I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, Meeting No. 36.
Thank you very much to our witnesses for coming and to committee members for being here this morning.
We're continuing our study under Standing Order 108(2) on unmanned aerial vehicle regulations—drones, as we all know them.
We have Doug Johnson, vice-president, technology policy, for Consumer Technology Association, and by video conference, Stephen Wilcox, airport manager, Oshawa Executive Airport, for the Canadian Airports Council.
Welcome to you both. Thank you very much for spending some time with us today.
I will ask Mr. Johnson to start.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
CTA is the trade association representing the $386 billion consumer technology industry. Our members include 2,200 companies, 80% of which are start-ups and small businesses, as well as more than 160 companies in Canada.
Much like the association itself, our drone policy working group reflects a diverse group of both large and small companies, including component suppliers, drone manufacturers, retailers, and service providers.
We're active on drone-related matters in several areas, including public policy, market research, consumer education, and industry standards.
As a champion of innovation, CTA has been a long-time advocate of clear rules authorizing drone use in the national airspace. In general, we believe it is important that Canada strike the appropriate risk-based balance in developing rules that support innovation and safety, with benefits to consumers and commerce.
CTA has been working with various stakeholders, including legislators and regulators in the U.S., to advance the drone industry, address safety and privacy issues, and promote the safe and beneficial use of drones.
In the U.S., CTA has partnered with the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, on the Know Before You Fly campaign to educate consumers on the safe operation of drones. Last year we served on the FAA's registration task force charged with developing consensus recommendations to the FAA on the registration of drones. Earlier this year, we served on the FAA's micro-UAS aviation rule-making committee, which developed consensus recommendations regarding drone flights over people.
CTA also supported the first permanent rules regarding commercial drone operations in the U.S., which took effect this past summer.
Rules regarding drone operations should embody a risk-based approach to integrating drones into the national airspace in order to maximize safety, utility, and economic benefit. Each rule, restriction, and requirement should reflect the appropriate amount of risk to that activity and then balance that risk with the associated benefits of that activity.
Rules for drones also should be flexible, for rapid technological innovation. To ensure that new drone-related technological developments are not stymied, drone rules must allow for sufficient flexibility and innovation, particularly for the small drones that constitute the vast majority of consumer and commercial operations.
At the same time, policy-makers should maintain a degree of control that is appropriate to the risk involved. When the risk is low, policy-makers should let innovation and experimentation flourish.
Already there are many hardware- and software-related examples of technological innovation supporting safety in drones and drone operations, but we must be careful to avoid mandating specific technological solutions at the expense of future safety-related developments or alternatives.
Regarding recent regulatory proposals for drones under consideration in Canada, our members have expressed concerns in a couple of areas. One concern is the proposed insurance requirement mandate for all UAVs. The other concern is the proposal to lower the regulatory category weight threshold for very small, low-risk drone operations from two kilograms down to one kilogram.
We are aware that regulatory alignment initiatives are under way between the Canadian and U.S. governments in several industrial sectors and topic areas, which are certainly important, given the significance of trade between the U.S. and Canada.
Regarding drone policy and recognizing the market response and industry support for the rules that took effect in the U.S. last summer, we would support Canada's careful consideration of regulatory alignment opportunities with what is already in place in the U.S.
As we head into 2017, one of our biggest challenges related to drone policy is with regulation at the local level.
Our industry is committed to a coordinated policy-making process between the public and private sectors. In the U.S., the FAA has reminded and educated state and local officials about the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over drone safety, flight altitudes, flight paths, and no-fly zones.
Our members are concerned that misaligned and conflicting local rules could lead to a sloppy patchwork of mandates that restrict entrepreneurs and start-ups, stifle job creation, and confuse professional and recreational drone users.
Drones will change our lives for the better, providing quick delivery of supplies and medicine, enabling better crop production and efficiency, and allowing for safer inspection and maintenance of our infrastructure.
According to an AUVSI study, the U.S. drones market is driving the creation of more than 100,000 jobs over the next decade.
CTA forecasts U.S. drone sales will reach record heights by the end of this year, topping 2.4 million units—that's up 112% from 2015—and $1 billion in shipment revenues, which is up 80% compared with 2015.
With accompanying services, the drones market could easily exceed $1.3 billion within five years, and given the right policy environment, which includes balanced rules, stakeholder collaboration, and consumer education initiatives, we could see over a million UAV flights per day in North America by 2025.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here this morning. I look forward to any questions you may have.
Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to present to you.
My name is Stephen Wilcox. I'm the airport manager at the Oshawa Executive Airport and a commercial pilot. I also serve as the vice-president of the Airport Management Council of Ontario, and I have been on its board since 2007.
Today I am here representing the Canadian Airports Council. CAC has 50 members and represents over 100 airports across Canada. I am here today because we have a deep concern with the proliferation of UAVs operating in and around airspace. The UAV, the drone you see in front of me here on my desk, was picked up off the departure end of our active runway less than two months ago.
We understand that the Government of Canada is working on new regulations for UAVs, which is something we have been advocating for. As airports, we have a vested interest in how UAVs are introduced into airport traffic, as we'll need to invest in the infrastructure to support them. To this end, we need to be included in the planning and preparation of regulations and standards for their development and operation.
Transport Canada currently stipulates for safety purposes that operators not fly their UAVs within at least nine kilometres—that's five miles—from an airport or aerodrome, in order to remain clear of manned aircraft and most control zones. All aerodromes should be considered “no drone zones” if an operator does not have permission from Transport Canada or the airport operator.
What has CAC done? CAC wrote a letter to Minister Garneau a year ago. It was co-signed by a coalition of over a dozen associations in Canada. This included the Air Transportation Association of Canada, the Helicopter Association of Canada, and a number of provincial aviation councils.
We wrote about the need for a comprehensive regulatory framework for the safe and efficient operation of UAVs. It's important that this framework promote the safety of all aircraft sharing the national airspace system. Safe skies can only be ensured through comprehensive aircraft performance standards, compliant and compatible equipment, and standardized operating procedures, so that UAVs can be seen by pilots in their aircraft and by controllers on their displays.
At present, there is a limited coordination among the regulator, airspace operator, and enforcement agencies. Enforcement agencies currently lack clear regulations to enforce. Airports already serve a coordinating role in their communities. They are a recipient for complaints from aircraft noise as well as UAVs. In particular, we believe airports can assist the Government of Canada with the regulations it is developing so that all concerns are addressed. Airports have already done some work to raise awareness of the need to keep UAVs out of the airspace.
Last June we joined Minister Garneau for the launch of the national safety campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of UAVs. The minister unveiled the “no drone zone” sign to remind users to operate only in approved areas.
The no-drone signs were distributed to federally operated airports to promote the safe operation of drones. The signs were then further distributed across our various networks to multiple airports in Canada. Many have since posted the no-drone signs at and around their airports.
While these signs help deter users, we respectfully suggest that there should be an even greater effort by the Government of Canada to educate distributors, retailers, and purchasers of UAVs on the requirements and responsibilities of owning these aircraft systems.
Linking all of these aircraft with their owners through a registration and marking process is important for accountability and to facilitate the reporting of defects and operational difficulties. In this way, the UAV owner and operator can be held accountable for his or her operation of the aircraft. Without an identification process, the owner of the UAV could simply leave the scene of an accident or an incident and avoid any responsibility for his or her behaviour.
We expect UAVs to become increasingly common in our airspace, and it's imperative that we keep Canada's airspace safe.
Another primary issue related to this is runaway, uncontrolled drones. We need to have a process to deal with that. Again, here is a great example on my desk this morning. We had no ability to speak with the operator so that he could understand what he may or may not have been doing correctly.
I thank you this morning. I'm pleased to take any questions you may have.
Thank you for that question.
There are a number of technologies to, shall we say, defend ourselves from drones at airports. Geofencing is one method, although my understanding is that it is possible to override the software that essentially creates the geofencing. There's also some technology now that can be installed that monitors airspace for intrusion of drones. Today it's limited to about one kilometre, whereas our approaches reach out to about nine kilometres.
The challenge really isn't with people operating the drones within the regulations. The challenge is the unintentional operation of the drones outside of the regulations. We will see, in the absence of information, people who simply aren't aware that the little park they're standing in is close to the approach for a runway. It's surprising how unaware people are of airplanes. That's one issue.
The greater one, of course, arises when the drone runs away. I don't believe for a minute that someone tried to park this drone on the runway. It just happened to be that this is where it ran out of energy when the batteries ran out. Ultimately, it likely just ran away from someone, and that's the big challenge that I think we need to deal with.
We need to make sure that people are aware, and I think we need to be able to register the drones so that we know who's operating them. We also need to create a non-punitive system so that the operator of a drone knows if, oops, it runs away, to pick up the phone, call Oshawa or a central number in Canada, and say “My drone just ran away” to let you guys know about it.
We know about obstacles in the airspace. We notify pilots. We do it all the time for ground-based cranes, for birds. I think making people aware and making sure we get notification when we have issues is going to do as much as geofencing. There is such a big footprint around an airport that even nine kilometres only begins to deal with the primary air operations.
I would say that the most pressing issue is also probably an opportunity.
I think you appreciate how quickly the technology is moving with drones and drone technology. At the same time, technology does offer solutions to some of these safety problems we've heard about. I think we have an opportunity not only to build the rules and regulations that we need as a framework for this new and emerging technology but also to provide solutions that uphold and enhance safety.
I would highlight, with respect to airports in particular, an announcement from back in the spring from south of the border. There's a partnership, in effect, between an airport association in the U.S. and one of our member companies focused on airspace intelligence. They've developed a digital notice and awareness system specific to airports so that UAV operators can, first of all, determine whether they can fly in that area and then notify the local airport. The local airport also has the means to reach out to that operator with a message as well. This is one of many examples of technology and services and software developing solutions that help support safety, particularly in this case around airports.
I think a challenge is ensuring that we have the rules that strike the right balance between safety and innovation and allow this market to grow. At the same time, I think we have an opportunity to recognize that there are technological solutions sometimes that are superior to regulations in solving some of these problems. Although it's tempting to want to mandate something that looks attractive and beneficial, we would also caution against mandating specific solutions, as I stated in my remarks, because technology evolves, and there may in fact be a better way six months or six years down the road.
I was just going to ask you for the study, if possible.
My next question is for both witnesses.
You both spoke, albeit from slightly different perspectives, of your desire to help the government develop regulations. On the one hand, Mr. Johnson, you said that we need flexible rules that can keep pace with changes in technology. On the other hand, Mr. Wilcox, you seem to want stricter regulations. At least that is what I understood. You have given two examples and talked about the importance of registering devices.
If possible, I would like you to tell us which three aspects you think should be a priority in future regulations. By that I mean three aspects that you think are missing from current regulations.
We can begin with Mr. Wilcox.
The drone itself is an aircraft. It's going to be operating in the airspace with aircraft, and we already have a series of very good guidelines to demonstrate how we operate aircraft.
First we need design standards. I realize the technology is evolving, but I believe we could establish performance-based standards that would allow us to make sure that the drones are going to operate within their design parameters. That's what we expect for aircraft, and we should expect no less for drones.
Second, we also need a set of standards for the operators of drones. We realize that we're going to hand these over. In some cases, they are as simple as a pleasurable toy in a backyard, and we should not necessarily limit that, but we do have to educate. I think it is appropriate that we license or approve operators of these. Today you can get a recreational licence in 25 hours and fly an airplane in airspace, so we already have a system in place that can allow risk-based licensing. We need licensing of the individual.
The third piece of the puzzle is registration. We need to be able to register them, because the only way that we can learn from the industry as it grows, and learn from our successes and failures, is through registration so that we can understand them. I know absolutely nothing about this drone, so there's very little I can do to prevent it from happening again. If I knew who the operator was, then through education and at times through enforcement we could educate them.
You asked me to send statistics. Part of the way we gather that is through registration, so—
I would agree with Mr. Wilcox in at least a couple of these areas he flagged. We also agree that registration is very important. We got to the result we did on registration with the U.S. FAA through a collaborative process that included various stakeholders from aviation and the tech community.
The goal really was to link the owner with the drone. We took an approach with drone registration that focused on the owner and not the vehicle. We wanted a simple, straightforward, and convenient means of registration of drones, and we got that in the end.
On the knowledge test, education of drone operators is crucial. Whether you're talking about a recreational user or a commercial user, we want to make sure that's also easy. We like the self-test idea. For the low-end, lightweight drones, making that convenient and online is important. That's a second area of interest and concern.
The third one that I think is lacking is another area I agree with Mr. Wilcox on, which is performance-based standards. That is the approach we took with regard to drone flights over people. That is very much on our minds, and I think we have a lot more in common than we do differences in wanting to build this future.
What you're doing with these hearings is important, and getting the perspectives not only from companies in this growing industry but from other stakeholders that have a role in the aviation market is vital.
Understanding where our technology is going is hard for all of us, but for that very reason we want to come up with a rules infrastructure that is flexible, as I mentioned in my remarks. We need flexibility of approach. With the rules that were put in place and took effect back in August in the U.S., we have that structure.
We're going to need to address future technology and directions with the drones, for example, with flights at night, flights over people, and flights beyond the line of sight. This is certainly foreseen. It is being tested in some cases, and used today in some cases, so we need permanent rules that address those needs of this technology as well.
Yes, innovation is at the heart of this industry, but safety is paramount. In striking the right balance, we need to protect and uphold both of those things.
We're just getting involved in a more direct way with countries, regions, and jurisdictions outside the United States, Madam Chair. The policy environment is competitive, much like the industry. As you may have heard in earlier hearings, we're building a policy framework, and to date companies have found it easier to do business or to do research and development with the drones in certain countries that are more forward-thinking, or in certain regulatory environments that are quick to adapt and create that opportunity. It is competitive from our members' standpoint, but at the same time alignment, as you acknowledged, is something that's of interest to us.
I would say that at least in North America, things have narrowed for policy development and opportunities. The U.S. probably two years back was a bit behind, even in the North American market, but I think we quickly caught up with these permanent rules that are in place since last summer and with the rules that will follow for drone flights over people and other areas of expanded operations.
I can't point to one country right now that I think is really far ahead. I think policy-making continues in a lot of these countries. We know some of these countries' regulators are interested in opportunities to tell their stories before our members, so there's a competitive policy-making aspect to this.
I'd be happy to share with the committee the resources that tell us what's happening in different markets, if that's helpful to the committee. There have been reports from our U.S. government about what's happening in different markets. There was a report about six months ago, I believe, that gives some insights from Europe and Asia, in addition to North America.
In fact, Madam Chair, though you, we at the Consumer Technology Association are trying to uphold that broad spectrum of interest in drones, ranging from the kid who wants to play with the toy drone to more sophisticated commercial operations involving drones that are often on the same platform as can be bought by the consumer.
It's important to have a policy framework that allows somebody to play with a drone, get interested, and then decide that they could make a business out of it or that they could start a small business and provide a service, maybe providing a service to their local real estate firm by taking pictures.
We want to have a pathway for those people—maybe kids, in some cases, or adults—to learn about this technology, play with it, get interested in it, and do something with it.
At the association level, we're certainly aware, broadly, of the activities of our members, which range from providing new features and new models on their drones, introduced every few months, to companies experimenting with ways of controlling multiple drones at the same time—not just singles, but swarm approaches to drone technology.
There are a lot of interesting things going on in this industry, but it does have kind of a personal dimension to it that we want to keep in mind too. Today's recreational user might be tomorrow's small business owner.
I am Assistant Commissioner Byron Boucher. I oversee contract and aboriginal policing.
It's a confusing name for those of you who may not be totally familiar with it if you live in what we call non-contract provinces, like Ontario and Quebec. I oversee operations in provinces that have contracted the RCMP either as their provincial police or as their municipal police. That's every province and territory except Ontario and Quebec, where we just have federal operations.
I'll give you some context to my opening remarks in reference to our use of unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones.
The RCMP context of using these is not at all what you would think of if you were considering what the military does with them. We pretty much use off-the-shelf models, the kind that anybody could buy. Some of them are more expensive, but only because of the equipment that is on them, such as upgraded cameras or infrared detectors.
They are basically used four different ways by the RCMP.
The first and foremost use is for accident reconstruction. When we have a serious motor vehicle accident, where at some point we're going to have to appear before the court or an inquiry, we would bring in a drone to take aerial photographs and photograph the scene in preparation for court. As an example, when we would have had to do it prior to drones, it would have cost us probably $2,000 an hour to bring in a helicopter, whereas there's a minimal cost to bringing in a drone and using it a lot of times for much less money.
The second way we would normally use them is for aerial photographs of crime scenes. If we have a major crime scene where there's been loss of life and it's happened across the span of a property, then we would do the same sort of thing in preparation for court. These are areas that would be fenced off prior to using the drone, so there's no public access. There's not a privacy concern for us in either one of those two considerations.
The third use is for search and rescue. Keep in mind that for us these drones, as we currently have them configured, will last only for about 30 minutes of airtime, which is quite limited, prior to changing a battery. There have been situations where we've had people lost in densely wooded areas, and we have been able to locate them with the use of a drone.
The final use is for what I'd call exigent circumstances, where we might have a hostage situation ongoing where there is potential loss of life, and we've had to call in the ERT. To protect ourselves and others, and to get a good view of the property and surrounding area to see exactly what the threat risk is, we could send up a drone to have that kind of view without putting any human in the line of fire.
Otherwise, with privacy considerations, we deal considerably with the Privacy Commissioner's office. I've updated them throughout our work on this file, and I have allowed them to see and feed into our policy to make sure that everything is in line. With a limited 30-minute flight time, when we think about surveillance by the police, drones are not really a tool that we would go to in our current configuration. Obviously the U.S. military or Canadian military, I'm not sure, would use them in much different ways.
Thank you for the question.
I'd start off by saying that from an aviation safety point of view, we already have a very highly integrated approach with the FAA with the alignment for our regulatory requirements. When we drill down to the level of unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, through the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council, we are working toward harmonization or alignment. They're not necessarily the exact same measures, but rather alignment with them, and Mark is one of our guys who spends a lot of time with the FAA making sure we line up.
For the specific requirements that are in place today, the rules that the FAA is putting in place by and large mirror what we already have put in place through a series of exemptions in November of 2014 that are allowing commercial operations or non-recreational operations under certain circumstances, if they follow certain conditions.
As we move forward, opening up the ability for people to operate in built-up areas over people is where the Americans are going, and that's where we're going, but neither of us is quite there yet.
Those are two good questions.
On the first question, we're still in the process of developing for public comment the framework that we would propose for regulations for part I of the Canada Gazette. Should we believe there is a safety case, it would require the registration of pilots, a higher level of training, and so on, as was outlined. Until we have framed that completely and have a good sense of where the regulations will end up, we haven't costed out the details of implementing that, but we are working on it. We are developing that. There will certainly be some costs for Transport Canada in managing that project, but we don't have those details yet.
The second question, in terms of commercial versus recreational use, is a really fascinating question. I won't go on forever, but the history of our transportation mode regulations have typically divided recreational and commercial users, because the risks were typically higher for the public. To meet the expectations of safety from the public when hiring a carrier or some kind of transportation entity, we have expected a higher level of safety.
There has been a long history of dividing the regulations that way. What you'll see in the current regulations, in a very small way, is that division. When we started developing the UAV regulations, we said, “That doesn't make sense.” The issue is identifying the risks of these types of operations and the risks of the particular sizes of equipment. We decided to stop that approach, other than recognizing that the modelling association has a process in place that's very strong.
Generally, let's talk about what the risks and the mitigations are. Whoever you are, it depends on how you operate, where you operate, and the complexity of the environment you operate in. That's how we would divide the proposed new regulations. That's the approach we're taking.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us this morning.
Since the start of our study on drones, we have talked about the positive aspects of drones, such as economic growth and new opportunities, albeit with some concern about safety and the protection of privacy.
My first questions are for the RCMP representative.
It could be the science fiction film fan in me that makes me ask this question. In your presentation, you talked about the positive aspects of drones, such as reconstructing the scene of an accident, searching for individuals, or monitoring a hostage-taking.
I would like to hear the negative aspects, the other side of the coin. Do you have to fight a new kind of crime with the advent of drones favouring the contraband market? If not, is there the potential for attacks owing to the proliferation of drones? What measures have you developed to deal with this new reality, if it indeed exists?
I'll start the response to that question, and I'll ask Dave to finish off, maybe, and cover off anything I haven't.
The typical drones that we're encountering right now are the ones that have 30-minute flight times, the off-the-shelf kind. Although some have a greater payload and the technology is changing fast and distance is increasing with the fixed-wing drones, the majority are the 30-minute hobby craft. They're still a concern for us, obviously, in those kinds of protected areas where we are looking after the security of a VIP, for example. We are working extensively on countermeasures with our partners and the industry. Dave has participated in a number of research trials, also with DRDC, Defence and Research Development Canada, in order for us to look at ways to counteract any of those situations where they might pose a threat to a protected person.
With smuggling, as you mentioned, we're more than likely to see that as distances increase with fixed-wing drones. Our border with the U.S. is fairly open. I worked for many years in British Columbia, where you could just walk across the border. The need to fly a drone across wasn't terribly necessary. You could just, in the middle of the night, walk across. It's wide open. There are no fences.
We are seriously engaged in all things related to countermeasures when it comes to drones. Technology is changing fast.
I don't know if Dave wants to add anything to that.
In terms of the UAV regulations, maybe I can step very briefly through what we have done to date to address exactly that question.
These are regulations that will affect a very large and previously unregulated population, and a variety of groups have interests exactly as you are highlighting. When we were developing our initial approach with a risk-based strategy to see where the risks were and how to address those direct risks to the public, etc., what was put together, as Aaron McCrorie mentioned, was a notice of proposed amendment.
How do we see potentially approaching this? It was developed with a whole series of what the regulations could look like to address all these questions. In some areas, it actually included questions. There were issues such as the age limit for younger people to operate these devices. We wanted to hear from people about how they felt about this.
That process was public. It was disseminated broadly. There were meetings held across different provinces. There were discussions with provincial authorities and local law enforcement authorities throughout that process. There was a very wide attempt to gather the input on the structure of what we were thinking about. That is the stage that was referred to in the audit. It was before getting to Gazette part I consultations.
We've done that process. We think we've done a good job of that. There has been a lot of discussion, and the education and outreaches filled that in as well. Now, when we come forward with a draft regulation and publish that in Gazette part I, hopefully in the spring of 2017, as early as possible, we believe that this will have encompassed many of those conversations and all the disparate views.
The way Transport Canada publishes its regulations is something new to me, you know. I still have a lot to learn. If I understand correctly, the publication of draft regulations in the Canada Gazette
is the second consultation phase.
In a very short period of time, we have received a great many recommendations and suggestions from people who have important things to say about drones. To what extent have these people's input been considered thus far? Did you meet with representatives of the Union of Quebec Municipalities and of the Consumer Technology Association, who just appeared before us this morning?
It is possible to move quickly, but also, as you said and since it is new, it is also possible to do things properly and better than others. To that end, we need an overall picture of all aspects of the industry, including users. I think this is in a way what the Auditor General's report says.
Have you also heard the views of average citizens, people who are victims, airport boards, and citizens who are being spied on by their neighbour's drones, whose interests might be something other than photography?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My questions are for the Transport Canada representatives.
In your speech, you said that your provincial, territorial, and municipal counterparts are also struggling to find a way to make sure that this technology is used safely and respectfully.
I am a former mayor of a municipality of 45,000 people. At that time, we had a lot of concerns about protecting privacy, especially as regards citizens using surveillance cameras. That was even before drone use became widespread.
Moreover, our clerks did not have much information about this when we had to manage security and privacy issues involving the use of surveillance cameras. We were not even talking about drones, but people were saying that something was certainly going to happen. They also wondered who would manage the issue, the Sûreté du Québec, municipal police, or the RCMP.
My first question is as follows. Which municipal stakeholders have you consulted, whether organizations or individuals? I would like to know a bit more about this because, to my knowledge, it has not been discussed in Quebec, at least not at the two municipal groups.
As regards public safety for airports and businesses, I am not worried about you finding the right regulations or procedures. At the municipal level, however, my first reaction is to say that there could be a number of problems.
At events held in the municipalities, for instance, people often use drones for recreational purposes, whether to fly over a site or to take pictures and videos. There could be risks, however, when there is a crowd or a mob. Consider the summer festival in Quebec City where 100,000 people gather on the Plains of Abraham.
I have a number of concerns in this regard. Does this enter into your thoughts or your preparations in order to give tools to the municipalities?
Among municipal by-laws, police security, and Transport Canada security, I think people's natural reaction is to say it is under federal jurisdiction, that it is their problem, everyone washes their hands of it. Citizens, however, will turn to the municipality, the municipal council or the mayor in search of a quick solution. The objective is something effective for companies and individuals.