Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 30 - Evidence - Meeting of September 24, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, September 24, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1:02 p.m. to examine and report on Canada’s national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities (topics: emergency warning system; sexual harrassment and violence in defence and security institutionse); and in camera, for the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the National Security and Defence Committee. Before we begin, I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul E. McIntyre from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia. Welcome.
The Chair: I am Senator Gwen Boniface from Ontario, chair of your committee.
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 return our attention to the issue of the emergency warning system. In our first panel we are pleased to welcome, appearing on behalf of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Scott Shortliffe, Chief Consumer Officer and Executive Director. He is accompanied by Mr. Eric Bowles, legal counsel. We have Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Programs, Public Safety Canada, as well as Ken MacDonald, Executive Director, National Programs & Business Development, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Mr. Shortliffe, I believe you have some opening comments for us, to be followed by other panellists, if they so wish, and then we will move to questions.
Scott Shortliffe, Chief Consumer Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Scott Shortliffe. I am the CRTC’s chief consumer officer, and my colleague Eric Bowles is our legal counsel.
We appreciate this opportunity to update you on the CRTC’s activities related to the public alerting system,especially following this weekend when the importance of emergency alerts was very visible here in the National Capital Region. On that I’ll just note that CBC News has reported that several families in Dunrobin, Ontario, credited wireless public alerting with saving the lives of their children from the tornado on Friday. That said, a lot of other things have taken place and been accomplished since my last appearance at this hearing in February.
[Translation]
Before outlining those activities, let me first remind you that the CRTC is just one of many players with a role in public alerting. These are time-sensitive events that involve federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as private-sector partners.
[English]
Emergency alert messages are issued by the respective emergency management organizations, such as fire marshals and police. Pelmorex is acting as the National Alert Aggregation and Dissemination System, NAAD, administrator, which disseminates the alerts to broadcasters. The CRTC’s job is to regulate the broadcasting and telecommunications service providers that distribute alerts to the public through the communications system. Public Safety Canada has the federal lead on the National Public Alerting System, the NPAS. It coordinates the development of public alerting policies with federal, provincial and territorial stakeholders.
As you know, wireless service providers had to be ready to relay emergency alerts as of April 6 of this year. Since my last appearance before this committee, the commission has required that all wireless service providers participate in the National Public Alerting System and distribute any relevant alerts received from that date onwards. The expanded system, publicly branded as Alert Ready, now warns Canadians about emergencies not only on radio and television but also on compatible cellphones.
All wireless service providers must distribute public emergency alert messages on their LTE networks. But it’s important to note that not all cellphones are compatible with the system. As of April 2018, 50 per cent of new devices sold had to be compatible with the system. This will increase to 100 per cent by next April. Over time, all devices will become compatible. The distribution of wireless public alerts is in addition to the alerts being distributed by radio and television broadcasters.
[Translation]
The updated system has quickly proven itself, reinforcing the importance of sending messages to Canadians’ mobile devices. However, everyone involved in the enhanced system would likely concede there have been some growing pains.
[English]
These became apparent during the national Emergency Preparedness Week when a series of public tests was carried out. The tests were intended to verify the readiness of the system as a whole and also as an important way to introduce wireless alerting to Canadians and to make them aware of the tone and vibration cadence that distinguishes emergency alerts from regular text messages.
The first tests, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, were conducted on May 7, and tests in 10 other provinces and territories were carried out on May 9. In addition to wireless messages, the test alerts were distributed on television and radio.
[Translation]
As happened when emergency alerts were initially issued by broadcasters, the wireless system was not perfect the first time out. While the tests worked seamlessly on radio and TV, three provinces experienced issues with wireless alerts during the two days of testing.
[English]
Specifically, alerts on the Bell and TELUS networks in Ontario did not pass through. That means only 50 per cent of people in Ontario with compatible devices received the wireless alert messages during the test. In Manitoba, emergency test messages distributed by TELUS did not pass through to the company’s cellphone subscribers, which affected 7 per cent of the cellphone customers in that province. And in Quebec a coding error resulted in none of the test messages being passed through to compatible phones. Pelmorex, who is following us, can address the underlying concerns and what exactly happened.
[Translation]
There were issues for some consumers, such as receiving banners that should not have appeared. There also was some confusion among Canadians about which cellphones are compatible and able to receive wireless emergency alerts.
I would like to note that successful test alerts were completed in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, as well as in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
[English]
I also want to reinforce that these tests accomplished what was needed, which was to create awareness among Canadians and to identify weaknesses and ensure that they are addressed. The commission has been clear that networks need to be designed and built in a way that mitigates the risk of service failures. Continued testing in the next few years will help address any new issues that may arise with new technologies or new providers or customers.
For its part, immediately following the tests, the CRTC reached out to Pelmorex and wireless service providers to identify where the problems lie. The commission ordered reports on what went wrong and how these problems were being rectified.
Independent of the reports ordered after the public tests, the commission had also required that wireless service providers file reports serving to confirm that their respective networks were interoperable with the NAAD System and capable of alert dissemination. In these reports, wireless service providers provided information relating to their LTE network coverage, the number of alert-compatible devices offered for sale and the penetration of such devices amongst their consumer base. All these reports are publicly posted on the commission’s website.
Pelmorex and the wireless service providers have reported to the CRTC that these early problems identified during the test have been fixed. Rogers, Bell, TELUS and Freedom Mobile corrected all known technical issues shortly after they were identified. Most wireless service providers have conducted subsequent invisible tests to further confirm that these challenges have been resolved.
As a result, as of late August close to 100 updates and wireless alerts have been issued to warn Canadians of high-risk emergencies. These ranged from dangerously high water levels and flooding in Alberta, to wildfires in Saskatchewan, to AMBER Alerts in Ontario and Saskatchewan, to drinking water advisories in several communities and tornado watches in numerous provinces. Here in the National Capital Region we had wireless alerts connected to two tornadoes just this last Friday.
Despite these successes, this system is still very new, and new challenges can emerge. Just last week an AMBER Alert in Saskatchewan was delayed for three hours on the wireless platforms. Previous alerts in the province had passed through successfully. The commission is following up to determine what happened in this specific situation, but cases like this demonstrate the importance of continued testing.
[Translation]
In addition to testing, our experience has also shown that Canadians are still not used to the system and have many questions about what phones are compatible and how the system works. Continued public education will be important as we move forward.
[English]
The CRTC continues to monitor the system to see what further improvements are within the commission’s areas of responsibility and are needed to make sure Canadians receive the information they require to protect themselves.
Thank you very much.
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Programs, Public Safety Canada: Madam Chair, let me begin first by thanking the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for inviting Public Safety Canada to return to this forum, along with my colleague from Environment and Climate Change Canada, to provide a progress update on Canada’s National Public Alerting System, or as it is publicly known, Alert Ready.
As I mentioned during my previous committee appearance in February, Public Safety Canada’s priority is to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.
As you know, since 2009, Public Safety Canada, along with other provincial and territorial governments, has worked with alerting partners to develop the NPAS, a system that is today capable of quickly warning Canadians of an imminent threat to their life and safety whenever and wherever they are located.
I think we saw a good example last Friday when the tornado alerts issued by Environment and Climate Change Canada last Friday saved lives by providing relevant information in a timely manner on both sides of the river. These alerts gave the public time to react before the tornadoes actually formed.
[Translation]
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 provincial/territorial to federal — are vital parts of the alerting partnership.
For its part, Public Safety Canada provides national leadership on public alerting, in a manner that is consistent with its role set out in the federal Emergency Management Act. This means leveraging its ability to convene all the public alerting partners to ensure consistency and coherence across the system, across the country. However, Public Safety Canada itself does not issue alerts through NPAS. Provinces and territories and their delegated bodies are the main alert issuers, along with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
[English]
In 2017, as you know, the CRTC mandated wireless service providers to be capable of sending alerts to Canadians on their wireless devices, smartphones, by April 6, 2018. All alerting stakeholders worked closely together to make it happen on time. To do so, Public Safety Canada supported Pelmorex in developing a public awareness campaign about the launch and implementation of wireless public alerting in conjunction with our provincial and territorial counterparts. This campaign aimed at educating Canadians about the system and ensuring that Canadians were equipped to protect themselves and their families using this new tool.
In addition, during the May 2018 Emergency Preparedness Week, all provinces and territories, with the exception of Nunavut, issued their first ever wireless public alerting test messages.
We acknowledge that there have been some technical and operational challenges with the implementation of wireless public alerting. However, that is why we conduct tests, to create awareness, and to discover potential issues and to address them as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
It is important to note that wireless public alerting is a new addition to the NPAS and it is also very complex. While technical issues are addressed and resolved as they arise, public alerting partners continue to work closely to improve and strengthen wireless public alerting.
One of the lessons we learned during the public education campaign and the Emergency Preparedness Week tests relates to the issue of phone compatibility. While there was information about which devices could receive wireless alerts, the phone compatibility issue was not emphasized enough to the public, which resulted in confusion and raised expectations. For example, even compatible phones did not receive the test messages as the software had not been updated by their owners. There is no clear need to continue to educate the public with updated information.
Since then, there have been a number of real-life alerts such as floods, wildfires, tornados, and AMBER Alerts, issued by various alerting authorities across Canada.
Recognizing the importance of the sustainment of the system, Public Safety Canada and provincial and territorial partners welcome the CRTC’s recent decision to renew Pelmorex’s licence, which ensures continued funding of the National Alert Aggregation and Dissemination System, or NAAD, for the next five years.
[English]
Public Safety Canada acknowledges Pelmorex’s important contribution to Canada’s public alerting system, in particular in support of the development and evolution of the NPAS, including the recent rollout of wireless public alerting. Pelmorex’s NAAD System has evolved today into a cornerstone service of the NPAS initiative. However, despite the great work done to date, we also recognize that there is always room for improvement, a need that was re-emphasized by CRTC in its renewal decision.
In particular, over the years, both government and private sector stakeholders have voiced concerns around the current governance. With that in mind, Public Safety Canada and FPT jurisdictions will work together with Pelmorex on improving the current NPAS governance structure, including through a review of the terms of reference of the alerting governance council which oversees the NAAD System. The council is comprised of key alerting partners, including Pelmorex, FPT governments, broadcasters, and distributors and wireless service providers.
[Translation]
Through clearer roles and responsibilities, greater decision-making power to the members of the council and enhanced transparency and reporting, we will seek to improve NAAD governance. 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.
Madam Chair, I thank you once again for your attention and the opportunity to provide some additional information about NPAS. My colleagues and I look forward to answering your questions to the best of our knowledge. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll go to a round of questions starting with Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for being here. I found your presentations very useful. I want to thank you. I know I speak for all people living in Ottawa. The alerts really did work. We had no idea, and those alerts really made us move. Thank you.
I have a different question, and that’s about AMBER Alert. I take it that’s for young children. We know an increasing number of seniors are getting lost, for health reasons, and there’s from time to time talk about having an alert for seniors.
Where are we at with that? Do you see that being implemented?
Mr. Tanguy: Thank you for your question. On that front, Public Safety Canada is a member of the working group of provinces and territories responsible for the public alerting system. So this is the subject of discussion. I cannot report that we are about to implement any of that, but this is something that we would like to bring to the committee for discussion. I would be more than happy to make the committee aware of any discussion on that or any support provided by provinces or indications that we would like to go in that direction.
Let it be clear that at this stage there is no plan to be moving in that direction as far as I know.
Senator Jaffer: I appreciate your forthright answer. I’m sure the committee would like to hear what is happening or how we can support this. One of the things I hear from many constituents in my province of British Columbia is that when elderly parents go missing, there is no way to get support. We all know that the AMBER Alert is working well thanks to all of your work. I encourage you to look at this for seniors.
What definition do you use for civil emergency to determine whether an alert should be issued?
Mr. Tanguy: This is a great question. Actually, I was alluding to this working group of provinces and territories. We have put in place what we call broadcast-immediate. This is a list of hazards or events that could happen that are life-threatening. That includes as well human-made disasters, such as a spill or something like that.
We are quite conscious that we don’t want to be sending too much information or too many alerts to the public. So we are all working together to establish this list of broadcast-immediate events, and that is available on the alertready.ca website. This was done collectively with provinces and territories to really make sure that we’re focusing on those events we need to be alerting Canadians about.
My colleague from Environment and Climate Change Canada could speak about the many thousands of other weather-related events that happen during a year that are not the subject of an alert disseminated to Canadians. That’s why we’re making the distinction. Obviously a tornado, a tsunami, wildfires — those events are broadcast-immediate. I would be more than happy to provide the committee with a list of the events that are broadcast-immediate. They are really the ones we are focusing on.
We keep looking at it to make sure that we are updating this list. I would invite my colleague from Environment Canada to comment on that front.
Ken MacDonald, Executive Director, National Programs and Business Development, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I can’t speak to the civil emergency type of alerts, but certainly from a weather perspective, there are four other types of alerts that Environment and Climate Change Canada could issue over the system for the most severe thunderstorms, but below tornado level; for hurricanes; for storm surge; and the fifth one is tsunami. Those are alerts that the system could be used for.
Our biggest concern is how they will be received. This first summer has been a really good experience to see how people react to them. We do not want to over-alert. That is always a great concern, alerting for things that people may find less immediate, less dangerous to them. We will introduce more for sure, but it will be on a cautious basis to make sure we’re not over-alerting.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our guests. Mr. Shortliffe, I listened to your presentation, and I must say that there was a success concerning the events of last Friday. However, there may be a small negative score on the board. I think that, for French-speaking Canadians on French workstations, the message was broadcast in English. Most people understand English, but not everyone does. I don’t want to find the person responsible for this error, but are there ways to ensure that French-speaking people receive a message they can understand?
Mr. Shortliffe: I’ll be able to answer that to some extent, but I will ask Mr. Tanguy to round out my response. The CRTC’s role is to ensure that the system works in both languages, but there are 988 organizations in Canada that are authorized to issue alerts, including the provinces and territories. It is up to each of these organizations to determine the message content. The message can be in English or French, or be bilingual, but it is the role of the province, territory or city to issue the message.
If there is an error on the broadcasting side, we must do some research to ensure that there is no technical fault, but if there is a question about the message, it is up to the people responsible for issuing this alert to ensure that it is transmitted in the right language, for the right region.
Mr. Tanguy: You were right to point this out. There was a technical problem when alerts were issued in southern Quebec, and although the voice was French, the message was sent in English. Public Safety Canada’s role is to work with its partners on this. We immediately worked with Pelmorex colleagues and also with wireless service providers to find information about what didn’t work or what didn’t work well.
I would like to point out that, when problems like this arise, our colleagues at Pelmorex or the cable companies respond extremely quickly to correct the situation.
As my colleague Mr. Shortliffe said, the infrastructure is there to issue messages in both languages. Environment and Climate Change Canada certainly does. There may be human errors at times, a coding issue that complicates things, but the problem is identified very quickly, within 24 or 48 hours, and corrective measures are put in place. Personally, given that there is a responsibility to the Canadian public to send the messages in both languages, we see that our partners react very quickly.
Senator Dagenais: I think it is essential that Canadians understand the importance of these alerts. We know this is all relatively new. Do you have a communication strategy to ensure that when there is an alert, Canadians pay attention to it?
Mr. Tanguy: First, it should be noted that, in preparing for April 6, 2018, when alerts were going to be possible, there was a major public awareness campaign in Canada. We have worked with private sector companies, such as Pelmorex, to present a national campaign.
Public Safety Canada makes it a point of honour, in its messages and communications campaigns, to consistently reinforce the message. We know that our colleagues at Pelmorex and in the private sector are doing the same thing. Perhaps the emphasis should have been placed on telephone compatibility, and by Public Safety Canada first and foremost. We underestimated this aspect.
In preparation for upcoming awareness campaigns, for example, during Emergency Preparedness Week, every year, we want to come back to the issue and clarify these things. We receive very good cooperation from the provinces and territories, which have a responsibility, since they issue these alerts, to communicate everything to their public. I think we could do more, and we will continue to do so.
Senator Dagenais: We are fortunate to have you here today because there was an event last Friday that is allowing us to look at what happened in detail. Like everyone else, I followed the events. It was said that the system worked in about half the cases to reach people. Have you checked that? You mentioned that the devices should be more compatible.
We know that on televisions, particularly in the United States, you can see an orange screen with an alarm loud enough to make you jump. To what extent will you focus your efforts on broadcasting in traditional media, social networks, the Web and on television sets? Let me give you a personal example: when I go to Florida, to the United States, an area where hurricanes are frequent, when the screen turns orange and the TV volume is at its maximum, we all jump into the house. This applies to TV sets, but have you watched what happens with other media, such as the Web and social networks?
Mr. Shortliffe: That’s a good question. Thank you, senator. For the moment, the focus is on broadcasting and wireless devices. The commission has looked at social media but, in fact, everyone receives different messages about social media, and that includes fake news. Our intention is to ensure that, when there is a vibration, a buzz, the noise indicates that it is a genuine alert. For that reason, we are really focusing on wireless technology, radio and television. Both are equally important. The difference is that, when an alert is broadcast, it affects a large number of people. Wireless makes it possible to issue an alert for only one small town. If there is a community of 988 people and there is a problem with the bridge in that small town, the whole province does not need to be notified.
In general, when there is a tornado, as was the case last week, we use different methods based on the importance of ensuring that as many Canadians as possible receive these alerts. We can revisit social media in the future, but the intention is, first, to ensure that alerts are sent, and second, to ensure that, when people receive an alert, it is not fake news, that it is all official.
Mr. Tanguy: Very good answer. I would just like to add that I think the tests that took place last May were also important in raising public awareness. I have a personal anecdote: on Friday, I was picking up the children, I was in the Mont-Bleu sector, and I received the alerts on my phone. With the first one, I said, “Hmm.”; when I got the second one, when my children started panicking in the car, I said, “Okay,” and then I decided to go to a safer place. I heard reports in the media, particularly on the CBC, in which people said specifically, “I was shopping, and I didn’t pay attention to the first alert or the second; on the third, I phoned home and brought the children in. Moments later, my backyard was destroyed.” When I say that it saved lives, we have had testimony to that effect.
We need tests that educate the public and show them that this is real and that, when you receive these alerts, your life is in danger. I think it’s important.
When we implemented the system, we saw many Canadians react by saying that the system was imposed on them and that they could no longer take it off their cellphones. I think that deciding that it will be mandatory to receive alerts will reinforce the need to pay attention to them.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, gentlemen, for your fine presentation.
Thank you for giving us an update on the National Public Alerting System. It’s important for the committee to receive an update and make recommendations that could help improve the system.
That said, many countries, including the United States, Australia and Japan have implemented text message alert systems, in addition to television and radio alerts. As you know, recently in the United States there was a false alarm, which caused widespread panic across the Pacific island states.
Does Canada have safeguards in place to prevent false signals from being distributed to mobile devices?
Mr. Shortliffe: Thank you very much for your question, senator. It’s funny, because that’s something many people raised after the events in Hawaii.
It goes back to the fact that we have 988 alerting authorities. Each has their own safeguards. Each tries their best to ensure no errors will creep through because it’s important to maintain the integrity of the system so that people understand when an alert comes that it is real.
However, we have no special insight into that happened in Hawaii. We talked to our colleagues at the FCC about it, and to the best of our knowledge it was simple human error. It’s hard to eliminate human error from any system that is as complex as this. When there are that many people participating, that many broadcasters, that many cellphone manufacturers and wireless providers, when a system is that complex, there is always a possibility of human error.
That said, we are comfortable that every player in the Canadian system takes their responsibilities extremely seriously and attempts to learn from any mistakes that have been made to ensure they will be eliminated in the future. All the emergency management organizations that issue alerts should have their own safeguards in place.
Mr. Tanguy: I would add two things on this. Because we work closely with provinces and territories, we are aware they have their own protocols in place to prevent unauthorized access to their system. We also know that our partner, Pelmorex, has put in place some mechanism protocols to prevent any unauthorized access.
However, when it comes to reducing human error, it is about training. And this is something we have been working closely on with provinces and territories. Sometimes I refer to the role of Public Safety Canada as a light-touch coordination, but that could make a difference. Because of our convening power, we bring people to the table and talk about training, having uniform, standardized training, and we have great leadership from Alberta and Saskatchewan when it comes it that aspect. I would stress that we need to keep focusing on the training aspect. That is how we can prevent those errors from happening.
Senator McIntyre: Regarding a Canada versus the U.S. comparison, my understanding is that unlike wireless emergency alerts issued in the United States, Canada’s system requires a specific tone or vibration and banner to notify users of an emergency.
Are emergency alerts text or SMS messages?
Mr. Shortliffe: They are actually what’s called “cell broadcast,” which is different from SMS. What happens with cell broadcast is that any cell area in the geo-located area pushes out the message. You receive it basically whether you want to or not. There is no way of tracking who received it. It’s a one-way push, but the advantage is that unlike an SMS message, you’re not trying to target everyone individually because if they are travelling you will reach the wrong people. And if you are in the cell broadcast area you will receive the emergency message.
For example, people with compatible phones who were in the Ottawa area visiting, and who were perhaps driving out towards Dunrobin, should have received an emergency alert even though they are not from Ottawa and their phone is not normally from Ottawa. That is the advantage of using a cell broadcast system as opposed to an SMS system.
Senator McIntyre: In other words, alerts are distributed using what’s known as cell broadcast technology?
Mr. Shortliffe: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: First of all, I want to apologize to our witnesses for my delay, which is completely unintentional on my part. I’m sorry, because we have to put a lot of importance on our witnesses.
I will continue in the same vein as Senator Dagenais’ question about the error that was made in broadcasting the alert message that was transmitted in English only.
Having this background, we know that public safety is paramount and that it is at the heart of the safety of the public, whether during floods or other similar events. People in the region have had their share of problems in recent years and, when one issue is added to another, it has a multiplier effect on the level of stress experienced by these people.
When you work in an organization as important as the federal government, you normally have guidelines, barriers that prevent you from repeating the same mistakes. Do you have a process in place to ensure that these things do not happen again?
Mr. Shortliffe: It is the responsibility of provincial and territorial organizations to issue alerts in the right language. The CRTC’s responsibility is to ensure that the system is able to issue alerts in both languages, but also to require all players to correct all problems.
After the tests last May, the CRTC sent letters to ensure that all technical problems were corrected. When other errors occur, such as what happened recently in Saskatchewan and in the case of the language error that occurred in Quebec, it is our practice to ask all players involved to tell us what measures will be taken to correct the error. In addition, all this information is available to the public on our website, because we have no control over the content of the messages.
Senator Boisvenu: Who has that power? The exercise in May, in Quebec, as you will recall, was not entirely successful. The message was incomprehensible. And so we are repeating the same mistake. Who has the power to solve these problems, if you cannot?
Mr. Tanguy: I might add, senator, that you have to understand how the system works; Public Safety Canada does not issue alerts.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, because the system does not work. When a mistake happens twice, it’s because a system doesn’t work. I understand that there are a lot of stakeholders, and when there are too many players, it gets hard to know who is the coach and who is the captain. I understand that you are managing a sort of pizza, and that there are a lot of unknown ingredients, but when we eat it, it’s not very digestible.
Who is responsible for ensuring that this issue regarding emergency messages that involve people’s safety, a message that in this case was sent out in English only, will not happen again in Quebec?
Mr. Tanguy: To answer your question in a concrete way, regarding whether there is a time lapse that would allow people to correct things, there is no delay for us, at Public Safety Canada. We do not have the necessary authority to impose such a delay. Responsibility was shared between the keeper of the infrastructure, the NAAD System — the National Alert and Dissemination System — Pelmorex, and the private companies. At that point, if there is a coding error, they are responsible for correcting everything.
We work with them by ensuring, as my colleague from the CRTC said, that we identify the error, and they share the information with us on a very voluntary basis, and afterwards —
Senator Boisvenu: Pardon me? Did you say voluntary or mandatory?
Mr. Tanguy: They share the information with us on a voluntary basis, because it is a partnership wherein Public Safety Canada —
Senator Boisvenu: You are telling me that as regards the safety of the population, people provide information on a voluntary, non-mandatory basis? Is that really what you are saying?
Mr. Tanguy: Yes, that’s what I said and I’m going to repeat it, because Public Safety Canada’s role is not to impose decisions. Since we don’t issue alerts, we do not have an agreement to issue alerts with anyone, whether Pelmorex or the private broadcasters. Our job is to bring the players together, identify the problems and take corrective action.
When I appeared before your committee last February, I said we used moral persuasion. In our partnerships with the provinces, I can’t tell Alberta or Quebec what to do, because the authorities have to be the ones to issue the messages. They work within the parameters of the agreements with the broadcasting companies, and authorities at Pelmorex. However, I can use what power I have to get them to share information — which they do quite well — so that we can determine what the problem was, so that it doesn’t happen a second time.
Since the tests in May, after we found the problem, we were able to examine it and correct it to avoid a reoccurence.
Senator Boisvenu: Is it the province’s fault that the message was broadcast in English only in Quebec?
Mr. Shortliffe: First, we have to figure out where the problem lies.
Senator Boisvenu: I’ll go back to my question. You say that you cannot impose your will on the provinces. That is what you said, correct?
Mr. Tanguy: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: If in Gatineau, Quebec, an emergency alert is issued in English only, is it Quebec’s fault?
Mr. Shortliffe: It’s a very complex system. It may possibly be the province’s fault or that of the wireless service provider. The first thing the CRTC must do is investigate what happened and find the reason behind the problem. After that, if it falls under the CRTC’s jurisdiction, we can ask the wireless service provider, for instance, to correct the situation. However, the first thing that has to be done is to investigate, because it is a fairly complex system that involves several players.
If it falls under our jurisdiction, we can require something, but if not, that’s another problem. The first thing to do is to investigate the reasons why there was an issue. Sometimes, there are several different reasons behind an error made by a specific province.
Mr. Tanguy: Briefly, Senator Boisvenu, in this context, for this specific example, what happened was the result of an error by Last Mile Distributors, so on the part of companies that were unable to correctly transmit everything.
So, it was not the Quebec government’s fault, that is not what I am saying. But, that said — and my Pelmorex colleagues could confirm it — the blame lies rather between Pelmorex — the system — and the provider who broadcasts the information, i.e. the wireless service provider. That is where there was a problem, in this case regarding television.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I am concerned about saying, “Not our fault; it’s X, Y, Z’s fault.” We are a bilingual country, and this is a real concern when we are not informing our whole population.
You have given an answer, but I want you to know that I think we need a better explanation, if you can provide us with one. This is not acceptable in a bilingual country, in our capital, to say it is this one’s fault or that one’s fault. We want to know what went wrong in detail, please.
Senator Richards: Thank you for coming. I was a bit late, too, and I apologize for that.
My question I think was answered by the response you gave to Senator McIntyre. I was going to ask about the self-broadcast as well. I was travelling in the 613 area code. I didn’t get it, but I was travelling, so that is probably the reason I didn’t get it. I just want you to clarify that. Is that the reason?
Mr. Shortliffe: It probably is the reason, but, as we said earlier, one of the things we are discovering is that the compatibility of cellphones is also a question, which is why it is important to have it on radio, television and cellphones. Not all cellphones are compatible yet with the NAAD System. If you were travelling, you wouldn’t have received it certainly. Had you been in the region, there are people in the region who did not receive it on their cellphone simply because either their phone is not yet compatible or there is a problem with their service provider. As I said earlier, it’s a new system and remarkably complex. We are still trying to work out some of the bugs.
Senator Richards: My major concern wasn’t about me; I was in New Brunswick giving a talk. But my concern was other people in the area who would not have received the message. That is all I was asking.
Mr. Shortliffe: Absolutely. If they were in the area, regardless of where their cellphone was from originally, if it was compatible, they should have received the message.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Is the National Public Alert System a pyramid-like structure, or is it strictly a horizontal system that does not clearly assign responsibility and ownership of the results?
Mr. Tanguy: I would say that it is a decentralized system. When I appeared before the committee last February, that is what I said. It’s similar to when we manage emergencies.
You referred to your experience at Public Safety Canada. Of course, the first responders are the municipal and provincial authorities, and when necessary, we ask for the help of the federal government.
For the alerts, regarding this system for which they have some responsibility, certain provinces will decide to delegate their responsibility to certain authorities. For instance, regarding AMBER Alerts in Ontario, the decision was made to delegate the responsibility to the police service, whereas in British Columbia they prefer to have a more centralized system that stays within the provincial government.
I would say that generally, it’s a decentralized system and Public Safety Canada plays a leadership role, but it varies from one province to another. It is important, when it comes to both protocol and training, to aim to work together, so that the system can be as uniform as possible.
Senator Boisvenu: In the case of events that affect more than one province, as was the case with last week’s events in Ottawa and Gatineau, would it not be advisable to strengthen the leadership and ensure that the response and the coordination are bilingual? For instance, when there is a flood in a very closed milieu, I understand that it’s possible to delegate to the municipal level. Quebec has in fact done this in some cases. But when major events occur and affect several provinces, should the role of the federal level not be more important?
To the average citizen, it doesn’t seem serious to say that the system is decentralized and that we don’t know who is to blame, and that an investigation will be done. People wonder what will happen the next time, and whether we will again have to look for a guilty party.
In my opinion, certain events are of such magnitude that they should not be delegated. If war breaks out tomorrow morning, the federal government will not let the provinces decide whether to enlist people or not. There would be very strong federal leadership. That is why I think that the federal government should exercise greater leadership when major events occur.
Mr. Tanguy: First, regarding the incident we are talking about, the official languages aspect is one thing, but the proper management of the emergency management system in Canada is another.
Regarding official languages, there is a will to work together. It is important also to say that when the federal government manages emergencies — and we saw this in the case of forest fires in British Columbia, during the floods in Quebec last year, and also this year in New Brunswick — it proactively offers provinces the support of the Canadian Armed Forces and that of Transport Canada, which does aerial surveillance and geomatics. In emergencies, the federal government practices proactive leadership that complements the powers of the provinces and other authorities.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Can you tell us about the cost associated with implementing the text message alert system? What are the costs for implementing the system?
Mr. Shortliffe: The costs are diffused through the system. What the CRTC had decided was that there was not going to be a cost which would then be appended to a cellphone bill going to an individual Canadian. The costs to Pelmorex are contained within their tariff. Pelmorex has what is called “9(1)(h) status.” That is “must carry” status, and it means that every cable and satellite package in Canada, no matter how basic, has to include Pelmorex. It was renewed in August. An important reason it was renewed was the ongoing work of delivering the NAAD System. Part of the logic there was, yes, Pelmorex will have national distribution; it will be assured. Within their cost structure, which contains obviously many other things, they will be expected to deliver the NAAD System. As for the costs borne by municipalities and other federal government entities, I wouldn’t be able to answer.
There isn’t a single total for the system as a whole, but the commission has taken action to ensure they are borne within the cost of the system and not being simply passed on as an additional charge to the individual consumer.
Senator McIntyre: So you can’t give us dollar figures?
Mr. Shortliffe: No, I’m afraid I can’t give you a specific dollar figure.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Tanguy, can you confirm whether at the next meeting of provincial and federal Ministers of Public Safety, this topic will be discussed?
Mr. Tanguy: That is an excellent question. We held a federal-provincial-territorial meeting last May, and the topic was discussed because the ministers of the provinces and territories want us to strengthen governance.
Another meeting is planned for January, and we are currently working on the agenda, which has not been confirmed with my Alberta co-chair. I would be surprised if that topic was not on the agenda. It is of course a priority.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Let me take this opportunity to thank our witnesses today. It is particularly timely to have them on the day following the events in Ottawa. We thank you very much for taking the time, especially given how busy it must be for all of you, and also I appreciate your direct answers. Thank you very much.
Senators, in our second panel today, we continue to examine the emergency warning system and are pleased to welcome representatives from Pelmorex Weather Networks (Television) Inc. We welcome Kurt Eby, Director, Regulatory and Government Relations; and Martin Bélanger, Director, Public Alerting.
Mr. Eby, I understand you have some opening remarks, after which we’ll move to questions.
Kurt Eby, Director, Regulatory and Government Relations, Pelmorex Weather Networks (Television) Inc.: I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senators, we’re very pleased to be here. We wrote these notes before what happened on Friday, so that has changed things, and also before we saw our colleagues previous to us, and there’s a lot of repeat, so we’ll go through this quickly. We know you have a lot of questions.
First and foremost for us, we’re obviously very relieved about Friday, that there were no fatalities, no loss of life, and we’re very pleased that the system did work and did help people get to safety, which is obviously what it’s intended to do and very important.
Just a quick reminder, Pelmorex, as you heard before, operates and funds the National Alert Aggregation and Dissemination System, also known as the NAAD System, which is the backbone infrastructure of the National Public Alerting System, which is also known publicly as Alert Ready. We also operate alertready.ca, which is the website that provides information to Canadians; and enalert.ca provides information to the public in French on public alerting. We also ran and led the awareness campaign that happened last spring.
In terms of our role in the alerting chain, as you heard, the issuers are provincial public safety authorities or people they’ve designated within their own jurisdictions to issue alerts, and, federally, Environment and Climate Change Canada. They input and submit an emergency message using either the user interface that we provide that’s connected to the NAAD System or an interface of their own design that connects into our system. Basically, they write the alert, specify where it’s going to go, what’s included, what the alert is for and whether it’s to be broadcast immediately, and then they hit send.
The NAAD System receives the alert. Within a matter of seconds it validates the alert to ensure that all fields were entered correctly and all protocols were observed, and then it disseminates the alert to distributors, such as TV and radio broadcasters and wireless service providers. It basically takes the message and packages it up into a format that is intended to be received by these distributors and then makes it available. In some cases these are public feeds. In the case of wireless service providers, it’s a private feed that we connect to them.
Also, these alerts are made publicly available through multiple feeds, including RSS, for anyone. So there are apps out there. Anyone who has the technical wherewithal can connect, take these alerts and push them out. So to answer the question from earlier about social media, it’s available. Google takes these alerts. Sometimes they show up on Twitter. We make them available for everyone. It’s really just the broadcasters — radio, TV, cable and wireless — that are regulated such that they have to distribute them, but the alerts are really a public broadcast good. That’s how it works.
Once the alerts have been made available, they are disseminated to the proper location, and it’s really up to the distributors and the technology inherent within their systems to make sure that these go to the right people and are available for the right amount of time.
As we mentioned before, obviously a lot of progress has happened since Martin and another colleague of ours were here in February. There have been upwards of or close to 100 uses of the system now with wireless public alerts. About half of those have been original messages, and the other half are updates to those messages, which is often how it works. You would have seen this with the tornado last week. There’s the original tornado alert, and then you get updates that come based on where it’s tracking, what’s happening and what’s the next piece of information for the public.
Most of the alerts that have been public so far — about three quarters — have been related to tornadoes. The others have been, as we’ve heard, AMBER Alerts. There have been some wildfires and flash floods, but tornadoes are the main threat and have been, especially in the summer and into the fall.
Finally, as was mentioned before, at the end of August, our broadcasting licence for The Weather Network and MétéoMédia was renewed by the CRTC, which includes keeping our services on basic television for everyone. It’s also through these licence terms that we’re able to fund and operate the NAAD System at no cost to Canadians or to government. We’re obviously very pleased that this will continue at least for another five years, until the end of August 2023. We’re looking forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much.
Senator Jaffer: First of all, I want to thank you. I thought the alert was very effective. If the alert had not been there, we still would have been working in the office for a while. I want to thank you.
I am concerned that it was only in one language, if I’m not mistaken. What I first want to understand is the process because I’m not familiar with it. I don’t mean to diminish your role. Don’t take it that way.
Do you get a message, and if so, from whom? Do you distribute it, or do you send it out? Do you personally, or somebody in your offices or your institution, once you know what it is, write the message? Who does that?
Mr. Eby: That’s a great question. There’s no human interaction in our office with the NAAD System. It’s all automated, because these are mission-critical, life-saving alerts for life-threatening situations, and they have to go fast.
If there was a spelling error in them, that would show up in the alert. We don’t look at it; we don’t read it. It’s to make sure the technical parameters were followed, to make sure that we can validate it, that it’s coming from a proper source, that is coming from an official entity authorized to issue alerts and distribute them.
In the case that we’re talking about here, from Friday, the alert was from Environment and Climate Change Canada. They do issue all of their alerts in English and French. We pass it through in the format and the order that we receive it in. In this case, it’s the distributors, the cable companies, because of the way it came on TV. They have technology that they’ve paid for that takes the alert and disseminates it. In this case, it sounds like the alert went out in English in areas where, generally, it should have been in French.
Martin Bélanger, Director, Public Alerting, Pelmorex Weather Networks (Television) Inc.: That is correct. As Kurt mentioned, the process is fully automated to make sure that alerts are processed in real time. The manual component is really about the monitoring of the system. That’s also a key component.
Regarding some of the issues that were raised earlier in the hearing, we have a team that also constantly monitors these alerts to make sure they are processed and sent to all of our partners. That includes the broadcasters, the cable operators and the wireless service providers. If issues are reported, we quickly and effectively address those. There’s definitely a team working 24-7 on those. But the processing of those alerts is automated to make sure they are disseminated to the public as soon as possible, especially in the case of an emergency alert.
Mr. Eby: That’s important, too. Martin mentioned if an issue is reported. As I mentioned, our system processes the alerts and sends them out, and then the distributors take them, and they will push them out. They know what language their customers speak, or possibly they will make it available bilingually.
Because we monitor the situation so closely and are seeing what’s out there and getting feedback, we typically find out quickly if something happens, but it’s really because of the focus of Martin and his team that we find this stuff out. There’s no technical mechanism that comes back to us and says this alert went out in a language that was probably the incorrect language. But we’ll take that and share that with the people who need to know and who might have —
Senator Jaffer: I don’t mean you to cut you off, Mr. Eby. I don’t know if you were here. Mr. Tanguy said it was your fault that it didn’t go out bilingually. Now you’re saying Environment. I didn’t ask Mr. MacDonald the question.
I don’t want to go into fault. All I want to say to you is that it’s not good enough in the capital city of our country, which is bilingual.
May I ask you, please, to see how we can fix that? I’m not going to lay fault — that’s not my job — but I do want it, especially in our capital, to go out in both languages.
Mr. Eby: Certainly. Like I said, we share this information with the people who need to have it and who are in the position to fix it and make the change.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I thank our guests for being here. Mr. Eby and Mr. Bélanger, it seems that the broadcaster is responsible for the message, and that it is broadcast in one language according to where it occurs. Canada is a big country, and I think it is bilingual from east to west. If you take the United States, for example, even though it is not a bilingual country, messages are broadcast in English and in Spanish.
Do I understand that the broadcaster is more or less responsible? It will broadcast the message that is sent to it. Mr. Bélanger, do you think that the way in which the message is prepared at this time is ideal, or should that be reviewed?
Mr. Bélanger: As for the alerts and the language used, it’s really up to the provinces issuing the alerts to make the decision, or, in the case of a weather alert, Environment and Climate Change Canada determines the form of the alerts. If you take last Friday’s tornado alerts, for example, they were bilingual, in English and in French. We send the message as is to the distributors, and they are responsible for determining how to post them on their respective platforms, be it television or through an audio message on the radio, or on compatible cell phones. We work with these partners; in that way, if a problem is raised, it’s possible to understand why the message was not sent out or displayed properly. We work with the authorized governments that issue the alert, and with the distributors, to find the best way of solving problems such as what happened last Friday in certain sectors in the southern part of Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: As you explained, the decision is up to the provinces. However, when it is a matter of safety, don’t you think this should fall under the federal government? Because Quebec will make one decision, British Columbia will make another, and so it will be up to the provincial governments. The provinces experience different conditions from one end of the country to the other. When it comes to public safety and weather events, when the tornado leaves Ontario and crosses over into Quebec, it doesn’t ask itself whether it is under provincial or federal jurisdiction; it can touch down wherever it likes. I understand that this isn’t your bailiwick, but shouldn’t the decision be made nationally, since we’re talking about safety?
Mr. Bélanger: Regarding last Friday’s tornadoes, since this was a weather event, Environment and Climate Change Canada issued the alerts, and so the decision was made at the federal level. In the case of other alerts, the provinces will have jurisdiction. The provinces will, in those cases, decide to issue an emergency alert or not, and for which region.
However, we work with partners and we try to show leadership when there is an issue, or to make sure that the message is properly received by Canadians. We belong to various working groups with the federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as the distributors, to try to see how everything can be improved or ensure proper distribution. Regarding the wireless alerts since last April, for this to be a success, all of the partners have to work together. It’s really a good example of a situation where all orders of government, Pelmorex as well as the distributors, were able to put a system in place, review it and revise it continuously to make improvements. That is what we do on an ongoing basis. For every emergency alert, we study things and validate events with our partners so as to improve the system for the next emergency.
Senator Dagenais: Is the alert broadcast at the same time on all channels, or can there be a lag?
Mr. Bélanger: As soon as the alert is processed by the NAAD System, it is available to all the disseminating partners, be it the wireless service providers, the cable distributors, or television and radio services. They all have access to the emergency alert at the same time. However, they have their own systems to display this alert on their respective platforms, so there could be a time variation among the systems at that point; but from the NAAD side, as soon as we receive an alert from the government agencies, it gets distributed to all our partners simultaneously.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation. I’m interested in knowing what really happened in May and why we got mixed results.
Moments ago, the committee heard from the first panel. From what I understand, the difficulties in May, in Quebec, did not originate with cellphone service providers. It appears that the problem occurred between emergency management in Quebec and your company, Pelmorex, which operates the system.
Here is what the CBC reported:
. . . in a code sequence that was entered manually by a Pelmorex employee, a space was included incorrectly, which prevented the system from sending the message in Quebec through wireless phones.
Would you care to elaborate?
Mr. Eby: What happened in Quebec was an issue with our system, Pelmorex. That was our fault.
Senator McIntyre: So you take that responsibility?
Mr. Eby: Definitely. We did publicly, and we let everyone know that.
The way that is characterized sounds like somebody is manually doing something for each individual alert. It wasn’t specific to that alert. It was in the coding of the system, which we had tested many times with wireless providers but using a controlled test channel so it wouldn’t be public. It was only during the test that that one single space was found, and that stopped the message from going through.
We corrected it within 10 minutes and we were able to distribute the alert in Ontario a couple of hours later. That is what happened. That issue was corrected and has not been an issue since, but yes.
Senator McIntyre: Could you tell us a bit about additional tests? Have they been carried out since May 2018? Are more tests planned, or is the system now considered to be fully operational?
Mr. Eby: The CRTC ruled that there would be one public test per year; the concern obviously being that it is such an invasive and broad-spread system.
To back up, a test policy was developed with all our stakeholders for when alerts were on broadcast radio and TV. It was up to five tests per year at set times throughout the year at the discretion of each of the provinces. Many provinces did the five tests, but they were at about one o’clock in the afternoon, on TV and radio, so you would have to have your TV or radio on to hear them. You would get one or two a year.
The CRTC came out and said they wanted the wireless public test to happen only once per year. That was the May test. There would be one scheduled for every subsequent May.
Since that test, the provinces have been concerned that if they proceeded with these other tests, the broadcast test would happen, but the wireless test would go over an invisible channel so it wouldn’t show up on the phone. There might be public concern: Why I’m getting it on my TV and not wirelessly? Is wireless broken? So they haven’t been doing those tests. We are looking at that now. As of right now, there’s one test scheduled per year.
I would point to the 100 or so times the system has been used as really being real, live test cases, and it’s working.
Mr. Bélanger: Those are the visible tests that the public would receive. On a daily basis, our team conducts some silent or invisible tests to make sure the system is working properly. At the request of some provinces, or at the request of some distributors, we can do a controlled test that is not sent to the public. Those are also happening beyond the ones that have been scheduled, like the one in May.
So tests are constantly being done, including the training. We provide a platform so that the provinces and the authorities accessing the system can test alerts and train as well. So those are different mechanisms we have in place to constantly check the system.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for being back with us. I was in the Ottawa International Airport. When I travel I usually wear earbuds, and I can assure you that the message got through loud and clear. There was absolutely no ignoring it.
But for large numbers of people in public venues, such as airports, train stations, bus stations — and please correct me if I am wrong — whatever is being broadcast on the televisions, which are playing everywhere in those places, is there anything that would allow for a more concentrated broadcast? These large numbers of people don’t always have an attention span. There’s no ignoring it when it comes into your ears, but has any consideration been given to that?
Mr. Eby: Are you talking about to target a specific —
Senator McPhedran: Yes, on the screens, to multiply the messages, to try to make sure. People are rushing. They’re not sitting watching the screen in the way television is typically designed.
Mr. Eby: On TV, they get the alert and they put it out. They have to show it at least once. Sometimes they will repeat it multiple times. That’s really it.
We talk about a next kind of evolution, although we haven’t talked about this formally. Many of the screens at airports and so on are not actually connected to the public television network. They are a separate type of screen. Sometimes it’s for advertising. It would be great to have those companies involved with that get on board. As I said, these alerts are public. They could pick the feed up and make them available. That type of thing would be excellent.
Senator McPhedran: Most airports are operated by authorities. This seems to be something that would be achievable. There are a number of screens in a place like that. In many cases you would have people potentially travelling directly to the place where the weather is an issue without necessarily knowing it.
Mr. Eby: Right.
Senator McPhedran: From your experience, to change this, would this mean an additional order from the CRTC?
Mr. Eby: That’s a very good question. To require it, it would, but I don’t know whether the screens inside an airport would fall under the purview of the CRTC. Possibly another government agency would have to collaborate, possibly Transport Canada, but I’m not sure. But obviously we would like companies to get on board voluntarily as a public good.
Senator McPhedran: Supplemental to that, it would be fair to say that everyone around the table wants to see a better system, that this is in development and that there’s learning that’s going on. Following up on my colleague Senator Jaffer’s question and plea to you, can you summarize for us what you would consider to be the most important next steps, in terms of both addressing the failures that have been documented and also just making the whole system that much better?
Mr. Eby: The Governance Council of Pelmorex Communications Inc. was it was put in place by the CRTC under the conditions of how we operate. We meet face to face at least twice a year. The next meeting is this Wednesday, so it’s very timely, and a lot of these things will be discussed.
We identify the issues, and we have to identify who is responsible for them. If it’s a private company that needs to make changes, we get a commitment from them that they will. We must be in touch with the regulator to make sure they’re aware of what’s going on, and if they need to step in, then they can do that as well.
Technical issues that result in alerts of the wrong language going out are a priority to fix. That’s key. Making sure that all the distributors who need to distribute messages can is our other main priority. Those are the two things we are really focused on right now.
Senator McPhedran: Could you then undertake to make sure that your advisory group knows of today’s discussion and perhaps share back with our clerk any outcomes from that?
Mr. Eby: I will do that gladly.
Senator Richards: Thanks for being here.
My question is along the same line. I talked briefly before to a witness about the same thing. I was in New Brunswick. I have a 613 number on my parliamentary phone, and I didn’t get the broadcast. But then again I was in New Brunswick, so that’s probably why. My parliamentary executive assistant, who is here and has a 613 number, didn’t get it either. That’s a little concerning that she didn’t get it. That I didn’t receive it is understandable. That she didn’t is somewhat problematic.
I know these things have to be ironed out; I’m just bringing that to your attention so that maybe they will be ironed out in the future.
Mr. Eby: I do not know where your assistant was or what type of phone it is. I can’t really comment on it that much because it is dependent on the phone.
Senator Richards: She has a wireless phone.
Mr. Eby: If it was an LTE phone and she was connected to an LTE network, and if she’s downloaded the latest software and was in the alerting area, then she should have received it. However, I don’t know those things.
If we look at when the system launched based on the parameters that were ordered by the CRTC, the estimate was somewhere in the range of 60 to 65 per cent of phones in the market were probably compatible. There are a lot that are not compatible.
There are about 30 million phones in the country. People turn them in every two to three years. We’re looking at somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 phones every day coming into the market that will be compatible, so this will turn over quickly. We’ve really seen that from when the system launched.
We get a lot of feedback from the public on our website about why people didn’t receive alerts. Those inquiries have really gone down. That’s an indication now that people understand how the system works and what’s happening, and that more and more phones are compatible every day. In a couple of years, everyone will be getting them.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Oh: We are so close to the U.S. Do we cooperate with the U.S. weather networks? How does it work? Do we access information constantly? Will you share that with us?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes. There is definitely some information being shared, especially in some of the sessions; for example, when we were working on public alerting, the wireless component, by April, some representatives from FEMA came to some information days and sessions to share their knowledge and some of the learning of how they implemented the alert system. Public Safety Canada and this group are definitely more connected to the U.S. regulators and issuers there. That information is shared.
For example, there is a test planned for October in the U.S. That is important to know because some of those alerts might spill over along the border. Information is shared when it is relevant. This way we can learn and improve the system based on the learning in the United States.
Mr. Eby: Exactly. As we heard before, they had the issue in Hawaii. We monitored that closely to find out what happened and to make sure people here were aware, and how we want things like that not to happen in Canada. We stay in touch with them.
It is different. Theirs is run by FEMA, which is a big government agency. It is a different model than we have here.
Senator Oh: That also covers travel information for Canadians going out of the country?
Mr. Bélanger: It is the same as, for example, an American travelling to Canada. Let’s say there was an American in Ottawa on Friday afternoon. They would have received the alert on their device. Similarly, if a Canadian is in the United States and there is an emergency alert, if they have a compatible cellphone, they should receive the alert on their device.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Bélanger, is your enterprise also responsible for the management of the AMBER Alerts?
Mr. Bélanger: We are responsible for having the necessary technology so the authorities can issue an AMBER Alert. Then it is really up to the police services or the government to decide to issue the alert. They do so with their own system or with the interface we provide to create the alert or disseminate it. As my colleague Mr. Eby mentioned, we process the alert in real time to ensure that it meets the standards and automatically make it available to all distributers. Our role is really to focus on processing the alert and to make sure the platform is available for the authorities to issue the alert when they need it.
Senator Boisvenu: The RCMP issued an AMBER Alert on September 18 in Saskatchewan. The alert was issued three hours later by text message and one hour later on television. Who is to blame?
Mr. Bélanger: We have to look at how the NAAD System processed the alert. After the AMBER Alert was first issued by the RCMP in Saskatchewan, it was disseminated to all wireless service providers and all radio and television broadcasters. To our knowledge, the alert was disseminated to public broadcasters such as radio and television. We were informed in real time that the alert had not worked on the wireless systems. This led to a process to find the cause and a solution to the delay that occurred in this alert, which was not first sent on compatible wireless devices.
After more careful review, it was determined that certain systems downstream from the NAAD System were unable to convey certain characters used by the RCMP. This is something new that had not been raised in the past when the system was implemented in April 2018; we became aware of it through this AMBER Alert.
We are working with the authorities, our colleagues and partners and with the wireless providers to correct this situation and to prevent any recurrence.
Senator Boisvenu: In the United States, a lot of alerts are issued in the southern states. In Florida, on the East Coast and in the centre of the country, do they run into the same problems with confusion as we do in Canada?
Mr. Bélanger: I cannot comment on the situation in the United States and how alerts are received —
Senator Boisvenu: Are there as many players in the United States? In Canada, it seems there are more players involved every time we talk about this.
Mr. Bélanger: It is a complex system, as our colleagues from the CRTC noted. There are those that issue the alert —
Senator Boisvenu: Is it simpler in the United States than in Canada? I understand that in Canada the provinces guard their prerogative and responsibilities very jealously. Have they been able to simplify the system in the United States to eliminate errors such as simple matter of language?
Mr. Bélanger: I cannot comment on the situation in the United States. I am more familiar with how the system works in Canada.
Senator Boisvenu: Do we compare our system to our neighbour’s or to that of other countries where it runs more smoothly than here? It seems that mistakes are being repeated, but no one is responsible. Everyone says it is not our fault; it is their fault, it is not their fault. Everyone keeps passing the buck. It is very cumbersome and bureaucratic, but ultimately this is important for members of the public.
Mr. Bélanger: The alert system is truly critical. It is very important and we admire it, which is why we are very involved. For our part, when there is a problem, we certainly work on it right away with all our partners, whether the authorities or the distributors.
There are different reasons for the errors. There are very different reasons for what happened in southern Quebec last Friday and the situation in Saskatchewan. As soon as a problem is identified, we work with all our partners to resolve it as quickly as possible. I would just like to point out that it might not be the same mistake every time.
What we are actually noticing in using the system, since there are so many partners such as broadcasters and the authorities, is that different factors come into play, which is why our work with all the partners and the governing council is so important to raise those factors and seek long-term solutions if we see trends on one platform or another.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Thank you, panel. My question is related to Prince Edward Island. I am a senator from Prince Edward Island, so I always look at what this means to us and to me.
In Prince Edward Island, certain areas have poor cellphone coverage in the rural areas on either end of the island. In the summer we have a lot of tourists. We have a lot of visitors trying to use the cellphone system, so it gets to overcapacity. Of course, the cell network then reverts to a lower non-LTE standard. So there are individuals who would not receive an emergency alert on their phones, right?
Mr. Eby: We heard earlier that the technology being used is cell broadcast and not SMS. One of the advantages is the message is sent over what is called the “control channel.” It is a channel in the network that is really not used. It is used for maintenance. That is why the message gets through and is not affected by network congestion.
Everyone remembers when the shooting happened in Ottawa that you couldn’t send a text message. If the system had been operational that day, the message would have got through to cellphones. That is one of the reasons why the cell broadcast technology was the way to go.
You are right about coverage. Rural coverage is obviously a constraint, as it is with many other things in Canada. Getting broadband and wireless out to rural areas is something that has been worked on for a long time and still is. It is one of the reasons why the system is TV and radio and wireless, to use as many media as possible to get those warnings out.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Bélanger, we know that extreme weather events are likely to occur more and more often and, without minimizing what happened in Gatineau, it could be worse in the future. You said the messages were sent to various distributors, but they were not necessarily relayed everywhere at the same time, and that someone could simply decide not to issue them.
With all the money invested in a national alert system, don’t you think it falls short and that, if we truly want to be effective, that all distributors should be required to relay the same message at the same time?
With so much money being invested in this system, it is incredible that we have not checked to see what our neighbours to the south have. We can conclude all the agreements with those neighbours that we like, but maybe we should also observe their alert systems. In the United States, there is a federal government, but there are also 50 states. We should find out out who makes the decision: is it the federal government or each state? We could then finetune our system accordingly. Americans and Canadians travel on both sides of the border. From a national security viewpoint, we should adopt the same practices for both countries and see how it is done south of the border.
Mr. Bélanger: Let me clarify something I said earlier. When I said it is not necessarily at the same time, I am talking about a difference of seconds, not 30 minutes. Once the alert is made available by the NAAD System, each distributor is responsible for relaying it on their own platform. I cannot tell you how many seconds. Each distributor would be in a better position to tell you that.
Moreover, the alerts are issued automatically and the service providers are tasked. Cable distributors, radio and television are tasked by the CRTC to display the alerts if they meet the criteria of an emergency alert. These service providers have to relay the alert for the region affected. It is not an option. Wireless service providers have that same responsibility to their customers who have a compatible smart phone. As soon as the alert is issued, they have to relay it to the public.
Senator Dagenais: Would you agree that Canada should contact the United States to see how they handle this?
Mr. Bélanger: We do have that kind of contact. As I said earlier, there have been situations when we were there in the states. This is something that Public Safety Canada could comment on further since they work closely with the U.S. authorities in this regard.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: I want to go back to Senator Dagenais’s last question regarding the relationship between Canada and the United States. In your presentation you mentioned the Alert Ready system. Would the Alert Ready system send an alert if a missile is launched, as is the case in the United States and some other countries?
Mr. Eby: We don’t have a connection established with the Department of National Defence.
Senator McIntyre: Are there plans to update the system to account for this threat?
Mr. Eby: That question would be better directed to Public Safety Canada or National Defence. We always seek to partner with agencies such as Canada Border Services and the Coast Guard to use the system. We think there would be good use. We built it, and we would like it to be used more.
Senator McIntyre: I take it awareness initiatives are currently in place to ensure that the public understands the current alert system and uses it to maximum effect. Could you tell us a bit about those awareness initiatives?
Mr. Eby: We maintain the alertready.ca website. There is a French version as well. We continue to get a lot of traffic to that. Every time there is an alert, such as the one that happened this weekend, it creates public awareness. We believe it is very high right now. There will be a test again next May. At the very least, the wireless providers have committed to sending, in advance, a text message to all their customers saying there is a test coming, which is an effective awareness tool. Based on the past campaign, we developed some of the assets we used for the radio, television and digital commercials that can be deployed again. We are also discussing what is next to make sure we can get those out there, run a campaign and ensure Canadians continue to be aware.
Quickly, to go back to the U.S. and the comparisons to the U.S., we made some choices in Canada that differ from the United States, a big one being that in the U.S. customers are allowed to opt-out of receiving the alerts. There are various levels. There is weather, invisible AMBER Alert and one called the presidential channel. They are allowed to opt-out of everything but the presidential channel. The presidential alert has never been used in the United States.
We conducted provincial tests over the course of two separate days to form a national test. The test Martin mentioned in the U.S. would be the first time they’ve run a public test of their system as well. There are differences in the choices we’ve made going forward, and in some ways I think we’re a little ahead of them.
The Chair: Given there are no further questions, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today, particularly following the events of the weekend. We appreciate you joining us and answering our questions.
(The committee continued in camera.)