq will attempt to return. I think more will die in theatre, either in combat or if they’re caught deserting. I think there are others who will be detained trying to leave.
So I think we are more than likely to get advance knowledge of those individuals returning. There’s always the possibility they will use fraudulent documents when they travel, but we have ensured that those we are aware of are on lookout lists. If they’ve lost or destroyed their passports, they will have to enter a Canadian mission and get temporary travel documents to support.
We’re confident that we will have advance knowledge about those who do make their way back to Canada, and we’ll certainly be able to prepare for their arrival.
The Chair: I think that ends our questions of this panel. Let me take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to all of you for taking the time to be here and sharing your perspective with us. It’s very much appreciated.
In our second and third panels we will turn our attention to the issue of the emergency alert system.
We are pleased to welcome, appearing on behalf of Public Safety Canada, Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Programs; Martin Joyal, Senior Director, Policy and Outreach Directorate. And from Environment and Climate Change Canada, we welcome Ken Macdonald, Executive Director, Meteorological Services of Canada.
Mr. Tanguy, we invite you to make any opening remarks you may have, after which we will proceed with questions. Welcome.
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Programs, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, let me begin by thanking the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for giving Public Safety Canada, along with my colleague from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the opportunity to provide further information on Canada’s National Public Alerting System, NPAS, or as it is publicly known, Alert Ready.
Personally, this is the first time I’m appearing before a Senate committee. Please be indulgent.
I understand this committee has already heard from the CRTC and Pelmorex regarding their roles in public alerting in Canada.
With that in mind, I would like to focus my introductory comments on the role of Public Safety Canada, which is coordinating emergency management, and how that relates to key partners, in particular provincial and territorial governments.
First and foremost, one of Public Safety Canada’s top priorities is to ensure the safety and security of Canadians, as outlined in the federal Emergency Management Act. The minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities.
[Translation]
Part of building safe and resilient communities is the implementation of measures to warn Canadians about threats of imminent danger — a critical component of a comprehensive emergency management system.
Canada’s National Public Alerting System, or NPAS, is a federal-provincial-territorial initiative that provides emergency management organizations throughout Canada with a standard alerting capability to warn the public of imminent or unfolding hazards to life.
It complements existing public alerting systems and tools in a number of federal-provincial-territorial jurisdictions. That is why we call it a “system of systems.”
Recognizing that emergency management is a shared responsibility across all levels of government, Public Safety Canada works closely with provinces and territories through the senior officials responsible for emergency management, or SOREMs, to harmonize and improve emergency practices across the country, including setting direction and national-level policy for the NPAS.
[English]
Through SOREM and its dedicated Public Alerting Working Group, we come together as an FPT community to seek consensus on the critical, national-level public safety aspects of the NPAS and to foster collaboration with our numerous and growing number of private sector partners.
For example, government officials developed and agreed on a specific list of the types of alerts that are considered a threat to life and should be distributed immediately. These emergency alerts, known as “broadcast immediate,” have the highest level of severity, urgency and certainty.
Ultimately, however, primary jurisdiction for on-the-ground emergency management resides with the provinces and territories, who prepare for and respond to emergencies in their own jurisdictions and communities. To do so, it is the provinces and territories who determine if and when to warn the public of threats in an affected geographic region.
[Translation]
While efforts are made to harmonize, the mechanisms by which an alert is issued can differ from one jurisdiction to the next. For example, Alberta and Saskatchewan operate a decentralized system in which municipalities and local emergency management entities are given the authority to issue alerts. The province retains ultimate alert responsibility and supports the municipal partners with specialists who can work to ensure a comprehensive, complete and concise message is delivered with each alert.
Others, like British Columbia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have decided to maintain alerting authority at the provincial level, and not delegate further. Federally, Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, also uses the NPAS to emit alerts, issuing over 15,000 alerts a year covering over 50 types of hazardous events including weather phenomena such as air quality and hurricanes.
As you can see, the NPAS demands effective partnering based on collaboration, cooperation and relationship building.
All public alerting stakeholders — the telecommunications companies, broadcasters, distributors, Pelmorex as the organization providing the technical infrastructure, and all levels of government from municipal to federal — are vital parts of the alerting partnership.
[English]
As such, we continue to work in collaboration with our stakeholders on the next evolution of the NPAS: the expansions to include wireless public alerting. As you know, the CRTC has mandated wireless service providers to implement the NPAS on their networks by April 6, 2018. This CRTC decision allows alerting authorities and their partners to work toward providing Canadians with public alerts on their mobile devices that will help them to take immediate action to protect themselves and their families. Public safety is proud to be playing a role in the work to expand the reach of the current NPAS.
A key factor in successfully implementing a wireless public alerting system nationally will be public awareness and education. It is important that Canadians know what an alert on their smartphone means and what to do when they receive one.
Public safety is assisting Pelmorex in developing an awareness campaign in conjunction with our provincial and territorial counterparts. This campaign will aim at ensuring that Canadians are best equipped to protect themselves and their families.
We look forward to continuing the excellent work achieved to date, always bearing in mind that, ultimately, our collective goal is the safety and security of Canadians.
Again, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to provide some opening remarks. I would be delighted to answer your questions as well as those of other senators. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question has to do with the interoperability of the communications systems. I imagine that for maximum effectiveness, all these organizations need to communicate with each other. As an example, following the Parliament Hill attack on October 22, 2016, we learned that Parliament’s internal security service did not have a system to communicate with the RCMP or the Ottawa Police Service.
I think that the problem has been solved since it came to light. If I draw a parallel with a warning system, I think that all of the stakeholders must communicate with each other. Can you assure us that there will be interoperability between all of the warning systems?
Mr. Tanguy: Senator Dagenais, thank you for your question. First of all, I must say that the role of developing a warning system includes the way in which our partners, including Pelmorex, want to set standards. We are aware of protocols based on American protocols, which ensure the integrity of how information is processed before its release to all Canadians. Within Public Safety Canada, we want to play a role in engagement.
[English]
We have a convening power to bring people to the table to ensure that things such as interoperability are discussed. I was using the example of SOREM, for instance. These are the tables where we discuss those things. But at Public Safety we’re not responsible for the technical aspects of this. Certainly we work with all the partners to make sure they can talk to each other.
[Translation]
What matters is understanding that the provinces are the first users. In terms of police forces, it is important that front-line stakeholders be able to make decisions. The same is true for municipalities and provinces that decide on the right time to issue a warning. At the very least, there is a consistent and interoperable system.
Senator Dagenais: You alluded to the future in your presentation. Given what is being done in other countries, how far behind is Canada on a technological level? What would have to be done to push the field of security systems further ahead?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you for your question, senator. On that topic, many points are important, including training. Pelmorex has put publicly available training online in order to better understand how an alert message is sent and forwarded. Alberta and Saskatchewan also rely on this type of training.
As for improvements, we must ensure that training is consistent and that everyone understands how the system works. That way, it will be possible to prevent mistakes.
We could also improve the way we invite partners to become part of the National Public Alerting System. For example, Pelmorex system owner has concluded agreements with the provinces and territories. As for federal organizations, Environment and Climate Change Canada concluded an agreement regarding the system’s use. Regardless, nothing would prevent discussions from taking place, whether it is with Natural Resources Canada or other departments that could ultimately use the system to emit alerts.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: If I understand the system correctly, alerts are first created and then broadcasted by federal, provincial and territorial emergency management organizations, after which they are sent via a secure system through various media to the public, is that correct?
Mr. Tanguy: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: Those are the broad lines. I would like to call your attention to your speaking notes, particularly when you spoke of efforts made to harmonize.
You said that the efforts made to harmonize can differ from one jurisdiction to the next. For example, Alberta and Saskatchewan have one way of doing things. However, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and my province, New Brunswick, work differently, having decided to maintain alerting authority at the provincial level, and not delegate further, contrary to Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I find this procedure to be somewhat worrisome. Do you not believe that it should be up to the federal government, like a grandfather, to manage the entire system instead delegating, and in certain cases, to delegate again to other organizations?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you. That is an excellent observation. I think there is an important concept here: emergency management in Canada. It is a shared jurisdiction. With regard to the architecture of the emergency response system, first and foremost, municipalities and first responders intervene, and then the provinces. The federal government intervenes when there is a request for assistance. We saw that in the case of forest fires in British Columbia. There was an official request for assistance.
The entire emergency management system in Canada focuses on first responders. The warning system follows a certain logic. First of all, we have a decentralized system that puts decision-making power in the hands of stakeholders, whether at the provincial or municipal level. It is the provinces’ responsibility to decide, at the time, on the best way to issue an alert.
I am not in a good position to judge whether the federal government should have a more prominent and unique role. As you can understand, provinces and territories want to keep that power. They have the knowledge of the events and the equipment required. Regarding Public Safety Canada, if we look at emergency management in the case of the forest fires in British Columbia, we had no one on the ground. The request was sent to us and we worked with the Canadian Armed Forces to deploy planes and helicopters to help the province.
This example shows that decentralization works and that, in certain cases, it works differently. As for consistency, even if we delegate the task to other levels, it remains nonetheless that the vehicle and protocol used by everyone are the same.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: When your colleagues were before us at our last meeting, I raised a fairly general question, and I just invite anyone to respond to it: What particular attention do you pay to those who have a range of disabilities such as visual, hearing and mobility — particularly visual and hearing — and their ability to receive the messages and respond appropriately? What is part of your planning on that? Are you facing any particular challenges?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you, senator, for this question. On that aspect, the infrastructure has been put in place by Pelmorex. Public Safety Canada is not a user of that.
I would say that’s a very good question. I don’t have a good answer for you, senator, on this, but I will get back, clarify this, and provide the committee with a good answer.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much.
Senator Oh: Gentlemen, I want to follow up on what my colleagues said earlier on this subject. Should the federal government not have overall control of a countrywide alert system? I know we don’t have one. Maybe there should be one. A lot of nations have a central command. From the first alert to everybody receiving it, you go through so many channels at the provincial level, and then there would be a time delay. In case of emergency, sometimes in a split second you want everybody to know what’s going on. Should we not have one nationwide command system?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you, senator, for the question. I will not repeat what I offered. What I would add, though, is that when it comes to national public alerting systems, if you look, for instance, at the recent tsunami alert we had in B.C., most of those alerts will be on a limited geographic basis. It’s very rare you will have a nationwide alert being sent out at the same time. It’s more targeted to specific regions of the country. That’s why, when the system relies on provinces and territories to be making those decisions, we expect those will be more specifically located in certain regions.
As to your question, other countries have done it differently. If you look at the U.S., for instance, it has federal legislation in place. The President makes those decisions about alerting. There are also authorities, FEMA or other agencies, at the federal level playing much of a role in terms of issuing those alerts.
I would say these are the systems that are consensus-based in Canada. When it comes to federal-provincial relations, we always work with them on a consensus basis. Moving forward to the wireless upgrade for the systems, provinces and territories are supportive of that. They feel this is the way to go.
I don’t think I could offer more to your question about whether or not we should have a national system, because as it stands right now, the system works. We’re aiming at upgrading it to have it wireless.
Senator Oh: I agree with you on localized provincially, such as the tsunami you’re talking about. That’s fine. In the case of things bigger than a tsunami, those should have a national alert, from my personal point of view.
Mr. Tanguy: Senator, you must be alluding to something like a ballistic missile warning. That’s a very good example. When it comes to those alerts, the lead department focusing on those will be the Canadian Armed Forces because of their role in the context of NATO, NORAD and all of that. They’re monitoring the situation on it, but they’re not connected to national public alerting systems. There are many reasons for that, and I will let them explain how the system works.
The Chair: As a follow-up along the same line as Senator Oh’s question, if you back up to what your overarching role is as Public Safety, would it be fair to say that you work as a coordinating role?In this sort of different structure, or different ways of doing business, is it complicated in terms of the various levels and various approaches from a national level?
Mr. Tanguy: You described it well. We’re coordinating, but we’re also using our convening power to bring people to the table. There are no other forums where provinces and territories, for instance, will sit down together to decide what list of events and disasters we would like to have an immediate broadcast on. When it comes to training, I’ve mentioned the leadership of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but we’re convening them to discuss the use of best practices and to think about the systems always complementing each other.
Regarding the last part of your question, namely, is it challenging, yes, it is challenging because it is a consensus-based approach. I will not hide this. If you ask my colleagues who are in the business of federal-provincial relations in the health care sector, they will probably answer that it’s very challenging because provinces and territories will have different views on how it should be conveyed.
At the same time, I think we share all the same interests at the end of the day. We need to protect Canadians, wherever they are, and provinces will take this to heart and will work with us to improve the system. I would say that it works very well. It’s always based on moral suasions more than the federal government using some kind of powers on provinces and territories, but it works.
Senator Richards: I think what people are asking here is whether there is a uniform level of expertise across the breadth of the provinces. That’s what they’re after. That’s what they’re interested in. For instance, do places in Newfoundland have the same kind of security as places in Alberta, and do places in New Brunswick have the same as places in the Northwest Territories? I think that’s what people are getting at, and that’s why they’re saying maybe a national-level response system would be best because they think that would be umbrellaed better across the country. You’re saying that province by province is probably the best way to go. It very well might be, as long as there’s a kind of level expertise across the board. I think that’s what people are trying to get at.
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you, senator. I understand this point. When I explained how the system is built in Canada, it relies heavily on this knowledge and expertise that each province has. I cannot certify that their knowledge and expertise are all harmonized, but I can certify that we rely on them when it comes to being the first responders in intervening. For instance, they have put mechanisms in place to ensure that those public alerts that are sent out have been validated. They have the expertise in making interventions on the ground. So they have boots on the ground.
Madam Chair, maybe the committee might want to hear from one or two provinces about how they conduct their own business. I would just flag that, for instance, when Ontario decided to delegate the capacity to issue amber alerts to the OPP, they decided to do it because they felt that was the right thing to do. In other provinces, it was different. However, the fact that some are decentralizing or delegating doesn’t mean the system is less robust than in other places.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Are the systems secure? I ask because people could, in certain situations, hack into the systems in an effort to spread misinformation or create chaos.
Mr. Tanguy: That’s an excellent question. When the representatives of Pelmorex appeared, you heard them say that, when it comes to infrastructure management, security mechanisms are in place.
Furthermore, the provinces and territories have to set up validation and security systems to ensure that the information is not manipulated and that access is limited. These discussions will happen at the federal-provincial consultation. Of course, it is the provinces and territories that decide which security measures need to be put in place.
Recently, Saskatchewan issued an alert by mistake in the Battleford area. Human error is always a possibility, but you need to differentiate between that and the mechanisms that are in place, and ensure that the alerts are credible and that access is limited.
Senator Brazeau: As with any other system, I imagine that there are always updates done and discussions that happen, in order to improve the system. Is that the case?
Mr. Tanguy: Absolutely.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Tanguy, if I’ve understood correctly, you talked about an average of 40 to 50 weather alerts per day. After having analyzed the various types of alerts, do you believe that they were absolutely necessary?
Mr. Tanguy: That’s a very good question. I will ask my colleague from Environment Canada to answer. When I saw those statistics, I had the same reaction as you, Senator Dagenais, and my colleague has an excellent answer to that question.
[English]
Ken Macdonald, Executive Director, Meteorological Services of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Environment Canada issues a large number of types of alerts. Yesterday, it was a freezing rain warning for this area. Today there are extreme cold warnings out for a large part of the country and a freezing rain warning for Newfoundland. It covers a broad range. There are about 50 types of alerts that we issue, and we have always issued them. Air quality is a more recent one, but we have many types of alerts. The vast majority don’t fit into that category of urgent, severe and requiring critical response. Of the 15,000 roughly a year that we issue, between 100 and 200 typically are flagged as “broadcast immediate.” They all go through the system, but those are the only ones triggered for the siren, the interruption of broadcasting and that would go through to the wireless. It’s a triage that happens at the end of the pipe as to which ones go to air and which ones don’t. But there are users of the system, for example Google, and they carry the alerts, project them on a website and use them and can present the results in the result of a search for something else. They may choose to use only the “broadcast immediate” ones or they may choose to use the other ones. All of our alerts go through the system. A small percentage, 100 to 200 typically in a year, are “broadcast immediate.”
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for that excellent answer.
Senator McIntyre: One again, my question is for Mr. Tanguy, but if Mr. Joyal or Mr. Macdonald would like to respond, they are welcome to do so.
As you mentioned, it is important for Canadians and the industry to benefit as much as possible from the current alert system. That said, could you tell us a bit about the awareness-raising campaigns that exist to ensure that this system is truly effective?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you. I will let my colleague Martin Joyal give you more details. First of all, the awareness-raising campaign for the Alert Ready system has already happened at Public Safety Canada. At the same time, we’re working with Pelmorex in order to organize an awareness-raising campaign. We are investing time and resources with that company to prepare the system for wireless accessibility and ensure that Canadians can understand the alert that is being transmitted by text or by call.
It is important to have an awareness-raising campaign so that Canadians can think about what these alerts mean for them. Receiving an alert is important, but taking action is just as important.
For example, we saw this recently with the tsunami alert in British Columbia. Indigenous communities received the alert, but our emergency management colleagues in British Columbia also decided to call them on the phone directly. As of April 6, we will have wireless capability. We want Canadians to be aware of that. It will be a way to disseminate information more broadly and to mobilize people so that no one is caught off guard. The Pelmorex representatives told you that we will be able to do this all by April, but that won’t necessarily be possible, because there are technical details that need to be resolved. Will users be able to use this new capacity at that time?
Mr. Joyal: At the risk of repeating what’s already been said, a system is being prepared that would have the capability to transmit to wireless devices as of April. However, there’s work to be done on the ground in terms of awareness, and mobilizing people. This is almost a societal responsibility and everyone has a role to play when there is an emergency. The time when the emergency is happening is not the time to be raising awareness. Everything that can be done in advance is good. Furthermore, the alerts will be able to reach much further. It’s obvious that there is much more work to do in terms of raising awareness. Our management and coordination teams are working closely with Pelmorex, the provinces and territories to prepare this public awareness campaign.
Mr. Tanguy: We also need to be able to tailor our message to different communities. Indigenous communities are all important, but we need to be able to reach them. We are continuing to work at a federal-provincial-territorial level, notably when it comes to emergency management. We are very proud to say that we are working closely with all five national indigenous organizations in order to engage them as of right now and receive their feedback on how we should proceed.
Senator McIntyre: As I said earlier, these alerts are created and broadcast by federal-provincial-territorial organizations that deal with emergency management, and then they are sent out through a secure system. If I understood correctly, the end distributors, including wireless service providers, are involved, and the alerts are sent out to people via various media.
If that summary is correct, all of these organizations seem to be working well together, not just individually, but also collectively. Is that not true?
Mr. Tanguy: Absolutely. That’s why I wanted to mention the basic issue of collaboration in my opening statement. Everyone has some degree of responsibility. If the provinces and territories each worked in their own corner without coming to the table, there would be problems with the private sector. We have an excellent relationship with Pelmorex, particularly as regards the licence renewal. All of the provinces and territories have come to the table and we made some observations in the context of Pelmorex’s licence renewal. For instance, we said there should be better governance, the goal being a structure that is much more focused on decision making, that takes the system infrastructure into account, that is more transparent, and that seamlessly transmits information on how to improve the system for the benefit of all parties.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Macdonald, you’re the Executive Director of the Meteorological Services of Canada. Thank you for the comments you made a while ago. Is there anything else you wish to add which would be affecting your department?
Mr. Macdonald: Our situation is unique compared to the provinces. We’ve been an alerting agency since 1871. The weather service was created to alert the public to dangerous weather situations, and we have a large number of channels that we do issue alerts on and have for all that time. We’ve grown the number of channels as technology has changed.
This is a new opportunity for us. It’s an additional one. Particularly going to wireless will be very effective for reaching people where they are. When I joined the service in the 1970s, we relied heavily on wire service and getting the message out to broadcasters. That was the primary method that people used to get alerts. Now we’ve got many more channels. We’re on Twitter, we’re on email, and we’re on the Alert Ready system on broadcasters. It’s another arrow in our quiver in terms of getting the message out, and it will be particularly effective for those urgent alerts, the ones that result in a broadcast interruption. We find it an effective system. It will increasingly be so when it goes to wireless for those really urgent types of alerts, and it seems to work well from our perspective.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Tanguy, don’t you think that in trying to incorporate a more modern system of alerts, it will be more complicated than turning on the good old siren, which every person in town can hear? Is this new sophisticated system actually the most efficient one?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you, senator. Recently, when I was talking with my deputy minister, he also mentioned those good old sirens. I see the approach as complementing the status quo. Yes, our methods are becoming more sophisticated, but by going wireless, we are adding something. We are potentially reaching more people. For me, it’s an enhancement. Organizations like the Red Cross will have their applications, they will pick up on national alerts and retransmit them. That’s another example of enhancement. However, in April, by having a single system—
[English]
You have a one-stop shop that validates and confirms the information, and then you ensure the quality and that it’s done the right way. I think that’s where the benefits are in expanding it to wireless.
The Chair: I wish to follow up on the move to wireless. Have you done any research around information overload? We certainly get a lot on phones. Everybody wants to reach you and tell you something. How do you ensure that the public picks up the alert in a way that they need to and that it has the immediacy that they need?
Mr. Tanguy: Madam Chair, I’m not aware of any analysis or research. I would turn to my colleague from Environment and Climate Change Canada on whether there has been any analysis on the phenomenon of information overload.
Mr. Macdonald: I’m not sure you would call it a formal study, but certainly the experience of the Alert Ready system, when it first came out in the broadcast world, was an interesting experience for us, and there was a perception of overload, with too many alerts going out all at once or programming being interrupted frequently. That was in particular as a result of our weather warnings because they were updated frequently and continued to interrupt. We refined the rules within the system to determine what was “broadcast immediate” and what wasn’t, so that minor updates weren’t doing that. So it is important.
We look at what’s going on in other countries, from the risk of overload to the risk of people not paying attention because there’s been too many. It is certainly a serious concern.
Our colleagues from the industry will be able to talk more about the way it will be implemented on wireless, but they will be unique notifications, not like the notifications you get today for advertising, for example, or because you have a subscription to something. It will be a unique type of notification.
We have been working, particularly since the CRTC decision of last year, to refine the rules within our system so that we don’t over alert and so that the methods we use are appropriate for the medium. The broadcasters and the wireless are different. The wireless is much more geotargeted. The capacity to target a very specific area is quite different. With the broadcasters, you have quite large footprints, and you try not to over alert when a tornado warning, for example, is moving through a broadcast area. You would approach it differently.
So we are aware of it. It’s definitely something we’re conscious of. We’re trying to adjust our system so that we don’t create that problem of people turning them off or ignoring the warnings.
The Chair: I think there must be some other experience in other countries where they’ve assessed it at some point. If you travel to Florida, you’ll see Silver Alerts endlessly. So the question is at what point do people not pay attention anymore? I think going forward that will be important to take into consideration.
Senator Richards: Thank you. I know this has been gone over before, but the more complex this is and the more avenues there are to get the alerts out, the more chances there are that it will be hacked and fooled with. And if it is, then there are more chances of a hacker creating panic in the provinces and territories. I’m wondering how that can be resolved. Can you resolve that? Can you have certainty that that wouldn’t happen after April 6?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you, senator. You don’t need a hacker to create panic. If you look at what happened in Hawaii, there were no hackers involved. The ballistic missile alert was an unfortunate event.
On that front, I would say training is so important. I know it may sound trivial, but making sure that we’re working together to have the right tools to focus on uniform training, that people are getting access to the tools on this, is a critical aspect.
As I said, jurisdictions have the responsibility to put in place security measures to guarantee and validate information and to limit access. That’s another tool. It’s very hard to guarantee this, senator, since the role of Public Safety is to work with partners or the users and have agreements in place. I think some efforts are being made to prevent this from happening.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, senators?
Gentlemen, let me take the opportunity to thank you very much for appearing before the committee and for the information you have shared with us for the purpose of our study. It’s greatly appreciated.
Mr. Tanguy: One last thing, Madam Chair. Your questions on information overload are excellent. We’re responsible for the Public Alerting Working Group at the federal level, so we’ll ask these questions because they are very good questions. We’ll get back to the committee if any work has been done on that front. I will confess to my ignorance on this point, but we will do more research and get back to the committee on that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Senators, in our final panel today, we will continue to examine the emergency alert system. We’re pleased to welcome representatives of two wireless service providers. From Rogers Communications Inc., we welcome David Watt, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Chief Privacy Officer; and Gerry Thompson, Senior Manager, Wireless Regulation. And from TELUS Communications, we welcome Eric Edora, Director, Regulatory Affairs; and Carreen Unguran, Senior Regulatory Advisor.
Mr. Watt and Mr. Edora, we will now hear your opening comments, and after that we’ll go through a series of questions.
David Watt, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Chief Privacy Officer, Rogers Communications Inc.: I’m David Watt. To my right is Gerry Thompson, as you indicated. In addition to his position at Rogers, Gerry is also the Chair of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee, the CISC I think you heard about last week from the CRTC. Gerry chairs the Business Process Working Group. The CISC is a group with representatives from all the major Canadian telephone companies that works together as required to establish the processes by which regulatory directives are implemented.
Before I begin the rest of my remarks, you’ll notice in the document that there are a large number of long specification titles of associations, et cetera. You heard many of them last week. To save some time, I don’t intend to repeat them. We put them in the document so that you have them there if you wish to go and search those actual documents.
We’re pleased to appear before the Senate committee to answer your questions about the upcoming Wireless Public Alerting Service, or WPAS, which will form part of Canada’s emergency warning system.
Rogers has for many years been a strong supporter of the effort to launch and expand public alerting in Canada. Several years ago, Rogers began preparing for WPAS by monitoring U.S. deliberations and their specifications development. We also worked with Industry Canada on two proof-of-concept technical trials of the cell broadcast feature, which is a key building block of WPAS. In addition, as a broadcaster, Rogers launched public alerting on its cable television over-the-air television station and radio platforms on March 31, 2015. This background work helped us to participate in the commission’s consultation on wireless public alerting in 2016.
The CRTC’s decision in 2017 directed wireless service providers to implement wireless public alerting capability on their long-term evolution, LTE, wireless networks by April 6, 2018.
Despite the various challenges, Rogers is pleased to report that we are on track toward meeting the CRTC network-ready date of April 6, 2018. Following the policy release, we worked aggressively to add the WPAS capability to our national wireless LTE network. It is a huge task to graft a service such as WPAS onto our national LTE network, which covers 96 per cent of the Canadian population, all the while maintaining quality service to over 10.5 million wireless subscribers.
As an aside, Mr. Macdonald earlier today mentioned the geolocation specificity of wireless public alerting. We have 8,000 base stations distributed across the country with towers. Each one had to have this software put into it. To Mr. Macdonald’s point, each of those 8,000 base stations has three sectors that the signal radiates from, so fully 24,000 sectors, and we can target an alert to one of those 24,000 sectors, so very geospecific.
While we were not mandated to do so, Rogers is proud to tell you that we will deploy WPAS over our 3G network as well. As a result, the LTE mobile devices that are WPAS-capable will fall back to 3G, if required, and 3G customers, or people on 3G, will be able to receive alerts when operating on that network. This will provide, at the fringes, more emergency alerting to Canadians.
As you’re already aware, deployment of WPAS also requires WPAS-capable mobile devices. A mobile device requires two things to make it WPAS-capable — the cell broadcast feature switched on and the WPAS software which provides a unique Canadian branding of the emergency alert.
What makes the WPAS alert message so effective is that it is very different from common text messages and other data-related services like Messenger. WPAS software provisions the mobile device with a unique display, audible tone and vibration cadence, which contribute to or establish the authenticity of the alert.
This special alert enforcement was requested by SOREM to provide the Canadian public with a unique and recognizable emergency alert that shares characteristics with the alerts on AM/FM radio, television and cable. Rogers helped develop and ratify the LTE alerting specification. This specification was necessary to add the Canadian component to the U.S. standards to form a bundle of standards that the wireless device manufacturers reference. We use the specifications as a technical requirement that we send to vendors for new handsets.
The CRTC’s decision requires that by April 6, 2018, 50 per cent of devices for sale must be WPAS-capable, including at least one handset for zero dollars when taken with a service, and at least one accessible handset.
We will comfortably meet these requirements and are well on our way toward meeting the April 6, 2019, requirement of 100 per cent of the devices for sale to be WPAS-compatible. Lastly, we will not increase our monthly price plans because of WPAS. Alerts will be sent to our wireless subscribers free of charge.
Consumer outreach is the third important ingredient to service implementation. Rogers has participated in the public awareness working group tasked with preparing a national consumer education plan. The plan is currently under review by the commission. It proposes a number of outreach mechanisms, such as text messages to each subscriber, annual bill messages, and website information that will include frequently asked questions.
Rogers is therefore on track to deliver this key service. Along with work currently being undertaken to implement next-generation 911, Rogers is cooperating with emergency service providers across the country to better ensure the safety of Canadians.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this committee, and we’re happy to answer your questions.
Eric Edora, Director, Regulatory Affairs, TELUS Communications: Thank you, Madam Chair and senators. I am Eric Edora, Director of Regulatory Affairs at TELUS. With me is Carreen Unguran, Senior Director at TELUS.
We thank the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for the opportunity to appear today. I’m pleased to discuss TELUS’s role in Canada’s wireless public alerting system.
Whether it’s connecting 13 million Canadians from coast to coast through our wireless or wireline networks, or through leveraging the power of the Internet to enhance health care across the country, TELUS is committed to positioning Canada for success in a modern, connected global society and driving better economic, social and health outcomes for all Canadians.
To make these outcomes a reality, we have invested heavily in digital technology infrastructure: $147 billion since 2000. We build in rural and urban communities, and we understand that our networks can help to bridge the digital divide.
We recognize our role in important public safety connectivity initiatives such as Canada’s wireless public alerting system. With wireless alerts, critical emergency information will be disseminated in a quick and reliable manner right into the hands of Canadians. This adds to the alert distribution that already occurs, because Canadians already receive alerts via radio, television and other means.
Wireless public alerts will use a technology called cell broadcast and will run on the latest wireless technology, long-term evolution or LTE. Over 90 per cent of Canadians live within range of an LTE network. Also, a wireless alert can be programmed so that it is delivered only to those wireless towers in the area directly affected by the emergency. All compatible wireless devices that are powered on and within the targeted area will receive the alert.
As required by the CRTC, TELUS will be ready to issue wireless alerts by April 6, 2018.
TELUS is also an important partner in the comprehensive public awareness campaign to educate Canadians about the launch of wireless public alerting. TELUS will provide information about the alerting system to its customers through text and bill messages. Because this is a wireless system, this is the best way to reach customers about wireless public alerting. We will also equip our employees with clear and up-to-date information about the system, and they stand ready to field questions from customers.
Finally, wireless networks, the networks that make wireless alerting possible, are built on spectrum. These are the airwaves that transmit wireless signals. Good public policy demands well-designed spectrum options that enable service providers with a track record of investment to have reasonable and fair access to spectrum. Access to spectrum is also fundamental to the creation of an advanced public safety network in Canada for Canada’s first responders.
We will be watching the outcome of the 600 megahertz spectrum auction framework closely. We are concerned that the proposed framework currently under consideration will have implications for the timely deployment of spectrum, especially in rural communities.
We thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the wireless public alerting system. We are pleased to answer any questions that the committee might have.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our witnesses for their presentation. I am not convinced that cell phone users will read every single message they receive, because they get so many of them.
We asked you to create a mobile network and you did so. To what extent were you involved with the content of the messages? In your discussions, did you identify certain alerts that seem superfluous?
[English]
Mr. Watt: I will take the first crack at that. Actually, we have no oversight into the actual preparation of the message; we are the transmission vehicle by which the message is distributed to Canadians. We do not assess the message to see whether we believe it should go out. That’s certainly not our role. We’re not in a position to make that decision. That is for the emergency alerting authorities. We are the transmission vehicle.
The second part of your question was the number of messages that people receive today. I’ll ask Gerry to speak to that, but these are messages that would be unlike the other messages that you would receive on your wireless device. This message would take over your screen; it would have an alert sound; it would have a vibration that would be unique to that message.
Gerry Thompson, Senior Manager, Wireless Regulation, Rogers Communications Inc.: David is correct. With the emergency alert message, the WPAS message, the tone is familiar; it’s consistent with the tone that you will hear already on AM/FM radio, cable TV and broadcast TV. It’s loud. It will be a little bit annoying. It will wake you up. There’s a vibration cadence that’s very loud as well, and the alert will cover the screen. It’s very interruptive to the user. It’s not like an ad pop-up at all. It’s very loud. It’s almost like a smoke detector.
Mr. Edora: In the previous panel, we heard Mr. Macdonald talk about Environment Canada and their approach to alerts. We heard that they have to take a measured approach in terms of things that are “broadcast immediate.” The emergency management organizations across the country have the same incentives. Obviously they don’t want to create false alarm or cause so many alerts that their citizenry ends up in a panic on a routine basis or they start to ignore alerts entirely. I think you have a lot of incentives in the environment and in the organizations to make sure they’re only alerting about the most important and urgent situations.
As Mr. Watt said, our job as the wireless carrier is that once it goes through the system, we deliver it to our customers to make sure they have the information, and the emergency management organization can get the information out.
Senator Oh: Thank you, panel. Rogers says that you cover 96 per cent of the Canadian population with quality service to over 10.5 million wireless service customers.
TELUS, you cover 13 million coast to coast. Who is bigger?
Mr. Edora: It’s not a question of who is bigger. Just to clarify: Mr. Watt’s statistic of 96 per cent I believe was on the Rogers network. When we refer to 98 per cent, we’re talking about the availability of LTE networks across the country, so it’s not just the TELUS or the Rogers network. But when you accumulate all the networks together, we cover 98 per cent of the country.
In terms of wireless customers, TELUS is in the neighbourhood of 8 million customers; 13 million when you include local telephone and Internet, those types of connections, in addition to wireless, and yes, TELUS is bigger.
Mr. Watt: That was a good answer. TELUS is bigger when you count the wireline customers and Internet customers. Wireless, we’re about 10.5 million, and as Eric said, TELUS, 8.5 million. But the important aspect again is the geographic coverage. Through the combination of the various networks we do cover 98 per cent of Canadians.
Senator Oh: I just want to pick your brain. Recently I was in Singapore and I saw that every wireless hand phone had a police alert. A wanted-by-police suspect’s picture came out clearly on the cellphone right away. Do we have that kind of alert system over here?
Mr. Edora: I don’t think that’s through the alert system, per se.
Senator Oh: You say a police alert?
Mr. Edora: Again, I can’t speak to what individual first responders or police agencies have in terms of communications. Certainly the networks are powered so they can deliver that type of message or information. The text alert system we’re talking about is a text notification of a pending emergency. I can’t comment on whether police agencies have the type of communications tool that you’re referring to.
Mr. Watt: I might ask Gerry to speak to that. He’s been involved in all the committees and all the various possibilities that were considered.
Mr. Thompson: The WPAS system is restricted to text only. What you’re describing are photos and also active URLs. That’s a future item. We discussed that. We know that is a future item for future enhancements.
The reason we stayed within the standard is that the standard is a blueprint which all vendors follow. Every bit of equipment in our network, despite being built by different vendors, falls at one standard. All the handset vendors fall at one standard. You can imagine how many handset vendors there are.
If we stray from the standard and try to introduce something different, it could lead to problems. So to de-risk the project, especially with a launch timeline of one year, we decided to stay within it. We did sneak in a couple of enhancements here and there, but what you described as URL and photo is a future enhancement for the system.
Senator Oh: How many 3G cellphones are still operating?
Mr. Watt: For Rogers, roughly 85 per cent of our phones would be LTE phones. Just for full disclosure, at the current time, we anticipate about 62 per cent of our LTE phones will be enabled with the WPAS software on April 6.
The average life of a cellphone is around 24 to 27 months. People change their cellphone; they typically upgrade. We project roughly 90 per cent of Canadians should have an LTE WPAS-capable phone within three years.
The heart of the question may be this: Is it a possibility that every Canadian would have the alerting functionality available to them on a cellphone? It’s probably not likely to be the case for many years. We have bring-your-own-device plans. There are people who purchase phones in other countries and bring them into Canada. So it is highly unlikely it would ever be 100 per cent. But through the education campaign, people will know what type of phone would be suitable for receiving the alerts, and we project about 90 per cent will have those phones within three years.
Mr. Edora: The question you’re getting to, senator, really goes to the choice of technology. The CRTC reviewed the RED technology, whether it should be on LTE or a more historical type of technology. We chose this technology because, based on the consultation, this is the best technology for a future-forward type of alerting system. It means that five, ten years hence, we believe this technology will be not just operational but still the leading edge. We didn’t want to have a historical technology that we may have to replace or a legacy technology that ends up being obsolete.
It is true that not everyone will get the alert on day one, but as Mr. Watt has indicated, over time the percentage of those not able to receive the alerts will go down, and within a few years, virtually everybody will be able to get the alerts on their device.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for explaining your role in the disseminating of emergency alerts as part of the upcoming wireless public alerting system. I understand that both your networks will be fully operational and ready to issue alerts on April 6, 2018, as mandated by the CRTC. I think that’s very important.
I further understand that you have both participated in all the WSP, Pelmorex and EMO working groups, including those focused on developing a public awareness campaign. Also, additional effort is being put by both companies into educating customer service teams so that they will be able to respond to customer inquiries.
Could you elaborate a bit further on the education of customer service?
Mr. Edora: Education of our customer service representatives? Is that your question?
Senator McIntyre: Yes.
Mr. Edora: That’s an excellent point, because we can do all of the broadcasts or, as I said, text messaging or bill messages directly to our customers, but we wanted to make sure that if our customers receive that information, that if they called into TELUS, they would actually get up-to-date, clear information about the alerting system.
What we’re doing internally, within our working group, is preparing information documents, “frequently asked questions” documents, and we’re distributing that to all of our front-line staff. That goes onto our online resources and is there for them. So if a customer happened to call in and say, “I heard about this wireless public alerting system. What does this mean?” our representative will enter “ wireless public alerting system” into their online tool and then the information will pop up.
That information has been vetted by our internal team to make sure it’s the right information and that it’s the right message to get out to customers.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Thompson, do you wish to elaborate?
Mr. Thompson: We’re getting this question a lot now from our Rogers customer service people. They’re anticipating this information going out shortly about what WPAS is and how it works.
The customer service organizations within our company are very active in learning everything about WPAS that they can, developing training courses, propagating those training courses to the front line and putting online information on the customer service systems so that those individuals have access to all the answers they need when we expect customers calling in and saying, “What is this? I got this on my phone.”
Senator McIntyre: My next question has to do with software devices. I note that as of April of this year, not all LTE-enabled devices will have the special software that allows wireless public alerts to be received. As a matter of fact, in reading your material, I know that 50 per cent of the devices must be ready by April 6 of this year and 100 per cent of the devices are to be available by April 6, 2019. In addition, many LTE devices that are already in use are WPAS-compatible.
What about those that are not? Will software updates be released over the course of 2018 and 2019 to enable WPAS capability?
Mr. Edora: I’ll let my colleague Carreen Unguran answer this question.
Carreen Unguran, Senior Regulatory Advisor, TELUS Communications: Since October of last year, TELUS has been working with the device manufacturers to ensure that devices that are coming into our network are either compatible or will have software updates available prior to April. As these start rolling out into April and then further, we’ll be able to provide that compatibility for more and more customers. We estimate that approximately 65 per cent of LTE devices will be WPAS-compatible.
Senator McIntyre: If I understand correctly, a lot of information regarding devices will be provided to the public via the public awareness campaign.
Ms. Unguran: Yes, and a list of devices that are WPAS-compatible will be posted on our website. I believe Rogers will have the same thing. You’ll be able to go to our website, look up your device and see if it’s on the list or not.
Mr. Thompson: Rogers is doing similar things working with the handset vendors. There are three groups of handsets. First, brand new handsets where we require vendors to put WPAS software in and activate cell broadcast. Those are two things you have to do: activate cell broadcast and load the WPAS software.
The other end is the old handsets that are LTE, but they’re just not maintained anymore. They cannot receive an over-the-air update.
The ones in the middle, they are typically less than a year old. We’re working with the handset manufacturers to deliver a maintenance release. Actually, I just got one on the weekend. That maintenance release will download the WPAS software to make it WPAS-compatible.
The Chair: Before we move to round two, I want to raise a question about rural communities, and in particular northern indigenous communities. Can you speak to those issues, particularly how this will impact them?
Mr. Edora: Thank you for the question. Concerning the issue of emergency alerting, obviously if it doesn’t reach a certain community or a certain population, that is an issue. It’s important to understand that wireless alerting itself is just one piece of an overall big puzzle. Unfortunately, when you have 98.5 per cent of Canadians within reach of an LTE network, that means 1.5 per cent of Canadians are not. There are some communities that do not have access. It’s not just in the Far North or indigenous communities. We’re relying upon the fact that we’re augmenting the system. The existing system is great. It works on radio and on television; it works through Internet, social media and other means.
In the situation in British Columbia that happened a few months ago, you actually had people in the communities walking around and knocking on doors, alerting others of the pending emergency. That’s the type of local outreach you’re going to have in some of these communities. They have those operational protocols in place because of the lack of connectivity for whatever reason. That’s definitely an issue in terms of connectivity for wireless, but I think the existing system actually takes into account some of these problems already.
Mr. Watt: To pick up on Mr. Edora’s point of it being only one piece of the puzzle, for example, if a customer had satellite TV, they would get the emergency alerts that are provided by that particular platform. That is one point, and obviously very important in some of the rural, remote places, particularly those that are satellite fed only.
The other point would be — and this will be a slow evolution over time — there are a number of government programs jointly with private industry to extend the reach of the fibre and more advanced telecommunications facilities further out into more remote locations. About $1.5 billion of government money is earmarked for that over the next five years to be matched pretty much by private funds. I think these types of services will be extended more and more. However, you will always have certain locations that will have to be satellite fed. I think they’re probably relying upon the television signal.
The Chair: I’ve driven the province from corner to corner to corner. If I’m in an area that has no service and I’m eventually coming into an area that has service, will the alert kick in as soon as the system kicks in? I’m thinking here of the motoring public and for people listening.
Mr. Thompson: The answer is yes, if the alert is active. It has an expiry time. If you drive into a radio sector where the alert is active, or if your phone is off and you suddenly power it up, your handset will respond as expected. It will display the alert.
The Chair: As long as it’s still active?
Mr. Thompson: As long as the alert has not expired, correct.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Edora or Mr. Watt. Do you know how many messages a user might receive per year? Is there a mechanism that will allow us to go back and see whether it made sense to actually send out every alert?
[English]
Mr. Edora: We don’t have that information. Since the wireless public alerting system is not set up, we don’t have knowledge of the actual workings of the system. Perhaps other entities or organizations, like Pelmorex, might have that information.
I think your question is really about whether we can actually take learnings from past events and then come up with a set of rules and protocols going forward so that we can actually have a better system. I think that’s going to be ingrained as part of the processes. I think what you’ve seen, especially recently with Hawaii, is that the emergency alerting system is not a static system. The entire system will learn from the first time that an alert goes out — the first time the tests go out, actually, and the first time the live tests go out, the first time the live alert goes out. That’s when we’re going to say these are the things that worked and didn’t work, and there are the things we need to augment. You will see a coordinated approach between industry, Pelmorex and the emergency management organizations to make sure that we have the best system moving forward. I think every entity has an incentive to make sure we take stock of what’s happened and make sure we make improvements.
Senator Richards: Is there a promotional event to let people know this will be in effect in April, so that people generally know this is coming? I’ve heard quite a bit about it in this room, but I haven’t heard about it too much outside. I don’t see the advertisement or the promotional thing that’s going on. There might be, but if there is, I haven’t been aware of it.
Mr. Watt: I’ll let the others comment later, obviously, but the CRTC, as you heard last week, is actually reviewing a report with respect to the promotion and the consumer awareness. The second item they’re still deliberating on is the test procedures and test times. One of the proposals, to your point about a national event, is that one of the tests would take place I think May 8, which is, apparently, during Emergency Preparedness Week. I’m assuming there’s going to be a promotional splash around that week.
Mr. Thompson: The public outreach campaign is before the commissioner right now, being reviewed, but we’re still preparing and assuming it’s a go. Each one of our subscribers will receive an SMS, a text message. Our websites will have additional pages explaining what WPAS is, frequently asked questions, et cetera. The alertready.ca website will be augmented to include WPAS. As you heard earlier, there are TV and radio spots, a digital social media campaign and also the public tests.
Speaking to that test, the CRTC determined there should be four transparent tests per year and one public. The transparent ones are on test channels only — especially enabled phones can read that test; and with the public one, every phone with WPAS in an active cell will receive that alert. That will be during Emergency Preparedness Week. The schedule is on the website.
Senator Richards: That’s great. In May there will be an alert week, so we will get to know what the alert sounds like?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. If you have a capable phone, you will receive the alert. In Ontario, it’s actually May 10 at 10:55 a.m., to be precise.
Senator McIntyre: What role will other wireless service providers play in this new system? Will all companies participate, or will it be only the three largest companies: Rogers, Bell and TELUS?
Mr. Edora: It’s all wireless service providers. The system would not be effective unless every customer had access.
Senator McIntyre: What measures, if any, have been taken to prevent the system from being hacked?
Mr. Thompson: I’m the engineer, as you can tell. The system is one way in our network. Our network is closed when you draw a circle around it. There’s only one point of entry for a cell broadcast alert from Pelmorex NAAD, and that’s through data links between their platforms and our WPAS platforms. Those data links are encrypted using the strongest possible encryption technique that’s commercially available. Unless they can hack into that, hopefully, there won’t be any malicious alerts.
Senator McIntyre: Hopefully there will be no problems.
Mr. Edora: If I can add, the issue of network integrity is not just a wireless public alerting issue. It’s a general wireless issue. It’s something that all wireless carriers — TELUS included, of course — take seriously and think about every day. The addition of this particular system creates a different type of potential hacking risk, but certainly hacking into our network is something we think about and we have to protect. Our entire business depends upon it.
Senator McIntyre: Keeping your remarks in mind and taking an overview of the NPAS, I know there are basically three phases. First, alerts are created and issued by the emergency management organizations, better known as EMOs, and sent through a secure system — and that’s important — known as NAAD, operated by Pelmorex, over various media to the public, and that’s when your companies come into the picture, correct?
Mr. Watt: Correct. I would add to Mr. Edora’s point about the importance of security to our businesses writ large. I’m sure TELUS, as we do, has an entire cybersecurity department. We have a vice-president of cybersecurity, and they are in close interaction with CSIS and the RCMP. Considerable resources are devoted to this particular issue because our businesses depend upon it and it’s extremely important.
The Chair: Senators, if there are no further questions, let me take this opportunity to thank our panel for appearing this afternoon and enlightening us for our study going forward. We very much appreciate your comments and answering our questions fully. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)