TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE

THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT

LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION

ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES

SUBJECT:

Applications to Provide an All Channel Alert Service /

demandes visant la fourniture d'un service

d'alerte tous canaux

HELD AT: TENUE À:

Conference Centre Centre de conférences

Pontiac Room Salle Pontiac

140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)

May 2, 2006 Le 2 mai 2006

Transcripts

In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages

Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be

bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members

and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of

Contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded

verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in

either of the official languages, depending on the language

spoken by the participant at the public hearing.

Transcription

Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues

officielles, les procès‑verbaux pour le Conseil seront

bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des

membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience

publique ainsi que la table des matières.

Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu

textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée

et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues

officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le

participant à l'audience publique.

Canadian Radio‑television and

Telecommunications Commission

Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des

télécommunications canadiennes

Transcript / Transcription

Applications to Provide an All Channel Alert Service /

demandes visant la fourniture d'un service

d'alerte tous canaux

BEFORE / DEVANT:

Michel Arpin Chairperson / Président

Joan Pennefather Commissioner / Conseillère

Helen del Val Commissioner / Conseillère

ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:

Chantal Boulet Secretary / Secrétaire

Peter McCallum/ Legal Counsel /

Reynolds Mastin Conseillers juridiques

Gerard Bergin Manager, Broadcast

Technology / Gestionnaire

de technologie en

radiodiffusion

HELD AT: TENUE À:

Conference Centre Centre de conférences

Pontiac Room Salle Pontiac

140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)

May 2, 2006 Le 2 mai 2006

TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE / PARA

PHASE III

INTERVENTION BY / INTERVENTION PAR:

CARP 338 / 1837

CMOS 349 / 1904

Ministry of Community Safety and 364 / 2000

Correctional Services

Salvation Army 382 / 2106

Rogers communications 396 / 2173

New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization 452 / 2471

CanWest Media Works Inc., CHUM Ltd. & CTV Inc. 481 / 2630

City of Mississauga 529 / 2876

City of Sarnia 533 / 2895

City of Brampton / 539 / 2929

Ontario Association of Emergency Managers

Québecor Média 578 / 3130

Telco TV 615 / 3338

CKUA 646 / 3484

Environment Canada 690 / 3707

Avis de Recherche.tv 715 / 3849

Gatineau Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ Upon resuming on Tuesday, May 2, 2006

at 0900 / L'audience reprend le mardi

2 mai 2006 à 0900

1828 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order please. À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

1829 Nous débuterons la Phase III de l'audience à l'instant même.

1830 We will initiate Phase III of this public hearing now. I will ask the secretary to introduce the first intervenor.

1831 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1832 Before we proceed to Phase III, I would just like to state for the record that the applicant Pelmorex Communications filed a 7‑page document during Phase II yesterday, which includes a CBC detailed breakdown of cable capital costs compared to Pelmorex. This document will be added to the applicant's public record and will be available in the examination room for those interested to have a copy.

1833 Also, with respect to the intervenors, we have been informed that Ville de Blainville, which is Intervention No. 279, as well as the Canadian Red Cross, which is Intervention No. 24, will not be appearing at the hearing.

1834 I would now call the first intervenor to come forward, which is CARP, if they have arrived.

1835 Come forward to the front, please, for your presentation.

‑‑‑ Pause

1836 THE CHAIRPERSON: Whenever you are ready.

INTERVENTION

1837 MR. VENGROFF: Ladies and gentlemen of the CRTC, this presentation is made by CARP, Canada's Association for the 50 Plus in support of the application made by Pelmorex for the ALL CHANNEL ALERT system, or ACA.

1838 We at CARP believe that this system will be an important and potentially lifesaving support mechanism for many Canadian seniors, particularly those who travel on a limited basis outside their homes, or who are highly dependent on favourable environmental conditions for their activities of daily living.

1839 Seniors, particularly the elderly, often living alone are more severely affected by environmental events than many others that may often take it in stride. Heavy rain, extreme heat alerts, smog alerts and even high winds can adversely affect their days and put their lives at risk.

1840 CARP is the largest association in the country for people over 50. With over 400,000 members, over 800,000 readers per issue of our magazine and millions of unique visitors per year on our various websites, we reach a wide and growing cross section of Canada. We are the voice representing over 10 million Canadians over the age of 50.

1841 CARP has been actively involved in supporting a healthy environment, reduced and hazardous pollutants, everything from automobile emissions to other airborne and waterborne toxins. We hosted an environmental roundtable in 2002 with such distinguished speakers as David Suzuki, Dr. Sheila Basrur and Hanna Strong where we presented a series of recommendations to David Anderson, the Minister of Environment of the day, a number of which have been acted upon.

1842 We continue to be very concerned about this issue and believe that it is particularly important that seniors be given timely information to enable them to deal with environmental and other threats?

1843 It may be true these days that Canadians in general are more connected and more informed than ever. Many have cellphones, personal digital assistants, radios, television, printed media, and more. Many of us use these information‑gathering devices in conjunction with other ones such as TV combined with websites for enhanced broadcast experiences, or cellphones and PDAs combined, such as the RIM Blackberry or the Handspring Trio.

1844 However, seniors today, even the more connected ones, by and large rely on traditional media, television, radio and newspaper for much of their current information.

1845 We are not here to comment on the rate chargeable to consumers for the ACA service, but at a cost of $0.08 a month per subscriber it is clear the issue is not one of affordability.

1846 Rather, our position only speaks to the necessity of the service.

1847 In supporting Pelmorex for the ownership and management of the service, we do so only to the extent that, based on our knowledge of both the requirements of such a service and the qualifications of the applicant, they would be the best at providing it at a level Canadians would expect and at a price they can afford in the shortest possible time.

1848 Our understanding as to how such a system would work would be to provide emergency information on a timely basis as events are developing, as opposed to reporting events that have already occurred. Given the nature and variation in our climate, this seems like more than just a good idea.

1849 But we also know that it is not just about the weather, and this will be discussed later.

1850 News coverage after certain events can reflect the current state of affairs post facto. Beforehand the same media can offer predictions in some cases of events yet to be played out.

1851 There is also a need, and with today's aging population a more pressing one, to be able to report on developing events in as many ways as possible in order to give the affected parties the maximum amount of time to prepare. Seniors need more time to get out of a house in the event of an evacuation. Seniors may need to obtain medication or emergency supplies if they know they may not be able to get out of the house for a few days.

1852 Others may reconsider their plans to leave the house if a severe weather alert appears on their television sets.

1853 If weather were the only concern, in CARP's opinion this would be reason enough to have this service. But, as we know, there are events where we are simply not playing the odds, as in a tornado watch where they have already occurred.

1854 I lived in Houston for a number of years and any resident, even a relatively recent one, is well aware of the large industrial plants, petrochemical plants that exist at the eastern edge of the city. The discharge of often very hazardous chemical compounds was an alarmingly regular event during my stay there and continues to this day.

1855 The potential outcome, and sometimes the actual outcomes, was more than just a ruined picnic. These events, and sometimes the evacuations that followed, were sometimes a matter of life and death.

1856 Upon reflection, many Canadian cities find themselves in similar circumstances. Many people live in relatively close proximity to petrochemical plants, smelters, pulp and paper mills or nuclear power plants and would potentially be much better off if their televisions alerted them to an industrial accident with widespread consequences.

1857 The fact that even 20 years after Chernobyl Canada doesn't have an emergency system to warn against such a similar occurrence is inexcusable. Why isn't this in place now?

1858 We must be cognizant of the power of human intervention on the environment. Terrorism, forest fires and domestic civil unrest are realities, grim or otherwise, both abroad and at home. The benefits of ACA, both tangible and intangible, could be immeasurable over the long term.

1859 In fact, not too dissimilar perceptions and sentiments existed during the height of the cold war or the civil defence era, the antecedent cause of the establishment of the Emergency Broadcast System, the predecessor to the Emergency Alert System in use today in the United States.

1860 It would be nice to think that in this increasingly interconnected society an alert system of the nature being discussed would be almost a self‑evident truth, but apparently it is not.

1861 In fact, if it were technologically possible ‑‑ and it would be hard to imagine it wouldn't ‑‑ and the will existed to extend this system to other media such as the Internet and cellphones, CARP would support that too.

1862 Another reality today is that today's senior is not as likely to be glued to the television as may have been true in much of the post‑war era. That same individual is just as likely to be chatting with friends or playing games on line, in the garden or in town, or simply engaged in an active lifestyle where notification of any adverse environmental condition should be expected.

1863 CARP thanks you for your time and consideration of our support for the applicant.

1864 THE SECRETARY: Excuse me, gentlemen. Could you just identify yourself for the record?

1865 What is your name, please?

1866 MR. VENGROFF: Yes. My name is Eric Vengroff.

1867 THE SECRETARY: The spelling of your last name?

1868 MR. VENGROFF: That is V‑E‑N‑G‑R‑O‑F‑F.

1869 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

1870 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Vengroff.

1871 Mrs. Pennefather...?

1872 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, and thank you for coming to the hearing with your comments. They are very clear.

1873 I just have a couple of questions I would appreciate your responses.

1874 One of them concerns the point you made on the second page about the alert. You are aware, of course, of the kind of text that is being talked about in terms of the demos we had yesterday, or in the documentation regarding the Pelmorex application, what you would actually see and hear on the screen.

1875 In terms of seniors, the groups that you represent, what would be the details that they would require in the message?

1876 You mention here:

"Seniors may need to obtain medication or emergency supplies if they know they may not be able to get out of the house for a few days."

1877 Do you expect a text to go to that level of information?

1878 MR. VENGROFF: No, I think by and large seniors have (off microphone...) in some cases their age. Again, we are not talking necessarily about people who are in their advanced years. When we refer to this demographic it could be anything over the age of 55 typically, as defined by, I guess, Statistics Canada.

1879 But I guess people who have lived to this age know what they need to do when they need to do it, they just need to know what to do ‑‑ or need to know if there is a problem, if there is going to be a problem. I think they have enough judgment, by and large, to be able to decide when it's time to leave the house or when it's time not to.

1880 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you. I appreciate knowing that I know what to do.

1881 The other point I had was: What is your sense of what the local broadcasters offer in comparison?

1882 MR. VENGROFF: Well, I am not aware of anything other than what I see sporadically, I guess on television or through a radio broadcast or whatever it is. If there is a severe weather alert I may hear about it at times on the radio, but never on ‑‑ not that I'm aware of on television unless I happen to be tuned into a broadcast that is directly speaking to that point.

1883 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: One of the components of the Pelmorex proposal is a public education program.

1884 Do you have any comment on what that program should contain, what kind of information about the existence of an alert system, the contents of an alert system should be?

1885 MR. VENGROFF: I can only offer, I guess, the commentary that came out of our environmental forum back in 2002. Seniors would often be described I guess as the canaries in the coal mine. They are typically the more severely affected by environmental conditions.

1886 For example, on days when we know that there is going to be, or three is a high likelihood of there is going to be an environmental issue, for example a heavy smog day in a major urban city, then seniors are often told to stay indoors. If they have respiratory problems then are often told to reduce their physical activity if it's high heat, high smog.

1887 Conversely, if you go back to even things like where it could be a waterborne agent that is in the water, or something that gets into the drinking supply as what happened in Walkerton, again it was the older population that was more severely affected.

1888 So to the extent that any information along those lines that can be added to any sort of broadcast that directly alerts a specific population that is at risk I think would be in order.

1889 And if there is any educational information that can go along with that of course then I think that would be also in order as well, things to do that you can protect yourself against.

1890 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: All right. That was sort of what I was getting at in the first question as well ‑‑

1891 MR. VENGROFF: Yes.

1892 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: ‑‑ what over and above the text.

1893 The public education program, as I understand it, is to let people know that such an alert system exists and what to watch for. That, you think, through other media might be also available?

1894 MR. VENGROFF: Well, speaking I guess from CARP's perspective, I mean we would certainly want to assist in letting our constituents know that if there were an educational opportunity we would certainly be ‑‑ we would be there to support that.

1895 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you. Thank you very much.

1896 Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

1897 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, Mr. Vengroff.

1898 MR. VENGROFF: Okay?

1899 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

1900 Mrs. Secretary...?

1901 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1902 I would now call the next appearing intervenor, Dr. Ian Rutherford from the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, (CMOS).

1903 Dr. Rutherford, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

INTERVENTION

1904 DR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much. I would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to appear before them.

1905 As mentioned, I represent the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, which I will refer to as CMOS. We are a national non‑profit, membership‑based society ‑‑ sometimes called a learned society although I find that a bit pretentious ‑‑ but our purpose is to advance the sciences and the technology of meteorology and oceanography, and in particular their application to protecting and improving the lives and the properties of Canadians.

1906 We represent a broad segment of the profession of meteorology and oceanography, academics, students, scientists, researchers, practitioners, weather forecasters, service providers, private consultants, a whole range of folks, including people who are just interested in the weather, from all three sectors, the public, academic and private sector.

1907 So we represent people who are knowledgeable and in fact many who are heavily involved in the production of weather warnings or in the development of tsunami warning procedures.

1908 We are also involved in accrediting consultants in our two fields. We also endorse on‑air weather broadcasters who are disseminating weather information, those who meet our standards.

1909 We have a subsidiary body called the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences which provides funding to university researchers in climate and atmospheric science.

1910 So because of our involvement we are quite familiar with developments in the science and technology of weather prediction and we know that these improvements by the science and in the new technologies such as doppler radar have produced enormous improvements in the accuracy, reliability and the timeliness of warnings of severe meteorological and oceanographic events such as tornadoes or hurricanes and tsunamis.

1911 The problem is that these advances have not been matched by equivalent improvements in the public warning dissemination systems needed to bring alerts and warnings to the attention of the public. That is a serious problem, because very often many of these warnings have a very short fuse. One can predict the occurrence of a tornado at a given spot, but only with a lead time of perhaps half an hour using the best available technology. So if you don't get that warning out quickly, it's useless.

1912 Current dissemination systems are, first of all, very piecemeal. They depend on individual players, TV stations, radio stations; they are voluntary; they are fragmented; they are slow to respond; they can't really differentiate urgent situations from non‑urgent situations; they don't have the knowledge to do that. So ultimately they are ineffective.

1913 Warnings that could save lives if they were delivered promptly are delivered too late or not at all. Lives are being lost as a result. Property is being destroyed as a result.

1914 I as in charge of the weather service in 1987 when the Edmonton tornado hit. We actually produced not a bad forecast of that tornado given the technology of the day, but it wasn't carried by the media. They didn't appreciate the urgency of it.

1915 As a result of that event, the Weather Service acquired Doppler radars which essentially doubled the warning time possible technologically for tornadoes but we still do not have a dissemination system.

1916 Last year or the year before ‑‑ I forget exactly when it was ‑‑ when the Pine Lake tornado hit a trailer park in Alberta many lives were lost because people did not receive the warning that was issued.

1917 So we believe that warnings ‑‑ it is possible to produce effective warnings but it is not possible yet to deliver them effectively to the public, in spite of the good work of Pelmorex and The Weather Network and MétéoMédia who do that on their own dedicated channel but unless you happen to be watching that channel you don't get the warning.

1918 So we think what Canada needs ‑‑ and it has needed it for a long time and I think it is tragic that we haven't had it sooner ‑‑ we need a single mandatory public alerting system capable of really fast response, essentially immediate response, and it has to be able to disseminate locally differentiated warnings. They have to be clearly marked as urgent and they have to be targeted to the people affected by the hazard.

1919 Of course, we are most knowledgeable about weather and meteorological events, oceanographic events, but we believe that such a system should be capable of responding to hazards of all types whether they are man‑made or natural or a combination of the two, and often they are a combination of the two.

1920 The system has to be able to respond to hazard warning agencies whether they are local or national or international and we believe that the Pelmorex proposal allows for that to happen.

1921 In fact, we recommend that the technology and infrastructure that has been developed by Pelmorex to disseminate localized weather warnings to those who happen to be watching The Weather Network or MétéoMédia on cable TV should be extended immediately to all cable TV and satellite TV channels and to hazards of all types.

1922 It is important to note that the weather warnings that are carried now by Pelmorex are not Pelmorex content, they are content that comes from Environment Canada, the agency officially charged with issuing that kind of warning. They are mandated, funded and equipped to do that. Pelmorex is the carrier.

1923 When I listen to comments from some of the other proponents that they object to carrying Pelmorex material on top of their broadcast, I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

1924 These warnings are a public service. They are not the property of any one company whether it is a carrier or an originator. They belong to the public and they need to be carried to the public that needs to hear them.

1925 So we think that the carrying of such warnings, no matter what type, should be a mandatory condition of licence as a matter of good public policy, that the TV stations, the cable stations should be essentially forced to carry those warnings.

1926 Further, we think that the minor incremental cost of such a system should be borne by the cable or satellite TV subscribers, much as telephone subscribers bear the incremental cost of the 9‑1‑1 emergency response service, and it is even cheaper than the 9‑1‑1 service, so it is a very minor cost.

1927 So that in a nutshell is our intervention. We support the proposal by Pelmorex. We don't really care who provides ‑‑ who carries these services but we do believe that someone must do it and it should happen as soon as possible.

1928 So I would like to thank you for the chance to speak to you and welcome any questions you might have.

1929 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Dr. Rutherford.

1930 Commissioner del Val.

1931 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you, Dr. Rutherford, for taking the time to intervene. Just a few questions.

1932 Now, who do you think should have the authority to decide that a warning should be issued?

1933 DR. RUTHERFORD: It depends on the warning. In the case of weather warnings it is clearly Environment Canada who is mandated to do that. They have the responsibility and the accountability to do that but they don't have the means to disseminate it.

1934 In the case of tsunamis, a Tsunami Warning System is being set up which will be capable of producing the warnings but, again, they have to be disseminated.

1935 In the case of local events, for example, a chemical spill like the one that occurred in Mississauga some years back, clearly the responsibility is a combination of local authorities, the railroad who happened to be involved in that case, whatever.

1936 But for most types of emergencies there is a clearly identified agency of responsibility and those agencies have to have access to such a warning system.

1937 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. I don't know whether you have had a chance to look at the CANALERT Guidelines.

1938 DR. RUTHERFORD: No, I have not.

1939 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Their suggested definition of "authorized user" is essentially:

"public officials who have legislative authority and/or responsibility for emergency planning or their designated delegate." (As read)

1940 Do you think that is a good definition?

1941 DR. RUTHERFORD: It is not bad but it focuses on planning and planners do not have the same sense of urgency as those who are monitoring events and issuing warnings.

1942 My understanding of CANALERT is it is an agency that will set up procedures and standards but I don't think it is going to be involved itself in monitoring what is going on initially in warnings. That will be the responsibility of those who, by legislation or whatever, by agreement, have the responsibility to do that.

1943 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Would you accept a definition of "authorized user," so those who can issue the awards ‑‑

1944 DR. RUTHERFORD: By "user," you mean issuer?

1945 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Issuer, yes, which limits the access to the system to only those individuals or agencies with a mandate to monitor and inform the public with respect to threats to life. That is just making it narrower, it is only threats to life that they can issue warnings ‑‑

1946 DR. RUTHERFORD: I think it is a very difficult judgment to make whether an event affects only property and not life ‑‑

1947 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay.

1948 DR. RUTHERFORD: ‑‑ and I think Canadians would expect the threats to their property would be covered by such a system as well.

1949 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Now, do you ‑‑ what are your views in terms of should it be ‑‑ does it matter whether this is a government initiative, a private sector initiative or a public/private partnership?

1950 DR. RUTHERFORD: I don't think it matters who delivers the warnings and it is inevitably is going to be a combination of things. I think the role of government though is to make sure that a warning system is in place to mandate it and if necessary to make it mandatory.

1951 COMMISSIONER del VAL: And you see that squarely as the role of the government?

1952 DR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I think so.

1953 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Who do you think in your view should be responsible for wrong signals sent?

1954 DR. RUTHERFORD: For?

1955 COMMISSIONER del VAL: For wrong signals, wrong alerts.

1956 DR. RUTHERFORD: The person who is mandated to issue the alert should be responsible for the content of that alert, recognizing that many types of alerts are not matters of certainty, they are matters of risk assessment and inevitably there will be errors made.

1957 But the responsibility of these agencies is to do as good a job as possible and I think they should be accountable for poor performance if they have been negligent and that kind of thing.

1958 One hears stories about the head of the Meteorological Service in ‑‑ I forget where it was ‑‑ Thailand was fired because a tsunami alert wasn't issued on time when in fact I think he did the best he could do with the technology available to him at the time and with the state of the science of tsunami warnings.

1959 So that sounds to me like he was held responsible for something over which he had no real control. One could argue that he was negligent in not putting in place those systems but like any official you can only make do what the means that you are provided.

1960 So there is clearly going to be questions of blame and judgments which would have to be resolved by the courts ultimately but I think the principle that people are held responsible and are accountable for their actions and for doing the best possible job with the tools at their disposal should stand but they should be punished if they are negligent.

1961 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Who do you think should be responsible, say, if the alert destined for one destination was sent to the wrong place?

1962 DR. RUTHERFORD: It should be whoever made the error. In a warning system there are many players in the chain and if, for example, the warning agency issued the warning, the basic warning for the wrong place ‑‑ and this can happen.

1963 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Yes.

1964 DR. RUTHERFORD: If you are tracking a tornado, for example, you may issue a warning for a place 10 minutes downstream in its track and it suddenly makes an unpredicted turn to the left and hits another community, then you could argue, well, that agency is responsible for that.

1965 Then they would argue whether they had been negligent or whether they had done the best possible job given the state of the science and technology and the observations and so on available to them at the time.

1966 If on the other hand a warning produced for Pine Lake somehow or other got routed to Woodstock, New Brunswick because there was a software error in ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ in the cable TV box that does the switching, then whoever did that box should be the one held accountable for that error.

1967 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay.

1968 DR. RUTHERFORD: I mean clearly you have to look at what actually happened.

1969 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. What are your views on funding such a system?

1970 DR. RUTHERFORD: Well, as I mentioned at the end of my presentation I think the users of the service, cable TV or satellite TV in the case of a television service, should pay the minor incremental cost. It is not a big deal.

1971 To come back to the question of accountability, after the Edmonton tornado, I was with Environment Canada at the time and we set up an independent inquiry headed by an academic who did not work for government to look into the circumstances of exactly what happened there and where were the problems.

1972 He identified the fact that there were problems in the technology of tornado warning, which resulted in the acquisition of Doppler radars in this country, we didn't have any before that ‑‑ well, we had one ‑‑ and he also identified the difficulty in the chain of getting warnings produced by the Weather Service to the users and this was simply because there was no way to force the television stations and radio stations to issue the warning when they received it.

1973 COMMISSIONER del VAL: When you used "users" in just that sentence, who did you mean?

1974 DR. RUTHERFORD: I meant the public at the end ‑‑

1975 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay.

1976 DR. RUTHERFORD: ‑‑ who need to be warned, those who need to be warned.

1977 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Thank you for your time.

1978 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1979 THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Rutherford, I have a question myself.

1980 DR. RUTHERFORD: Certainly.

1981 THE CHAIRPERSON: You attended the hearing yesterday or part of?

1982 DR. RUTHERFORD: No, I didn't. I wasn't here but I did listen to part of it on the audio feed on the internet.

1983 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is exactly the same, I think. Obviously, the CBC came with a proposal to implement an emergency alert system fairly similar to the one that is in existence in the U.S. Since you seem to be very cognizant of those systems or at least from a theoretical standpoint, do you have views on the EAS system?

1984 DR. RUTHERFORD: No, I am not technically competent to discuss the differences. I heard the discussion yesterday, the arguments over EAS versus SAP and protocols and capabilities of these boxes. I am not qualified to comment on the merits of those arguments.

1985 THE CHAIRPERSON: Obviously, the CBC proposal is a voluntary one while the ‑‑

1986 DR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

1987 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ Pelmorex one is mandatory and I hear you loud and clear ‑‑

1988 DR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

1989 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ suggesting that it has got to be mandatory.

1990 DR. RUTHERFORD: It must be mandatory ‑‑

1991 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

1992 DR. RUTHERFORD: ‑‑ in our view.

1993 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Dr. Rutherford. Thank you.

1994 DR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you.

1995 LE PRÉSIDENT : Madame la Secrétaire.

1996 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

1997 I would now call on Commissioner Julian Fantino from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to present his intervention.

1998 Commissioner Fantino, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

1999 COMMISSIONER FANTINO: Yes, thank you.

INTERVENTION

2000 COMMISSIONER FANTINO: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

2001 Rather than go through my correspondence to the Commission I just thought I would highlight a number of issues that are pertinent.

2002 My role as Commissioner of Emergency Management in Ontario evolves into a good deal of proactive work as well as, of course, reactive work.

2003 We are also the body that coordinates the 444 municipal emergency response plans in the province and, of course, we are the link between municipalities, aid to municipalities that could be sourced from either provincial resources or federal resources or otherwise.

2004 So we have an overarching responsibility with respect to emergency management issues on all fronts.

2005 Moreover, we are governed by legislation and we are mandated, of course, to do certain things. There is presently a new piece of legislation making its way through the legislative process in the province which will redefine and better articulate roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and so forth. That is in the process of going through the system as we speak.

2006 The Province of Ontario has had a number of emergencies, some of them at the local level and some of these are ongoing even as I speak but there have been two major provincially declared emergencies in the province in past history, one being the SARS epidemic that resulted in some 40‑odd people being affected and dying and a whole lot of other affected individuals and institutions, and of course, the blackout were the two primary declarations of provincial emergencies in the Province of Ontario.

2007 With respect to the matter before you with regards to public alerting, it is an essential ingredient of any proactive strategy to enable us to ensure that the public are made aware and that they themselves take whatever precautions are necessary or required to safeguard themselves or family, of course, their property and so forth.

2008 The Commission will know just how very vulnerable we are in today's reality from potential threats from many sources, man‑made, weather or, of course, natural circumstances, health issues and so forth, and the notion of leaving everything to emergency providers is very, very difficult indeed without the full awareness and involvement of the public in our collective efforts to keep everyone safe.

2009 I have articulated for you a number of issues that go to why it is that we support the public alerting system. I am not here to speak to you about whether this system is better than the next system with respect to technical aspects but I do have some points that I would like to share with the Commission.

2010 Speaking for the Province of Ontario, we have some 40 per cent of the overall Canadian population in our province and along with that we have some very significant high‑risk issues aside from weather and those kinds of situations.

2011 I do wish to convey to the Commission that we need to have these alerts made available on a sustainable basis. So obviously funding will be an issue.

2012 My view is that it should be mandatory, that we employ mandatory requirements. Whatever system or process is made into use should cover as much of the citizenry as possible.

2013 I believe as well that it should be the government that decides who should participate. I would not leave it to private sector interests to determine how the public participation will be addressed in regards to such an onerous, overarching public safety issue which I believe is something that government policy needs to address.

2014 I also would like to caution that any such system should not be used for other than imminent threat information and there have to be criteria obviously, checks and balances in place.

2015 It has to be an imminent issue, something that is about to happen in the most immediate sense, and I believe that there has to be urgency to this type of situation.

2016 What I am trying to convey to the Commission is that it not be trivialized for just general nice‑to‑know information or information that is not specifically identified to a threat.

2017 Warnings should be the primary purpose. It isn't a medium with which to convey information ‑‑ the media does that already ‑‑ general information. So we are talking about threat to safety and security, imminent threat being the primary purpose, and that's what these warnings should be about.

2018 And, of course, as with Environment Canada warnings about approaching weather causes, dangers and threats, these are kinds of things that are very critical.

2019 Now we in Ontario already are governed by a number of requirements to warn the public on certain issues. For instance, we have a provincial nuclear emergency response plan that requires a warning to the citizens that are within a three‑kilometre contiguous to a nuclear plant and then there is a further requirement for a scaled‑down warning system to citizens who are in three‑ to ten‑kilometre contiguous area to a nuclear plant in the event of an emergency.

2020 Now, this whole business of public alerting is not novel. We do that all the time in different sectors, but most recently we have the Amber Alert, which is something that came into Ontario while I was the police chief in Toronto. It was the first place that we used it, in Toronto, it's now going to go across Canada, and it saved many children.

2021 You probably know all that, so I don't need to get into it with you.

2022 But by its very nature, Ontario faces a very significant need to ensure that we not only plan, but we also bring into our efforts the need to ensure that the public plans for their own safeguard and their own protection.

2023 You have seen some of the disasters that have happened when people have either not been alerted or have not taken the warnings. It just exacerbates whatever threat, whatever danger is imminent.

2024 As I indicated in my correspondence to the Commission, the thing I would like to also indicate is that every emergency or disaster is a local event, so you don't need to broadcast alerts and warnings far and wide. And as far as checks and balances, authority and control, in my respectful submission, Emergency Management Ontario is already the clearinghouse for those kinds of warnings and those kinds of emergency responses and we operate a 24/7 emergency operation centre, which is in a position to address these kinds of issues and validate the requirement, if you will, and initiate such a warning with checks and balances and accountability in place.

2025 I don't know if, Mr. Chairman, you wish me to go through the rest of my submissions, which are contained in my correspondence to you.

2026 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have read your submission, so if you may we have some questions.

2027 If I hear you very well, at the end of your presentation you said that Ontario has already has its authorized issuer of ‑‑ I don't know if you're familiar with the CANALERT program that is ‑‑ or that has been discussed yesterday, but they are ‑‑ there is a discussion about who is an authorized issuer and you are saying that Ontario has already its formal agency in order to meet that definition.

2028 MR. FANTINO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Even with the Amber Alert, the Amber Alert has a number of checks and balances in place that ultimately requires ultimate accountability on the part of someone to have it issued.

2029 So I propose the same kind of process would be put in place as a matter of policy to ensure that all of these issues are addressed and that there be accountability for the use of the warning.

2030 THE CHAIRPERSON: And that could be done in a very short time.

2031 MR. FANTINO: It could be done, like I say, we have 24/7 operations. There is people who are there all the time and we're all in contact and depending on the issue it obviously escalates to higher authority and something like this would probably go to a higher authority, either myself or my designate in the case of Ontario.

2032 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, at the beginning of your presentation you mentioned that two major emergency event that occurred in Ontario and you talk about SARS and the blackout.

2033 Obviously nobody could have predicted that blackout, because as a matter of fact the incident occurred in Ohio and almost half of North America was blacked out. So no warning system could have prevented that.

2034 MR. FANTINO: No. I only raised that as a criteria that is used in our province, depending on the nature and the magnitude of the emergency.

2035 But you're quite correct, when the power went out a lot of the normal traditional warning systems would not have worked anyway.

2036 There is all kinds of stories coming out of Katrina as well, where once the communications broke down, batteries couldn't be charged, electricity was not available, a great deal more chaos.

2037 But, you know, some of these you can't warn people, I agree, but there are some, of course, that not only we can but we should.

2038 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, some could be predicted, as Dr. Rutherford explained just before you appear.

2039 Now, regarding health issues, do you see the validity of having warning? You mentioned the case of SARS, but was that a matter for an emergency alert or was it a matter for the broadcasters to pick up the story and follow up, as they did, when the SARS was identified as a medical problem?

2040 MR. FANTINO: Well, the type of public alerting that I think we're speaking about here would probably not fit into that kind of a scenario.

2041 Again, I raised that as stating a criteria that we have in the province for how emergencies are identified, but at any given time there could be something in a health emergency type situation that we need to warn the public about, but they would have to be imminent threats and not casual or nice‑to‑know information that could be ‑‑ that can and should be conveyed otherwise.

2042 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think ‑‑ I think the one that you mentioned about the required warning system that has been put in place surrounding a nuclear plant is an obvious one.

2043 MR. FANTINO: Yes.

2044 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you briefly describe for us the process and mechanism that have been put in place surrounding the events. So the municipalities would contact you, the police forces, what?

2045 MR. FANTINO: Yes.

2046 THE CHAIRPERSON: How does it work?

2047 MR. FANTINO: Well, as you know, every emergency or disaster is primarily, at least at the beginning, a local event. If it can be managed locally it usually is done so by local emergency providers.

2048 But we are contacted, because we have a liaison, we have liaison people on the ground in the various regions right across the province, so if things are being handled at the local level we monitor, we assist, we advise, we help co‑ordinate response if there is a need for added resources to be brought in, the military, whatever, and we are in fact the direct link to federal authorities to aid of local communities.

2049 If the emergency escalates to a point where it would be declared a provincial emergency, the two I spoke about earlier, in that particular case the Premier and the Cabinet and me as the operational person would then look after the overall response to that emergency.

2050 So it could be a local level situation as long as it can be handled locally and then scaling up, we would, of course, intervene at the province and ‑‑

2051 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's take, for example, a local event ‑‑

2052 MR. FANTINO: Yes.

2053 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ that arises, say a train that derailed and was transporting chemical and ‑‑ like happened in Mississauga a few years ago. And let's look at it from an emergency warning.

2054 The event occurs, say in Mississauga, a train derailment. Obviously the local officials are there first, because that's ‑‑ they're there. So will they be contacting your agency so that your agency will be contacting ‑‑ will be the issuer of the warning or will they do it by themselves?

2055 MR. FANTINO: I would not leave it to local decision‑making. It should be something that has a higher clearance and authority and, as I've stated earlier, part of our job is to also make sure that the proper authorities respond to such an emergency.

2056 As you pointed out, for instance, environment people have to attend. There is all kinds of agencies that have to be notified and we are basically the clearinghouse to make sure that those agencies are notified, they attend and they do the due diligence that's required in these circumstances.

2057 I would then put the authority for issuing such a public warning, public alerting, in that same category, that we would assume the responsibility, make sure that the due diligence is done and that the proper criteria and the proper accountability is in place before it goes out.

2058 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a mechanism that makes sure that the system is not overused, because obviously some people could see an event happening locally, but thinking it's of a great magnitude, but in reality it's a daily case that other people have to deal with. Do you have put in place some mechanism of that nature?

2059 MR. FANTINO: Well, not specifically to public alerting, because we don't have a system such as we're speaking about that we would like to go to, but as it stands now, we have override on some issues. But if I can take your mind back to the Amber Alert system, we put policy in place that governs how and when and under what circumstances that particular alert is used.

2060 Same principle should apply to any public alerting system, such as we're debating or discussing here.

2061 THE CHAIRPERSON: So those are my questions. Legal counsel?

2062 MR. McCALLUM: Yes, thank you. In both your written comments on also your oral comments today you talked about the provincial nuclear emergency response plan.

2063 I just wondered if I could say how you would envision coordination between your responsibilities under the response plan and the responsibilities of one or other of these applicants, either Pelmorex or CBC or Bell ExpressVu, if they were to disseminate the warnings?

2064 MR. FANTINO: Well, we would have to, of course, ensure that the warning was of a level that ‑‑ oh, that the emergency was of a level that required such a warning. And then, of course, we would sign off on it. We would be accountable to ensure that the warning met the standards, the criteria, and that it went out in a timely fashion, however that is to be.

2065 So we would be basically the clearinghouse for that type of information going out.

2066 MR. McCALLUM: What are you doing right now for the emergency response plan, in the absence of a mandatory system?

2067 MR. FANTINO: Well, there's a major debate going on now about sirens and other electronic devices in the homes and so forth that is a matter of discussion. It is not been determined yet.

2068 There are consultants looking at how the three‑kilometre contiguous to a nuclear plant warning is to take place and the ten‑kilometre, the three‑ to ten‑kilometre, but as we speak it looks like sirens will be the method to be used.

2069 MR. McCALLUM: So you are thinking of sirens like within three kilometres of Pickering, Darlington and Bruce?

2070 MR. FANTINO: Yes, the specification really is that there has to be within ‑‑ zero to three kilometres must provide within 15 minutes of initiation warning to practically 100 percent of the people in the contiguous zone at that time, whether they be indoors or outdoor and irrespective of the time of day or year. And then it has a lower definition for three‑ to ten‑kilometres.

2071 And basically the way that that is now being looked at is sirens up on 50‑foot poles in the community.

2072 MR. McCALLUM: And possibly house‑to‑house warnings as well?

2073 MR. FANTINO: Possibly house‑to‑house warning. There is a lot of debate about what should or shouldn't happen there, but it is being worked on as we speak between the affected local municipalities and the regional municipality as well.

2074 MR. McCALLUM: And all of these efforts will continue, in any event, regardless of what happens with the Commission's process.

2075 MR. FANTINO: Well, that's right. But, you know, that is only applicable to nuclear emergencies. So we have all these other emergencies to also worry about.

2076 MR. McCALLUM: And with Amber Alerts what you do now is deliver an Amber Alert to the local media?

2077 MR. FANTINO: To local media, the highway signs that you see along the highways. And it has been so effective it is unbelievable. And it has been used even to a greater effectiveness in the United States. Florida, for instance, have had tremendous success.

2078 But it is basically to the media, voiced out or ticker tape type on video screens or in some cases actually voicing out over broadcasts and interrupting broadcasts and so forth.

2079 MR. McCALLUM: If the Commission were to say yes to either, say, Pelmorex or CBC or Bell ExpressVu today what would you expect to be changed with the Amber Alerts in respect of notification you would make to the media?

2080 MR. FANTINO: Well, I would expect that the ‑‑ well, first and foremost, my expectation is that we do this sooner rather than later, so I suggest to the Commission that there is a sense of urgency about doing this.

2081 Secondly, my view is that the criteria should be developed by the Commission so as we have one‑stop shopping application across the land. And then I would suggest that once we are talking about an imminent threat, that that warning, however that is to be done, go over to the public in a way that it's mandatory. In other words, it wouldn't be with an optional warning. It goes out to everybody who has access to whatever technology is available that would bring that warning to their attention.

2082 So immediate, yes, imminent threat danger, mandatory, and of course to as many people as possible, through whatever system.

2083 MR. McCALLUM: So it might be the local media as well as, say, CBC or Pelmorex.

2084 MR. FANTINO: Well, my view would be that whoever, however we can reach the most numbers of people in the most immediate sense is what we should be looking at and that is why I didn't get into one technical property versus another technical property.

2085 I'm looking at it from the public's need and right to know as soon as possible about any imminent danger that they are liable to face.

2086 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you.

2087 MR. FANTINO: Thank you.

2088 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2089 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Fantino.

2090 Madam Secrétaire ‑‑ oh, excuse me.

2091 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Excuse me, I just wanted to follow up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2092 Just to follow up on counsel's point. I think you did say that this is a warning system and not the details and that is left to the broadcasters. And you did mention a public education component in your written application.

2093 MR. FANTINO: Yes.

2094 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So as I understand it, you see the mandatory warning, the text warning via the broadcasters, via the BDUs, as mandatory, but in addition, it is a limited text, it says there is an imminent danger, it is that information.

2095 Anything further about what to do, anything further about what you should do when you hear the sirens, that is a public education program. Who is responsible for that? Is it your organization?

2096 MR. FANTINO: Well, we would surely undertake if that was the next phase of the warning, if you will ‑‑ first and foremost you just give a warning without some kind of information about what people should do, but I think that the people, the public can be directed to other medium to then receive follow‑up information about what they need to do or ‑‑ all depends, you know, it all depends on the severity of the issue. It may be that we need to expand the original warning to include a few other very critical pieces of information, but I would not make it, for instance, a story book kind of a warning.

2097 Warning. Do this, do that, whatever. This is why. And then we worry about the second piece as we can.

2098 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you very much.

2099 MR. FANTINO: Thank you.

2100 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2101 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Fantino.

2102 MR. FANTINO: Thank you.

2103 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secrétaire?

2104 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2105 I would now invite Mr. James Ferguson of the Salvation Army to make his ten‑minute presentation.

INTERVENTION

2106 MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and to support the proposal for an all channel alert system in Canada.

2107 I requested this opportunity to advocate ‑‑ and I'll use "ACA" to cut down on having to say that many times ‑‑ be instituted. And just to give a bit of a context from which I come, I'll just indicate there are several reasons and, number one, I represent the Salvation Army, which is the largest provider of social services in Canada outside of government and this includes emergency services right across the country.

2108 My role in the Salvation Army is the coordination of its emergency disaster services. I say across the country, it also includes Bermuda, but that doesn't concern you people particularly, I don't think, at this point.

2109 The Salvation Army is one of the non‑governmental organizations which has formed an alliance, which includes four other agencies, the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, Mennonite Disaster Services and Christian Reform World Relief Services of Canada.

2110 I would say that my colleague from Red Cross was planning to be here, but he or I had to go to Regina today to meet with PHAC emergency social services people, so he drew the short straw, I guess.

2111 What we have done in forming this alliance is in fact to foster a co‑operative relationship and the purpose of that relationship is to provide optimal services to the Canadian public in times of disaster.

2112 Those organizations work closely with the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada to ensure that our efforts in disaster relief operations are conducted in an environment of co‑operation and within the stipulations of governments at all levels, be it municipal, provincial, territorial, or federal.

2113 In the best practices of effective emergency preparedness there are a few basic tenets upheld by all emergency responders and I'm not going to go into all of the details or the ‑‑ try to support one over the other, but I'll simply select the key factor that has to be of prime concern to all of us, and that is human life.

2114 And basically when a disaster strikes what governs all else is that in order to accomplish the highest survival rate when a disaster strikes, individuals and families within a community must be prepared to be self‑sufficient for at least the first 72 hours.

2115 It is most opportune that this hearing is occurring in the same week as the kickoff for Emergency Preparedness Week. I think this ties in very nicely.

2116 What can organizations such as the Salvation Army and the other NGOs and government emergency preparedness agencies do to promote this individual and family preparedness and how is this connected to today's hearings?

2117 Obviously there is a need for an effective program of public education. Members of our communities have to be taught how to prepare and know what to do when disaster strikes.

2118 Equally evident is the need for the preparedness education to adopt an all‑hazards approach. The steps we would take in an earthquake are not the same measures we would take in a flood or a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb.

2119 Therefore we must keep before us the absolutely essential factor that teaching our community members what and how to protect themselves from disasters is virtually useless unless there is some way of letting them know what's happening.

2120 They need information, timely and accurate, so that they know when to put their emergency plans that they have learned how to do and that they have put into effect, what measures are required and for that to happen there are three requirements for those whoever the accurate information for the people who need that information.

2121 Number 1 is it communicate; secondly it is communicate; and thirdly it is communicate.

2122 That, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that I have advocated for the implementation of an all channel alert system for several years now and it is why I've written to you in three different years and why I requested the opportunity to speak to you directly in support of an ACA for Canada today.

2123 All the work that emergency responders have done in recent years in promoting preparedness and educating the public will be severely hampered without the initiation of a communications network which will trigger the public's response.

2124 One step towards that would accomplish ‑‑ towards accomplishing the capacity to reach millions across Canada would be to implement all channel alert system which would initiate crawlers across the screen of every television set in the affected region, providing the critical messages of an impending disaster.

2125 As you are well aware, other countries in the world are far ahead of our country in this regard. Indeed, I can say from personal experience, as I'm sure most of you can as well, in the United States the population knows it can count on the latest weather warnings or alerts together with instructions whenever trouble is brewing, whether that be atmospheric conditions that are right for a tornado or the fact that there has been an industrial accident on First avenue and the following neighbourhoods must be evacuated.

2126 Indeed, last time I was in Florida there was flash floods alerts and those warnings came across the screen. We knew whether we were affected or not, because that was made very clear.

2127 Now, are the systems that are in place there perfect? No. And does that sort of approach meet all the informational needs of communities faced with a disaster? Not yet. And does the system ensure that people with various physical and communications disorders receive the warning? Not at all.

2128 But what the existing ACA systems do provide, however, is a very much enhanced protection to the population, the viewing public in particular, of course, which Canadians do not currently enjoy.

2129 I would appeal to you to consider in your very responsible role today these additional facts: Contrary to perhaps what we've heard earlier, it is not just in the mitigation and preparedness phases of a disaster response that ACA would be beneficial, as important as that function is.

2130 During the actual response phase people will need information about, (a), what had happened; (b), the nature of the existing dangers if any; what they should do to protect themselves; and where they can go for food, shelter, medical attention; and how they can find out about the status of family members.

2131 The roles of telecommunications facilities and systems will be absolutely critical to the possible survival of many thousands of people victimized by a catastrophic event. Providing the mandate for an ACA system would be one measure that would increase the capacity of communities to emerge with some degree of physical and emotional stability in spite of what has occurred.

2132 Disasters take many forms. In Canada we have been spared many of the weather‑related disasters that our neighbours to the south have experienced. Statistically we have evidence that this good fortune is beginning to shift and, whether due to periodic cycles or to other phenomena, such as global warming, our portion of the continent is now due for much more severe episodes of bad weather.

2133 Our country has also been spared many of the extreme expressions of political and racial discontent, but we are not immune to terrorist attack.

2134 We need to decide on means by which our population can be warned of impending risk and what measures they should take to preserve the well‑being of their families.

2135 One of the crises on the horizon right across the world is determining how to best respond to a pandemic influenza and if I may I'll make an aside here.

2136 Better information in Toronto, being one of the examples, during SARS would have been extremely helpful. I'm sure one of my previous colleagues would vouch for the fact that over 47,000 calls a day went to the hot‑line for information about SARS, because one of the largest factors that had to be dealt with was fear. People did not know. They didn't know what they were to do. They had to go looking for it. It was not being provided for them.

2137 So that, I think, is another role that could be played by this kind of a service.

2140 It was more than five years that I had the opportunity to learn about ACA and the system that was being proposed by Pelmorex. Although my appeal to you is for immediate action to move on the establishment of an ACA system for Canada and although I have no intention to express a bias in favour of one applicant over another, I can speak of the enthusiasm and corporate responsibility demonstrated by Pelmorex when they invited me to their head office to view what they had in mind for a system by which a large portion of the population could be alerted to a hazardous situation in spite of the channel that they were viewing at that time.

2141 Technically I'm not qualified to judge the merits of one proposal or another, so I would beg you not to ask me questions about that, I'm not going to be of much help.

2142 My job is in terms of helping people who are experiencing disasters and I know information is a big issue.

2143 So the responsibility of choosing is yours. I will say, however, that Canada is increasingly handicapped by the absence of a messaging service which ACA could provide, so I thank you for your concern about this.

2144 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. Commissioner Pennefather.

2145 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning Mr. Ferguson.

2146 MR. FERGUSON: Good morning.

2147 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you for your comments this morning and your ongoing interest in this area. Your expertise is valuable to our discussion.

2148 I did want to pursue one point you made regarding your example of the pandemic influenza and I think I understood a little differently from perhaps Mr. Fantino's comments that you are looking at this service as both a warning system in the pure sense of the term warning, imminent danger, and as an information source.

2149 MR. FERGUSON: I believe that is necessary and I think our experience in SARS has proven just that.

2150 One of roles that the Salvation Army was charged with was the distribution of isolation kits. On one day in particular I well remember ‑‑ and this is an experience shared by the Red Cross and by St. John Ambulance as well ‑‑ in distributing these isolation kits, we had 1200 one day. 750 were delivered. An attempt was made to deliver the other kits, but there was no one home.

2151 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Deliver to ...

2152 MR. FERGUSON: To people who had in fact been either contact with someone who was reported to have ‑‑ had contact with SARS or whatever.

2153 I think it would be a public service as well, if people were aware that there is a contact number for information, just that much, about an existing perilous, hazardous situation.

2154 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: But I understand and currently now, though, let's assume that the ACA service that we are addressing is not there, what would you do now, because would you not through ‑‑ for information, for packages that would provide further information, for support throughout, as we said earlier, a health concern such as a influenza is ongoing. It is not ‑‑ as in a tornado.

2155 MR. FERGUSON: That's right.

2156 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So would not existing broadcast media be able to play a role there?

2157 MR. FERGUSON: That is one of the means of doing so, but to be very direct on this, there is an organization which is charged with the responsibility of disseminating information, it is an emergency network of non‑governmental organizations, interestingly enough, chaired by Public Health Agency of Canada.

2158 The reason that relationship is there is that it is deemed, and I think correctly so, that many of the not‑for‑profit organizations across the country have contacts out into the community and therefore key messages could be disseminated in that manner.

2159 That is certainly not the way you want to go for something that is urgent, however, and needs to be delivered very quickly, because it is going to take time to do that.

2160 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay. Let's go back, then, to the very specific warning service that we are discussing at this hearing and what I'm hearing ‑‑ what this discussion is helping us understand, I think, is the number of agencies across the country which for very good reason are involved in support in the event of an emergency.

2161 In the case of a warning system of imminent danger, if we narrow it to very specifically that discussion, in your view ‑‑ you have heard our conversations perhaps over the last day or so ‑‑ who should be the authorized provider of the emergency message, in your view?

2162 MR. FERGUSON: I think it has to be the arm of government or designate that has the expertise and the responsibility for doing so. If we are talking about a severe weather event, then it should be Environment Canada. If it is something to do with an imminent attack, then obviously it is going to be coming either from defence or another arm of government.

2163 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: It is government, then.

2164 MR. FERGUSON: In a position to do so. But I think it should be a government agency in that respect. Everything that the NGOs do in emergency services is done under the leadership, basically, of the government level in which they are working. If it is in a municipality, then it is the local mayor who is in charge.

2165 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Do you have any comment on how the alert system for the warning of imminent danger should be funded?

2166 MR. FERGUSON: Well, I certainly would support what has been said so far, because I ‑‑ I think it is appropriate in ‑‑ as I say, in a couple of days we are kicking off a campaign in which everybody will be getting a folder that talks about the first 72 hours and how to survive, because people have to take responsibility for their own welfare, and I suspect that there is not very much way you can argue against laying the responsibility for that at the feet of the people who are the consumers.

2167 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And final question, and I promise it is not a technical question, but considering your experience in this area, is it your view that such a system for warnings of imminent danger be mandatory to broadcast distribution undertakings and broadcasters?

2168 MR. FERGUSON: Absolutely, because if it is going to have any effect it has to get out. It can't be just in a very narrow channel. Right now we are faced with that same sort of situation in that we've got very piecemeal means and if it were not mandatory then I would suggest that all we are doing is prolonging that status.

2169 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2170 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. We will move to the item. Madame Secrétaire?

2171 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next intervener to appear with the Rogers Cable communications, I would invite Mr. Ken Engelhart and Peter Kovacs to come forward.

2172 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Englehart, when you are ready.

INTERVENTION

2173 MR. ENGLEHART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Ken Engelhart, the vice‑president regulatory for Rogers Communications. With me today from Rogers Cable are to my left Pam Dinsmore, vice‑president regulatory, and to Pam's left, Peter Kovacs, the director of regulatory. To my right is Chris Lapine, the director of digital television services technology and to my far right is Suzanne Blackwell, the president of giganomics.

2174 Rogers supports the establishment of a public emergency alerting system. It is time that Canada had a system for the reasons that the various interveners have said.

2175 We are fully prepared to implement such a system if we are asked to by the Commission or any other agency or department of the Federal Government and that commitment is not dependent on funding being received for CBC or funding being received for CANALERT or any of those other things.

2176 We do, however, oppose Pelmorex's application requesting that the CRTC mandate carriage of their ACA service.

2177 Now, I have something here to show you how an emergency alerting system will work. Is that working? Yes. Thanks so much.

2178 So, as we've heard, there is really three parts to an emergency alerting system. There is the alert that comes from a government agency; there is the distribution of that alert to a cable head end; and then there is putting that alert up onto the TV screen, either through a crawl or a forced tune down to a message of the type we saw in the CBC video. So those are the three parts that you need for an emergency alerting system.

2179 We don't need Pelmorex for any of those three parts.

2180 The first part is the alerts. They don't come from Pelmorex, as we have heard. They come from the federal, provincial or municipal governments.

2181 Now, as they describe in their application, Pelmorex proposes that these agencies send their alerts to the Pelmorex distribution centre over the Internet, over a secure, encrypted, password protected Internet connection. Well, it's just as easy for those folks to send those messages to a Rogers centre, the Rogers server. In fact, it could be sent to all of the relevant servers with a single push of a button.

2182 So what we have once it hits the Pelmorex server is a whole elaborate satellite system to get that message down to the cable head end. But this is really sort of a pre‑Internet type of solution. We don't need that.

2183 Once it's at the Rogers server we can use our own distribution network to deliver the signals to our head end. That's what we do. Our whole network is a giant system for delivering things to our head end. So we can get the message to our head end without Pelmorex.

2184 Now, the last part of the equation is the head end equipment, the receivers, the character generators, the force tune equipment. Again, we don't need Pelmorex for that. They have a technology solution, but all of the major manufacturers make these things. They are off‑the‑shelf technology. They are easily buyable. We can buy these things today. There is no reason why we need Pelmorex for that.

2185 So all three parts of the equation we can do without Pelmorex.

‑‑‑ Pause

2186 MR. ENGLEHART: So what is the problem, then, from our perspective with the Pelmorex solution?

2187 Well, the financial issue is really important. Pelmorex will be charging us $2 million a year for their EAS solution. This is a lot of money for something that we could do ourselves for far less.

2188 As you heard from Pelmorex, there are two ways of getting the message up on the screen, character generators that are much more expensive, and the force tune solution which is cheaper.

2189 If we used the force tune solution, we could buy all of the head end equipment for $1.3 million one time, so we would be paying a one‑time cost of $1.3 million instead of $2 million a year until the end of time.

2190 We will have operating costs if we buy the equipment, but we will have operating costs if Pelmorex supplies the equipment, because we are responsible for operating their equipment in our head end.

2191 One of the reasons why their solution is so expensive is that their business plan includes all sorts of costs that we don't think we should have to bear.

2192 There is a very high licensing fee of $2.6 million over their first term to their affiliated manufacturing entity; there is $5.8 million in education, communication and marketing costs; there is 41.4 million for administrative and regulatory costs, in addition to $4.5 million of general management costs; and there is $2.3 million of pre‑launch costs. These are all costs that we either wouldn't have to bear if we did it ourselves or they would be far, far less.

2193 I would also note, while we are talking about the financial model, that we believe that their revenues are understated because they have not allowed for subscriber growth. We would also note that they are making a 17 percent profit margin, which again is something that we wouldn't have to bear if we provided the service ourselves.

2194 We also have a number of technical concerns. It's not that their solution couldn't work, it's that there are a whole lot of things about the relationship that set off warning bells for us.

2195 One, they don't really have any experience as an equipment manufacturer. About half of the $0.08, about $0.04 goes to the equipment. They have never manufactured equipment before. We deal with Scientific Atlanta, GI, Motorola, big equipment manufacturers, and even there we are paranoid control freaks about the equipment we buy.

2196 So we are very worried about getting this equipment from Pelmorex.

2197 They are also in the position of planning and managing our network. That's what we do. We are a cable company. That's our core competency, is buying equipment for the network. This is not even a secondary competency for Pelmorex. And any time you put a piece of equipment into the head end, you introduce risk to our security of our network, to the reliability of our network, to the quality of our picture, and if we can control our own network then we can pick the appropriate level of risk. But if they are putting the equipment in and upgrading it according to their timetable, it injects a lot of risk for us.

2198 Another technical matter that is worth mentioning is that they have stated in their application, they can monitor the alert as far as the satellite, but they can't make sure that it got to the head end. We can make sure that that alert got to the head end, so we believe our monitoring would be more effective.

2199 Finally, I want to talk a bit about jurisdiction.

2200 As you know from our brief, we do not believe the Commission has the jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act to licence the ACA service. The ACA service is alphanumeric, therefore it is not programming. If it's not part of a program, it's not licensed under the Broadcasting Act.

2201 But the Commission has said there are some kinds of non‑programming service, there are some kinds of alphanumeric texts that can be part of the program, but it has to be program‑related. If it's not program‑related, it's not part of the program, therefore it's not licensable.

2202 So here it is obviously not programming because it's alphanumeric text.

2203 It is also not program‑related, and you can tell that from a commonsense test. If you are watching channel 183 and a tornado warning comes across in the middle of the golf game you're watching, you don't think to yourself, "Well, I'm watching The Weather Network now", you think "I'm watching the Golf Channel with a tornado warning". So there is nothing commonsense to suggest that it's part of the program.

2204 But if the commonsense test isn't enough, the Commission has laid out in the ITV decision very clearly what is program‑related and what isn't, and clearly this isn't.

2205 So it is not licensable, it can't be the subject of a 9(1)(h) order, but that's okay. All the Commission needs to do is amend paragraph 70 of the Broadcast Distribution Regs. That's all the Commission needs to do, to permit us to delete or alter the programming signals to insert our alert messages and then we will do it.

2206 We look forward to any questions you have.

2207 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Englehart.

2208 Commissioner del Val...?

2209 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you.

2210 I was just going to ask if you could shift that so I could see Mr. Kovacs. That's great. Thanks. So you anticipated my first question.

2211 One of the questions is, I have read your argument on why this is not a program or program‑related, but let's assume for a moment that it is. Now, my concern is then section 3(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act which essentially says that:

"all persons who ... carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs they broadcast;"

2212 I think none of the applicants want to be responsible for the content of the message. How would I get around the 3(1)(h) problem?

‑‑‑ Pause

2213 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, I think ‑‑ I mean, a cable company is responsible for what they do in their network. If our server doesn't work right or our character generators don't work right, that's our problem.

2214 We are obviously not responsible for the message because we don't originate the message and the message comes from someone else.

2215 I would also point out ‑‑ not necessarily that I should be putting ideas into the Commission's head ‑‑ but if I'm right that this is a telecom service you might be able to make people responsible or not responsible under the Telecom Act.

2216 COMMISSIONER del VAL: How would I do that?

2217 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, most cable companies have some sort of telecom service, even if it's just a TV Guide channel, which is an alphanumeric channel. That's telecom. So in a strict legal sense they are telecom carriers.

2218 They have never really been much regulated, but the cable industry has had a couple of decisions dealing with alphanumeric channels where the Commission has said what we can and cannot carry and how we would do it.

2219 Even though it would be very unusual, legally, jurisdictionally, I don't think there is anything to prevent the Commission from using the Telecommunications Act to order the cable companies and other BDUs to carry an alerting service.

2220 Now, if we were making submissions to you on that, I wouldn't be asking you to make us liable, I would be asking you, under the Telecom Act, to limit our liability, because I think if we are providing a public service like this we shouldn't also find ourselves sued if something screws up.

2221 But that's how the Commission could do it, I believe, if you wanted to do it.

2222 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Now, I also gather that you are in favour of a section 7(d) amendment.

2223 Is that of

2224 MR. ENGLEHART: That is absolutely correct, yes.

2225 COMMISSIONER del VAL: There does not appear, from what we heard yesterday, to be any agreement on the issue of, say, liability for the signals. There was talk about asking and needing indemnities, but there is no agreement.

2226 If I were, say CTV, then I have a situation where nobody, no broadcaster wants to be responsible for the content of the message, and yet when you remove the critical element of 7(d), which is the requirement of an agreement before the deletion or alteration of the program, then they have no control.

2227 Why is it unreasonable for the broadcaster to have a significant concern in that area?

2228 MR. ENGLEHART: I would be very concerned if I was them, because you are affecting their signal. The fact is, if an alert message has to be put up on all channels ‑‑ it is an all channel alert ‑‑ the broadcasters of channel 87 shouldn't be able to say, "Well, you can use every other channel, but not 87."

2229 So if the broadcaster's is that the alerting should be done in a certain way and to a certain specification, I can understand that.

2230 Bear in mind, though, that as cable operators we have the exact same concern that the broadcasters have, which is that our viewers are upset as little as possible. We have the same incentive as them. We want very much, yes, to give them the alert, but (b) to be as ‑‑

2231 COMMISSIONER del VAL: As non‑disruptive?

2232 MR. ENGLEHART: ‑‑ as non‑disruptive as we can.

2233 So I understand where the broadcasters are concerned, but it's not like we have some different set of incentives that would incline us to do something different than them.

2234 COMMISSIONER del VAL: You are also advocating for voluntary participation at this point, aren't you?

2235 MR. ENGLEHART: That's correct.

2236 I mean right now if we consider section 7(d), we are actually forbidden from doing an alerting service. We couldn't do one, save and except getting all 500 channels on the 500 channel universe to consent.

2237 So right now the Commission is, in effect, forbidding us from doing it. We think it is sort of odd to go from forbidden one day to mandatory the next day. It makes more sense to go from forbidden to voluntary. I think you will find that the cable operators in Canada will respond. If the Commission says "This is something that has to be done", or if Industry Canada says it, or if PSEPC says it, the cable industry will step up. Among other things, I think as Pelmorex pointed out, it is something that is valuable to our viewers. It's a valuable service. So we will step up and do it.

2238 If you find in a couple of years, "Look, these cable companies are all talk and no action, they are not actually doing it", then I think either you or some other branch of the federal government should make it mandatory.

2239 COMMISSIONER del VAL: So then for as long as carriage is voluntary, so you have the choice of transmitting the signal or not, and if section 7(d) were changed, would you give the broadcasters an indemnity?

2240 MR. ENGLEHART: I don't know exactly what I'm indemnifying them against. I guess they would be concerned that ‑‑ I mean certainly, like we saw on the video, if you are watching Rick Mercer and suddenly you are told about an tornado, there is an interruption to the program. There is no reason to indemnify CBC for that.

2241 I suppose if our equipment malfunctions so that it is a minute or two before the viewer is back to the program, no, I don't want to indemnify CBC for that, or anyone else. I am going to operate that equipment as efficiently as I possibly can because as a cable operator it is in my self‑interest to make sure that my customers have as least disruption as they can, but if the worst thing happens I don't want to be sued by a bunch of broadcasters too.

2242 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I don't think anybody likes to be sued by anybody, but the reality is, say if I were watching on CTV Canadian Idol and I look down the chain and all I see when I'm the viewer, I see an alert. You know, it could have been an error that it should not have been broadcast to me, it could have contained wrong information.

2243 The point is that the broadcaster has no control, right. To them, they are probably in this process you could say they could be a victim. From their perspective, what does it matter who made the mistake?

2244 If you want to remove them from having any say at all when their broadcast signal is altered, do you want to indemnify them?

2245 MR. ENGLEHART: I guess I would say that, you know, we do other things like simultaneous substitution. Chris and his team at Rogers have put in a simultaneous substitution system that we are very proud of, but I wouldn't tell you that it never makes a mistake, that it doesn't clip off a bit of a program or occasionally ‑‑ I might get kicked under the table ‑‑ occasionally forget to do a substitution. I don't know if that has ever happened, but I have never heard of anyone suing us before.

2246 So as cable operators make the odd mistake, I have never ‑‑ I have never known a broadcaster to sue us.

2247 But I guess when you say they have no say, they probably have no say that it will happen, but I think they should have some say in any Commission process about how it will happen.

2248 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you.

2249 Moving on, still on the legal argument side on whether this is a programming service.

2250 I think you addressed it in paragraph 38 or 39 of your intervention, but what should I make of the fact that the alert message is a severable portion from the rest of The Weather Network's program?

2251 What does that tell me about program‑relatedness, for lack of a better term, program enhancement, and how I should assess that severable portion itself?

2252 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, starting at the beginning, the Commission can issue programming licences. So a programming licensee under the Act distributes programs. Programs are sounds and images but not including alphanumeric text. So those are the only things you can licence, is people that produce those programs.

2253 Where there is alphanumeric text, well, there is a problem. The Act has just said alphanumeric text is not programming, and yet, as we have heard, there is alphanumeric text sometimes on programming services.

2254 So the Commission has looked at this problem and said, yes, that alphanumeric text is considered to be programming when it is program related, and the question is, is it part of the program?

2255 So obviously, the fact that these ACA messages are on a different channel is one of the things that would lead one to think, hum, this doesn't seem to be part of the program.

2256 The viewer watching their golf game wouldn't know that that program ‑‑ wouldn't even know what the program was on Channel 23, on The Weather Network, certainly wouldn't think that that tornado warning is part of that program.

2257 So from a commonsense perspective, the fact that it is on a separate channel is one of the things that leads you to think it is not part of the program.

2258 Then there is the ITV test and then the fact that Pelmorex themselves have asked for a 9(1)(h) order for the ACA part but not for their programming service is, I think, another piece of powerful evidence that it is not part of the program and therefore can't be considered to be programming and therefore broadcasting under the Act.

2259 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay, thank you. I am glad you brought up that golf channel example again. So in that example, what would you consider to be the main program in relation to the test, the three‑part test that is set up in 2004‑82?

2260 MR. ENGLEHART: For the three‑part test for this alphanumeric crawl to be program related, the program that the three‑part test applies to is Channel 23, The Weather Network. That is the program it has to be related to. If it is not part of that program or related to that program then it can't be the subject matter of a programming licence for The Weather Network.

2261 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. What do you say to the view that Decision 2004‑82 is regulatory framework for interactive TV services and therefore has no application in the current case?

2262 MR. ENGLEHART: Yes, thank you. I have got the decision in front of me and in fact if you look at it you will see that it is more than just analogous to this case, it is this case.

2263 So in the Broadcasting Public Notice, in paragraph 2, the Commission sets out what this decision is about. It says:

"One of the questions put forward for comment in Public Notice 2001‑113 was: `What interactive activities, if any, would fall within the definition of broadcasting set out in the Broadcasting Act?'" (As read)

2264 So that is really what this decision was about, which of these non‑programming type things would fall within the Broadcasting Act, the same question we are dealing with here.

2265 If you look down in paragraph 3, in the second sentence:

"For example, some parties consider that even programming consisting primarily of alphanumeric text would fall under the definition of broadcasting if that text was program related or was integral to a program." (As read)

2266 So that is the very question we are looking at today, when does alphanumeric text fall under the definition of broadcasting.

2267 The argument in the earlier proceeding was it would if it was program related or integral to the program, so the very question we are looking at today.

2268 Then we go to the three‑part test and what the Commission said for their first criterion is:

"The broadcaster's intention must be that the information be seen by the same viewers as those who are watching the video signal." (As read)

2269 So The Weather Network programming video channel, their intention must be that the same people that are watching that will also see the All Channel Alert, and clearly that is not the case in an All Channel Alert.

2270 If you look at paragraph 22 of that decision, I think it is beyond controversy because if you look at the second sentence in that paragraph it says, talking about the criterion that I just read, talking about criterion 1:

"Examples of ITV content that would very likely fail to meet the first criterion would include..." (As read)

2271 I am skipping over one.

"...would include interactive weather forecasts offered to viewers during a drama program." (As read)

2272 That is our fact situation.

"...interactive weather forecasts offered to viewers during a drama program."

(As read)

2273 Now, it was talking about interactivity. So you have got an alphanumeric text that says there is a tornado coming. Interactivity just means you can click on it and something else will appear but the facts are the same.

2274 The Commission has decided in this decision that an alphanumeric weather forecast during a drama program would not meet the test, would not be program related. So I take this decision as being very powerfully on point.

2275 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Then what would you say to an argument that, but what we are talking about in an alert message is not an interactive activity and therefore this Decision 2004 has limited application, it is not directly applicable?

2276 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, it is alphanumeric text whether the alphanumeric text is something you just read or whether it is interactive.

2277 Interactive means you have some sort of a cursor on your remote and you can click on it and then you get a signal back. If anything, the interactive one is more likely to be broadcasting because the thing you get back might be a picture.

2278 So to the extent that this decision isn't directly on point, the case that we are dealing with where it is non‑interactive text is more powerfully not broadcasting.

2279 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Do you see any facts in the current case which are different from the facts in 2000 which resulted in Decision 2001‑123?

2280 MR. ENGLEHART: I don't.

2281 I think that in 2000 the Commission hadn't really got around to thinking aggressively about what type of alphanumeric text would be part of the program or not. They made a decision at that time.

2282 In 2004 they took an in‑depth look at the problem and they came up with a more refined answer.

2283 So I guess I would say the Commission was wrong in 2000 and corrected themselves in 2004.

2284 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay, thank you. Could you please summarize ‑‑ because I suspect that Pelmorex would want to reply on this point ‑‑ how you apply the Pelmorex situation to the three tests in 2004‑82?

2285 MR. ENGLEHART: Sure. So the first criterion is that:

"The broadcaster's intention must be that the information be seen by the same viewers as those who are watching the video signal." (As read)

2286 So they have to intend when they send out the alert saying that there is a tornado approaching that that will be seen by the same viewers as are watching their Weather Network channel. Clearly, they don't.

2287 The whole point of an All Channel Alert is that they intend that it be seen by all viewers whether those viewers are watching their channel or some other channel. You may never, ever, ever watch The Weather Network in your life and you will still see these weather alerts.

2288 The second criterion is that:

\ "The information must be available during the same interval of time as the video signal." (As read)

2289 It is really the first criterion that is the most relevant. The second one starts to get a little bit more distant because the facts are so different.

2290 But essentially the idea is not only does that alphanumeric signal have to be seen by the same people as are watching the video signal, it has to be in the same general time period. You can't send it later or earlier or in a different segment.

2291 Now, the Commission did say that for a service like The Weather Network that operates on a wheel, that rule is somewhat relaxed. So for their alphanumeric crawls on their own channel, the Commission said the time interval thing isn't as important for a service like that.

2292 So criterion 2 I don't think has a huge relevance to the facts that we are dealing with because it is dealing with timing.

2293 Criterion 3:

"The information must be an integral part of the program." (As read)

2294 Again, it is not a ‑‑

2295 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I am sorry, could I stop you?

2296 MR. ENGLEHART: Sure.

2297 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I think the third criterion is:

"The content must have a substantial connection to the main program..." (As read)

2298 MR. ENGLEHART: Yes, you are right, you are right, you are right. I was looking at the old version.

2299 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Yes, the U.S. version.

2300 MR. ENGLEHART:

"The content must have a substantial connection to the main program, providing enhancement to the viewers of the main program." (As read)

2301 Again, it may be that The Weather Network is talking about that tornado at that time, they may not. It may be, for example, that the alert is something having to do with, I don't know, an Amber alert for a kidnapped child and in that case it may not be discussed at all on the main program. There may be no connection to the main program.

2302 So the third criterion that there is a substantial connection to the main program is, again, one that the All Channel Alert Service doesn't satisfy.

2303 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Going to the diagram, I understand where you said, okay, the agencies can send the signals directly to Rogers. But what if the government wants to send the signals to only one source? In your example, then the agencies would need to send the signals to the DTH providers and to the telco TVs, et cetera?

2304 MR. ENGLEHART: Yes, they would but it doesn't mean they would have to send more than one message.

2305 I think when the agencies say we would like to deal with a single source, I would translate what they are saying as we don't want to send a whole bunch of messages to a whole bunch of places, we would like to send it once.

2306 When you have a system of ‑‑ when you have something like the internet, Environment Canada could have loaded into their database the addresses for all of the headends of all of the cables companies and all of the satellite companies. They then send out their alerts, all of their alerts to everybody. They just press the button. Whether that message goes to Pelmorex or whether it goes to 832 headends doesn't matter that much to Environment Canada.

2307 Then the way the system works is that message has a code, has a header, has a number and the number says there is a flood in Brandon, okay.

2308 So it goes to a headend in Fredericton. There is a server in Fredericton that says, this is for Brandon, I am not even going to read it, I am not going to look at it, I don't care.

2309 This is all done automatically by computers. It goes to every headend other than the headend in Brandon and the two cable operators and the wireless cable operator that serves Brandon. Those are the four servers that would say, oops, this one is for us. They would open the envelope, electronic envelope, the message comes out, gets fed automatically into the machine, gets popped up onto the TV screen.

2310 So the agencies don't have to have a single clearinghouse in order to have a simple delivery system.

2311 Really, you know ‑‑ stop me if I am going too far beyond your question but Mr. Temple said yesterday quite correctly:

"People are putting too much into what CANALERT is."

(As read)

2312 They are viewing CANALERT as being some sort of a server or place or facility or building. It is probably not.

2313 CANALERT is a system of rules and protocols. It is a system of instructions. It is a system of codes.

2314 It tells the emergency alerting services: use this encryption technique; use this password technique; use this way of describing the geographic locations; use these codes to describe those geographic locations.

2315 It then says to the cable companies and satellite companies: you use the same encryption technique; you use the same passwords; you use the same location codes.

2316 Once those rules are in place, the system works without Pelmorex or even without the CBC. The system works because the power of the internet is such that these messages can get disseminated immediately to the headends.

2317 So once the CANALERT system is in place, we will have a seamless system where with one push of the button they will be able to alert everyone.

2318 But before CANALERT is in place, it is not like Pelmorex has those codes and protocols and things worked out either. They state in their application, we are going to have to spend 12 months sitting down with everybody working on it.

2319 So if the Commission wants to wait till CANALERT has these protocols ready, we are happy to do that.

2320 If the Commission wants us to get started before CANALERT, we will do that too because whether we are sitting down for 12 months with Pelmorex or 12 months with everyone else, we are happy to work out those codes.

2321 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. But I guess I just wanted to clarify that with this diagram you are not against the government having one intermediary, in that, say, if I were in their shoes, I could take the view was I don't save, I have to send that message or programming to be sent to 800 different places, I have 800 chances of getting it wrong and all I want is I want to send it to one place and I hand off.

2322 Now, I thought that your position was that as long as you have a choice of who that intermediary would be and that is not mandated that you can only get that signal from one supplier, you were okay, but this diagram seems to give me the message that you don't want to have any other source receiving the signals, you want it to be ‑‑ I am sorry, you want to receive the signals directly from the government, not through an intermediary.

2323 MR. ENGLEHART: Not quite. I probably haven't been completely clear.

2324 First of all, you are correct that as long as it is not mandatory, we are not here to kick up a fuss. We are here to let CBC do their thing ‑‑ if Pelmorex is not mandatory, if anybody else wants to do their thing, that is great.

2325 And we might ‑‑ despite my brave words in this diagram, we might ‑‑ Chris might be persuaded that the CBC solution is best and we are going to use it or we might want to use it in our Newfoundland systems or our New Brunswick systems.

2326 So absolutely, let all these people come forward and you are absolutely correct that we have no objection.

2327 However, I believe that when CANALERT works out what it works out there will be no central repository. I believe there will be no centralized server. I believe it will be a decentralized system of the type I am describing.

2328 I should ‑‑ you know, this is really Chris's area more than mine, but I would view the central repository not as preventing failure.

2329 You said if you have 832 places to send it, you have 832 chances for it to go wrong. If you have a single point of failure, you have a single place where something can go very wrong, so ‑‑

2330 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Yes, but I know who to sue.

2331 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, that is true. But the important thing here is that if the protocols and the rules and the procedures and the ‑‑ quite frankly, the contracts, I would expect ‑‑ when I talk about protocols, I don't just mean computer protocols.

2332 I would expect CANALERT to disseminate a standardized set of contracts in the same way that the Commission has a standardized 911 contract.

2333 So I would expect all the rules and organizations in an ideal world would come from that centralized body. It would be virtually centralized, because the protocols would be all disseminated from that one federal agency. But would the individual signals go to one server before they went out to all the servers? I don't think it is necessary.

2334 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Then in your presentation this morning you said the ACA fee includes a built‑in profit margin of 17 percent that is unacceptable for the provision of a public service of this nature.

2335 So are you in principle opposed to providing, say, public service on a for‑profit basis?

2336 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, as I say, in the world that I envision, there is no one in my picture that is really making a profit.

2337 The alerting agencies are government agencies. The police aren't making a profit. The people at Industry Canada and PSEPSI who promulgate these guidelines and these protocols, these rules and techniques, they are not making a profit. They are public officials.

2338 So because in the way I think the world will unfold, there will be no centralized database, I don't think there will be anyone to make a profit.

2339 Now, if I'm wrong and there is someone running a database, I don't have a problem with that database operator being a private sector operator and making a profit. We had ‑‑ when we set up the number portability system at one point we went out and hired a database operator and they make a tidy profit, I believe. So there's nothing wrong with that.

2340 I just wanted to clarify one thing that Mr. Lapine whispered to me, in case I misspoke before, and that is when I talked about the 832 messages, if there is not 832 messages there is one. It has 832 addresses.

2341 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Yes.

2342 MR. ENGLEHART: They press the send button once.

2343 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Now, if the BDUs are not required to participate in a national emergency alert system and some of the larger BDUs opt out, then how would the ‑‑ what assurances will there be that the public served by these BDUs will receive a warning when necessary?

2344 MR. ENGLEHART: I mean, everyone's got to be in, I think. I think when CANALERT does what they do, they are going to ‑‑ I would say that we would try it voluntary, but if three years from now some of the major BDUs are just not playing, I would think the government would pass a law telling them they have to.

2345 If the government didn't want to pass a law, I've give you my devious scheme where the Commission could do it under the Telecom Act.

2346 I think the cable operators will step up to the plate on this. I don't ‑‑ it is time. I mean, public alerting, you don't have to ‑‑ you just have to read the newspapers to know we need it. I don't think the cable operators are going to be a big problem here.

2347 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay.

2348 MS DINSIMORE: Maybe I'll just add something. I think there is a tremendous amount of goodwill out there and I think that was demonstrated in spades yesterday when you heard from all those who have been involved in the CANALERT initiative.

2349 So I think it is fair to say that at the very least those who have been involved over the past five years should really be given a chance to see if they can do it voluntarily before any kind of mandatory solution is imposed.

2350 COMMISSIONER del VAL: How long do you think we should wait?

2351 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, if you have a look at the Pelmorex solution they take twelve months to build the equipment. So after they get licenced they take twelve months. They then start a gradual roll‑out.

2352 After three years OF their roll‑out they've covered 91 percent of the Canadian households and then the remainder within the next two years.

2353 So if you assume ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ six months for the Commission's decision to come out, a year for them to build the equipment, it is sort of six and a half years under the Pelmorex system before everyone is done and it is sort of two and a half years before the majority of the country is done, so I would say ‑‑ I would give, you know ‑‑ I would give a couple of years to see if the cable operators are stepping up to the plate. If they are not I would make it mandatory.

2354 But I'd point out, too, that if each cable operator is doing their own head end, it can be much faster. You know, for Pelmorex to go to each and every head end and as they describe have to figure out each cable operator's unique configuration and how they are going to work, that is a slow, time‑consuming process.

2355 If we are all building our own, it can be much faster.

2356 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Then from your point of mandated participation, should that come from the government or by legislation of the Commission?

2357 MR. ENGLEHART: Ideally it would come from the government as part of the CANALERT initiative and, make no mistake, we would ask them as part of that legislation when they are mandating us to absolve us of liability, but that would all be included in the legislation.

2358 But, as I said, I believe the Commission has a funny way of doing it under the Telecom Act if it wanted to.

2359 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Now, forms of alerts, I'm just getting into more of the detail now, there are three approaches as to how an alert will appear on the screen. There could be a pop up message on the channels directing the subscribers to a particular channel. That is model 1.

2360 Model 2 is it automatically switches all of the boxes to the subscribers to the channel that contains the emergency alert. That is model 2.

2361 Or, model 3, you place the alert rather than the pop‑up message on all channels received by the subscribers in a designated area.

2362 So can you discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of these three models, please.

2363 MR. ENGLEHART: Sure. So let's start with digital and then we'll do analog second.

2364 In digital most cable operators have either GI boxes, General Instruments or Scientific Atlanta.

2365 If you have GI boxes, it is a forced tune solution, your second solution. That is through for us, that is true for Pelmorex, that is true for everybody. There is no other way with the current GI boxes other than a forced tune.

2366 If you have Scientific Atlanta boxes, you have a crawl. So that is how it would work with Scientific Atlanta.

2367 For analog, you have your choice. You can have either the crawl or you can have the forced tune.

2368 As Pelmorex described, the forced tune is a lot cheaper. For all of our systems we estimate we could put in the forced tune for about 1.3 million dollars one time. If we had to put in character generators it would probably be 4 million or 5 million dollars one time.

2369 Now, the advantages of the crawl is that it is less intrusive, it is less annoying for people. The disadvantage is (a) the cost, as I already described, and (b) it probably isn't as effective as an alert. Like, with the forced tune by God you know something has happened and you are paying attention to it and you are not ignoring it.

2370 So we will do really whatever we are asked to do. If the Commission wants us to do it one way or if the CANALERT people want us to do it one way, we'll do it, but our preference would be for the analog service that we would use the forced tune and we say that because in the same way that Pelmorex talked about Videotron's interest in an all‑digital solution, they are saying, well, the era of digital is fast approaching. Analog's days are numbered. Nowhere is that more true than for Rogers. We have a huge penetration of digital boxes already. We are aggressively moving to get as much digital as we can.

2371 So during the brief life that analog has left or the medium‑term life that analog has left, we would rather spend the 1.3 million than spent the 5 million and use the forced tune solution. But even if we spent 5 million, you know, we would rather do that than pay 2 million a year, because it pays back in two and a half years. So we can do it either way. There is puts and takes for both.

2372 We might even find if we start to roll out forced tune and there is a lot of customer complaints, we might switch to character generation. But that is our thinking to date.

2373 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Then what be model 1, where it pops up a message telling you to tune to an alert channel?

2374 MR. ENGLEHART: Mr. Lapine confirmed for me that the pop‑up is just a satellite solution. That is not something cable does.

2375 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Thank you.

2376 If a mandatory alert system were approved, what would be the potential implementation problems that you foresee and what could be done to forestall them?

2377 MR. ENGLEHART: The really important work is in those protocols and codes and routes and all the rules. That is the tricky part. That is the part that CANALERT needs to do. And, as I say, if Pelmorex goes ahead before CANALERT they need to do all that, too.

2378 You need to have the system fully automated for it to work properly. That means the servers having to speak the same language, the encryption has to work the same way, the passwords have to be synchronized. Everything has to be done properly with the rules.

2379 And that is why you heard people like the CBC and ExpressVu saying to you yesterday, well, all this is contingent on CANALERT, because they are just saying that the prospect of them trying to figure out all those rules is daunting.

2380 But once the protocols are in place, once the system of rules are in place, and the rest of the picture is there, the servers, the receivers, the character generators, the system should work fairly easily.

2381 The receivers and the character generators and the forced tune equipment, this is pretty robust tried and true off‑the‑shelf equipment.

2382 Having a server open up a message and transmit it to a receiver, it is not that daunting a task. So I don't want to underestimate the hard work that people like Chris do every day to put pictures up on the screen, but I would say that the tricky part of a mandatory system is the protocols and that is what we need help with.

2383 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Does the provision of alerts on on‑demand services present any technical difficulties?

2384 MR. ENGLEHART: It does. Mr. Lapine can explain it to you, if you want.

2385 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Please.

2386 MR. LAPINE: The issue with video on demand, we can get the message to the customer, so the customer will see the alert, but we interrupt the processes and the infrastructure that is supporting the video on demand application, so we have to go back to our suppliers and address their software, so that it can recover elegantly and place the customer back into the video on demand experience.

2387 At this point in time it would tend to be a little bit more interfering than we would like. So the message does clearly get to the customer, but the return experience is less than desirable at this point in time.

2388 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. So the software and the equipment isn't really equipped to deal with that yet.

2389 MR. LAPINE: That's correct.

2390 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Thank you.

2391 If equipment had to be tested and installed in your head ends and uplinks for distributing the alert, do you see distributors being given sole responsibility for the head end project or do you envision shared responsibility between the private sector, the distributors and the government?

2392 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, again, I'm not sure that the government will be using any sort of satellite distribution system, but as a general rule, yes, we like to test each and every piece of equipment that goes into our head end and make sure that it is the right thing and know everything about the specifications. So, yes, that is something that we would generally like to do.

2393 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. And would that be something you could do on your own or would you see something like a CISK process, the CRTC interdepartmental steering committee process, do you see the need for a process like that?

2394 MR. ENGLEHART: I'll let Chris add to my answer after I'm finished.

2395 Generally speaking, the last thing any of us need is a bunch of new committees. And that is one of the minor things that troubles us about the Pelmorex application, is all the committees in there.

2396 That having been said, and Chris can explain this to you, cable operators already cooperate, both in Canada and in North America, through cable labs and also with manufacturers to understand more about the equipment. But I'll let Chris explain that to you.

2397 MR. LAPINE: There already is participation on the technical side with CANALERT to understand how the protocol is to be established and with the vendors also attending those meetings to make sure we have a universally‑applied system, such that CANALERT and the CAP protocol can deliver alerts to not only cable and ExpressVu and other BDUs, but also the cellular environment, et cetera, so it is quite a wide spanning, so there is participation at the committee level to understand the protocols.

2398 From a pure technology point of view, any technology that comes into a Rogers head end undergoes extensive hardware and software evaluations in the magnitude of months to half a year to sometimes a year, depending on the technology, to ensure it does prove its reliability to us and that we can put it through all kind of environmental testing and other software testing to really hammer the product to make sure it will stand up the test of time and deliver constantly to our customer base, including redundancy and recovery mechanisms should there be power instances, et cetera, to ensure it is fully reliable.

2399 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Now, if the national emergency alert system is a shared responsibility between government and private sector, you would have some costs. Now, how would the private sector recoup its costs or would you absorb it all?

2400 MR. ENGLEHART: In the world that we operate in, you know, our prices for our products and services are set by market forces, so I suppose you could say that because the customer cease more value in the cable network they might be willing to pay something more for their cable services, but I think for the most part we will absorb those costs.

2401 This is, I think for us, a cost of doing business and it is a good ‑‑ it is a thing that good corporate citizens would do, it is also good for our customers, so I think this is just part of the cost of doing business.

2402 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. You are on the home stretch now.

2403 If despite the concerns you have raised the Commission determines that the ‑‑ that distribution companies must participate in the national emergency alert system, what distribution orders and regulatory change would be necessary?

2404 For example, should it be a issuance of a 9(1)(h) order, as suggested by Pelmorex, or should it be an amendment to the distribution and linkage rules?

2405 MR. ENGLEHART: The trouble with my legal analysis that the ACA service is telecom, means that not only can you not licence Pelmorex to do it, I'm not sure you can mandate us to do it under the Broadcasting Act. So first of all, of course, you have to amend 7(d) of the regs to allow us to do it.

2406 As I say, I think the only way you can order us is under the Telecom Act. I believe you can order us to do it under the Telecom Act. Some of my colleagues in the communications bar don't agree with me, but that has happened before.

2407 So I think you could do it under the Telecom Act. I think if you, you know, issued a stern public notice telling us all to do it, we'd all do it, but if you want to give it the force of law, I think you would have to go under the Telecom Act.

2408 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Some say that the Commission should decline to consider the application. This type of application, because they deal with public alerting, a matter that is outside our expertise and while various organizations have this expertise, it is ‑‑ but it is the Commission that has to administer the Broadcasting Act.

2409 So without the Commission's involvement, how would these organizations ensure the broadcast and distribution of alerts?

2410 MR. ENGLEHART: I sort of have some sympathy with the view that the Commission has not developed a lot of expertise in alerting over the years. Your counterpart in the United States, the FCC, has for many years ‑‑ believe it or not, within the FCC there is a Department of Homeland Security, so they have that right in the FCC.

2411 Now since the broader Department of Homeland Security has been created, that department has shrunk a bit in the FCC, but they have been an emergency alerting group with expertise.

2412 Obviously the Commission has a huge amount of expertise in broadcasting and telecom, but hasn't dealt with alerting that much.

2413 To our way of thinking, you know, the CANALERT initiative sponsored by Industry Canada, they are the correct people to manage this process. The Commission staff attends those CANALERT meetings and can give input from the Commission's perspective on any broadcasting or telecom issues and I would expect would bring back to the Commission any problems that they perceive.

2414 So to our way of thinking that is the best way of dealing with it.

2415 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would just like to consult with counsel for a minute. May I?

2416 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I know that Commissioner Pennefather wants to ask questions. Vice‑chairman Arpin wants to ask questions and I know that the legal counsel wants to ask questions, so you have a few minutes maybe to talk with the counsel while we are asking our questions.

2417 Commissioner Pennefather?

2418 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: You discussed the amendment to 7(d) as it ‑‑ the Commission only needs to amend paragraph 7(d) of the Broadcast Distribution Regs and to permit deletion or alteration of programming signals.

2419 I'm sure you are well aware the broadcasters don't see it as quite so simple and that this is rather an important point.

2420 My question is quite specific. Do you have suggested wording for an alteration of the ‑‑ of section 7(d) of the Broadcast Distribution Regulations?

2421 MR. ENGLEHART: We think the wording that the CBC proposed works well. We put that into our brief and we are willing to go along with that.

2422 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Why do you feel that wording would address the concerns of the broadcasters, that this is the thin edge of the wedge?

2423 MR. ENGLEHART: Oh, I don't think it would address their concerns. I mean, the broadcasters do not want their signal interfered with. Make no mistake about it. If we go ahead with an all channel alert service, this is going to annoy the broadcasters. They are going to view it as an intrusion. I mean, you'll be hearing from them later in the day.

2424 But I think their opposition is just a natural consequence of having an all channel alert service. It is something that we are just going to have to experience.

2425 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And you would say the same thing possibly if we, the Commission in its wisdom, decided to require mandatory carriage of the signal by the BDU, by the distributors?

2426 MR. ENGLEHART: I think we are going to do it anyway. If you mandate us to do it or if it is voluntary, we are going to do it, so you can make it mandatory. It doesn't matter that much to Rogers, because when we do something we do it.

2427 I just don't think it is necessary to mandate it. I think that good corporate citizenship will prevail, but if the Commission feels that in the ‑‑ or the Federal Government feels that this is too important a matter that even one cable head end being left out is one too many, that is okay. I mean, we have lots of mandatory requirements on us and we do them.

2428 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2429 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Pennefather.

2430 You alluded to the U.S. and I'm sure that you're following up what they do. You addressed the question of VOD and it was a trigger to my mind what are the BDUs doing in the U.S. on their VOD services when comes an alert?

2431 MR. ENGLEHART: Chris?

2432 MR. LAPINE: I'm not at this point in time aware of what the manufacturers are doing. They deal with the same vendors would do, Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, so I suspect that they'll be putting the same pressure on those.

2433 VOD environments are software related, so it involves many players. For example, you have to introduce the VOD supplier and their software to make sure that they recover as well. So it is not just limited to two vendors. There would be multiple vendors and multiple software that have to get together and solve this problem.

2434 There definitely ‑‑ at this point in time I would make the assumption they are looking at the issue.

2435 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We heard earlier this morning Mr. Fantino from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services of Ontario talking about the nuclear plant and their requirement that ‑‑ I guess I think you are providing cable servicing around Pickering ‑‑ and their requirement is that immediate alert is given to all people living within a three‑kilometre around ‑‑ surrounding the nuclear plant.

2436 Are your distribution plan capable to meet that requirement?

2437 MR. LAPINE: In an analog environment we would cover most likely more than the Pickering area in notification to the customer base, so the message would be a little bit larger base.

2438 In a digital environment we can isolate down to specific areas in that zero‑ to ten‑kilometre range with specific messages that would go to that environment. That is due to the fact that we have a Scientific Atlanta set up box in Ontario.

2439 If that nuclear plant was in New Brunswick the message would be a little bit less controlled because of the forced tune environment, but it can be that geographically located.

2440 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Well those were my questions. So counsel?

2441 MR. McCALLUM: Sorry, just on the question of amending section 7(d) of the regulations you said you would go along with the CBC wording, but the CBC wording, as you know, for example in the agenda the wording is there and they propose for the purpose of transmitting an authorized emergency public alert message and I wondered if you had any thoughts on how the Commission would define an authorized emergency public alert message if the Commission were inclined to do that amendment?

2442 MR. ENGLEHART: Well, if CANALERT ‑‑ you know, they have a definition, you could use that. I think that would probably be the best way.

2443 MR. McCALLUM: Okay. If the Commission decided ‑‑ and let's go with your time frame ‑‑ in six months that it decided we are going to amend this section of the regulations and the proposed wording at that time and supposing the Commission decided out of this process not to do anything else, it amended the regulation and that is it, as you know we would have to propose the wording for the change to the regulations and say four months later the wording could be put in place, so that, just hypothetically, that is the time frame in early 2007.

2444 If that happened how long would it take Rogers to put together its own emergency alerting system and, second, would Rogers actually go ahead with it because in that specific scenario it would not be mandatory.

2445 MR. ENGLEHART: Mr. McCallum, in your hypothetical, is someone asking us to do it? Like, I've always assumed we would do it when either the Commission asked us or Industry Canada or PSEPSI, so that would sort of be from my perspective the triggering event.

2446 MR. McCALLUM: Well, in that specific scenario it would be ‑‑ which is hypothetical ‑‑ it would be permissive. The Commission would be amending the section of the regulations, as you've requested, in order for this to happen, to permit it to happen at the choice of BDUs.

2447 So in that scenario, what would happen?

2448 MR. ENGLEHART: I mean, I think the triggering event would not be the amending of the regs, it would be being asked. A letter from the Minister of Industry or a letter from the Commission, something like that.

2449 From the point at which we were asked I think it would be about a year before we started to roll out the service.

2450 MR. McCALLUM: So even in the scenario that you're putting forward and the Commission amending the regulations to permit it to happen, Rogers would not necessarily undertake to put in place the system that is described without some other triggering event, letter from the Minister or something from CANALERT or something else.

2451 MR. ENGLEHART: I think that's right. I mean, there is lot of ‑‑ I mean, I don't think I'm being unreasonable. There is lots of things we could do or perhaps should do, but something like this with a strong public component, we would expect some public official to say to us, this is what you should be doing. We shouldn't be deciding for ourselves to do this.

2452 As I say, we don't need to be ordered, but we would expect someone in authority to say it is time for you to do this and we've thought that should be a federal authority. I suppose if the Province of Ontario asked us to do it, we might consider it doing it there too, but yes I would think we would want to be asked.

2453 MR. McCALLUM: Again, if the Commission went one step further and accompanied the permissive change to the regulation with an expectation that cable systems where they are able to implement alerting systems, that they should do so without it being required, in that scenario would Rogers start to implement ‑‑ and again without anything else from CANALERT or the government.

2454 MR. ENGLEHART: Absolutely. We would ‑‑ once the Commission identified that expectation then we would start to work on acquiring the equipment and provisioning the head ends.

2455 Simultaneously, just like Pelmorex, we would have to agree on the codes and protocols and rules with the people that were sending us the alerts, unless that had already been promulgated by Canalert. So we would do both of those things and I would think it would take us about a year to start the alerting.

2456 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2457 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Englehart, ladies, gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation. We'll take a twelve‑minute break so we'll be back by 11:45.

2458 THE SECRETARY: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of housekeeping matters before we proceed to break.

2459 I would just like to remind the applicants that they have an undertaking to provide the Commission with certain commitments, certain documents this morning, so if you have them available, you can bring them to me at the break.

2460 Also remind the next three interveners, Ville de Dolbeau, the Township of Champlain and Alfred‑Plantagenet and Federation of Canadian Municipalities, if they are present and they have their written presentation if they could bring them to me during break.

2461 Thank you very much.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1134 / Suspension à 1134

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1150 / Reprise à 1150

2462 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please. A l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

2463 Somebody just brought me a cellphone that somebody left on a sofa in the hallway.

2464 I will remit the cellular to this gentleman, if it's yours.

2465 Other than that, I'm asking Mrs. Secretary to initiate the next steps.

2466 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, Monsieur le Président.

2467 Je demanderais maintenant à la Ville de Dolbeau‑Mistassini, the Townships of Champlain and Alfred‑Plantagenet and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to come forward as a group presentation.

‑‑‑ Pause

2468 THE SECRETARY: We will move on to the next intervenor, which was later down at the bottom of the list but who has to leave. It is the New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization, Ernest MacGillivray, which is No. 23 on the list.

2469 If you could come forward?

‑‑‑ Pause

2470 THE SECRETARY: Mr. MacGillivray, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

INTERVENTION

2471 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, and thanks for accommodating a change in the rotation.

2472 My name is Ernest MacGillivray. I am the Director of the New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization. That organization is the provincial lead agency for emergency management. As the Director, I am the senior official responsible for the Provincial Emergency Management Program. The Provincial Emergency Program includes a number of warning systems, including a telephone‑based system for our nuclear emergency planning zone, and a province‑wide direct‑to‑cable broadcast system.

2473 We also have a self‑subscription system that is in development.

2474 New Brunswick is also an active participant in national initiatives on public warning, including CANALERT, the development of the Canadian Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP standard, and the East Coast Tsunami Project.

2475 So thus I appear before the Commission as a public official with a policy perspective, but also as one who has direct experience in the development, deployment and operation of a variety of public warning systems.

2476 Emergency managers generally ‑‑ and you will hear from many today ‑‑ recognize public warning as key to reducing injury and loss of life, as well as mitigating impacts on properly and the environment.

2477 It has been said that the security of the public is the highest law. Cicero said that.

2478 To that end, we believe that the regulator ‑‑ or we might be more general in that and say that government should act to enable the development and deployment of systems to provide public officials at all levels ‑‑ and in this I might differ from my Ontario colleague, we have to provide access to municipal officials as well ‑‑ to multiple channels for the purposes of broadcasting urgent warnings to the public.

2479 What is the rationale for public policy in this area?

2480 Well, as a matter of principle those with the mandates ‑‑ and that is government and industry ‑‑ and those with the means ‑‑ and that is the owners of broadcast media ‑‑ have an obligation to act, to warn the public at imminent risk by all means possible.

2481 Given our wealth as a nation, our advanced telecommunications and broadcast systems, it is reasonable to ask: Why are we not doing so?

2482 We are not doing so because we do not require it. I should say mandate it. We have not enabled it, as some people before you have argued, and we have not resourced it in any meaningful way. We need to address these deficiencies.

2483 So we have a voluntary system now, which is really no system at all. A purely voluntary system hasn't worked up to this point and, in my view, probably won't work.

2484 I would argue from a public policy perspective that as a matter of principle those who derive opportunity and reward from their broadcast licences and from the allocation of publicly‑owned spectrum, have an obligation to act in the public good. It follows that it is in the public interest to require that national and regional broadcasters participate in all channel alerting initiatives as a matter of public policy.

2485 We also recognize that there needs to be a policy framework to enable authorities and broadcasters to connect in a consistent way, with appropriate security safeguards and business roles. We should enable, encourage and support Industry Canada's efforts to develop and administer national operational policy. That's why you will find that virtually all provinces are actively participating in the development of CANALERT.

2486 Finally, we recognize that broadcaster can't afford to make the necessary investments as there is no business case.

2487 Listening to the gentleman from Rogers, I got the impression that this is fast, easy and cheap if just someone would make it easy for him from a regulatory standpoint. But it's not fast, easy and cheap. There is a requirement to expend money, capital on the front end, in order to create the connectivity between messages and systems.

2488 So can we afford to wait?

2489 Some intervenors have suggested that CANALERT will provide the needed connectivity between officials and broadcasters, thus we should just wait for CANALERT.

2490 The problem with that is that CANALERT is still an idea. It is not yet a system. In fact, there isn't a system architecture as yet. CANALERT is still at the conceptual stage. In fact, when I'm being a little unkind I have said it's still in the PowerPoint stage.

2491 Eventually, though, CANALERT should provide a program. It should be a program. It should provide the governance, the policy and the operational linkages between users and system. But these systems and services still have to be built.

2492 CANALERT by itself is not the system, it is the program. CANALERT may eventually be able to provide the console that provides authorized users access to systems, but we still have to build and deploy those systems, and we should get on with it.

2493 Most developed nations already have public warning systems accessible by government officials at all levels. Canada does not.

2494 Given the spectrum of natural and human‑induced risks and hazards facing Canada today, and given Canada's telecommunications capabilities and expertise, we believe that public warnings should be enabled, governed and resourced as a matter of public policy. To have failed to do so in the wake of a catastrophic event would be difficult if not impossible to defend.

2495 So we have the following recommendations.

2496 First, we welcome the initiative and commitment demonstrated by the various proponents all channel alerting applications. In each case, proponents have sought to address requirements as they saw them within their mandate and capabilities. It's clear that their efforts need to be enabled in policy and resourced. Given the absence of a commercial business case for public warning, some source of public funding is required.

2497 In consideration of the merits and risks of the various applications, New Brunswick believes it is essential that any proposed national public warning system, including any all channel alerting system, satisfy the following requirements.

2498 There needs to be appropriate governance and managed control of access and use. We have to have simultaneous broadcasts to affected areas in both official languages.

2499 Simultaneous broadcast over multiple services and channels ‑‑ this is not really just about cable ‑‑ in order to reach as many of those affected as possible.

2500 Sufficient geographical specificity such that the system will meet the needs of local governments, i.e. municipalities and First Nations. The municipality will tell you they want to be able to warn people on the north side of the river, but not the south side.

2501 One of the proponents is talking about geographical areas that would encompass numerous municipalities. That's problematic.

2502 Mandated participation by service providers and cable or satellite distributors in order to provide a consistent level of service throughout the country.

2503 I think it's great that some commercial interests may well be willing to do this on their own in one area of the country, but that's really not good enough. For consistency I think we have to have mandated participation.

2504 At what point do you regulate or do you require it, that's open to debate obviously.

2505 Finally, we think a funding mechanism is necessary to ensure that cost is not a barrier to full participation by broadcasters, service providers, distributors and authorized users.

2506 In many cases you have small operators. They don't have the deep pockets that some of the larger ones do, so they would need help.

2507 New Brunswick believes that the public interest will be best served by a fully funded service that provides managed access to all cable and satellite channels by authorized officials at all levels of government. The applicants should be required to demonstrate how their proposals will address the above mentioned requirements.

2508 Finally, I would just like to note that in January 2005 the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management met in Ottawa. In fact, it was the first meeting in 11 years. There is a lot of work to do, to catch up on. They identified public warning as one of eight priority areas for joint work by federal, provincial and territorial officials. That, in essence, was what crystallized activity that was already going on into what is now known as CANALERT.

2509 The Ministers expect, as the public expects, that we will collectively sort this out in a timely way.

2510 Thank you.

2511 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. MacGillivray.

2512 Commissioner del Val will ask you some questions. Thank you.

2513 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you, Mr. MacGillivray, for taking the time to intervene. I just have a few questions. I will start with funding, since that was the last point that you ended on.

2514 Who, in your view, should be responsible for funding the initiative, the initiative in getting the alert signals through the broadcasting system?

2515 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: A complex issue. Some of the larger expenses will be for the last mile, so the last mile gets hard. To have a national program that has national governance and policy, and so on, will require some funding. So one would hope that Industry Canada will be successful in getting some funding, or PSEPC more jointly for the CANALERT initiative, because we do need program design and development and that costs money.

2516 To their credit, they have been doing it off the corner of their desks for a number of years and they now need some relief.

2517 There are a couple of ways of doing this. One is from the public treasury, sort of top down, "Here is money, go do this. Go build it to specifications", and so on. That sounds a bit onerous.

2518 It may be simpler to define what the reasonable costs are associated with provisioning a service, whether it's at the distribution end or whether it's at a provincial level where the applications are, and then figure out a business model that distributes the costs fairly across governments, broadcasters, and so on, and where people are interested in something above and beyond what might be pushed to them, subscription services, I think people wold be willing to pay, and studies have shown that people would be willing to pay a convenience fee for alerts that are of interest to them.

2519 I will give you one specific example. In the United States Amber Alerts, which are always enabled for public access to the various systems that are used to generate the message, Nextel picks up those messages from a publicly accessible place out there on the Internet somewhere, and they rebroadcast those to subscribers over cellular services using SMS. People pay for that service.

2520 So I don't think there is any single answer to that. I think you have to get a bunch of people around the table, look at what the best business model is that is going to least inconvenience any of the parties.

2521 What I would add to that, though, is if we just get funding for CANALERT and we do nothing else, who builds the last mile? That would be very difficult ‑‑ is in Alberta very difficult, and New Brunswick, because the resources just aren't there to do it.

2522 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Along the same lines, if the private sector participated in funding the costs, do you have any views whether it should be on a non‑profit basis or is it as long as it is cost‑effective it doesn't really matter?

2523 What would your view be on that?

2524 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: Well, not arguing for or against. I think there is ‑‑ forgive me, I have a military background.

2525 I think there is a little smoke on the battlefield in that issue, because if you talk to people within Pelmorex, and I have, this 17 percent thing that's kind of touted as being a little bit excessive, at the same time they will tell you that they don't expect to actually make any money. So it's all how you evaluate the business model, what criteria you apply in terms of defining what is profit.

2526 But the issue with whether it's Rogers or Pelmorex or anybody else in the cable business, they have a huge capital cost on the front end. So there is the outlay of money, the lost opportunity costs, the sustainment of the infrastructure, pretty hard to quantify.

2527 That said, I think I have a line, I just have to find it.

2528 I think the public's right to know is more important than a corporate interest and an inconvenience or a cost to that corporate interest, particularly if that corporate interest is deriving profit.

2529 So we don't want lack of funding to be a barrier. I don't think that people should be in the public warning business seeking profit, but I wouldn't qualify as I understand any of the proponents applications in those terms. It think it is just a question of making sure that they don't run in the red excessively in the absence of a level playing field.

2530 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you.

2531 Now, what is opinion on who should be the authorized issuers of the alerts? Who should decide when an alert should be issued?

2532 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: Well, I believe that you need to have a distributed access model, first of all, where an authority at a senior level ‑‑ let's say for the sake of argument the Government of Canada if we are talking about a CANALERT‑sponsored solution ‑‑ they would authorize different provincial users to be on that system.

2533 Traditionally, and I think legislation at the provincial level will support this, it is provincial government officials responsible for emergency management, or indeed the police if you look at Amber Alert as a specific case, or local authorities as empowered by provincial legislation. So most provinces have an Act with respect to emergency management, my province does, and essentially municipalities have the same responsibilities within their boundaries that the province has generally.

2534 That said, and given that all emergencies are local, you need to empower authorized users at a municipal level, you have to have authorized users at a provincial level, and I think you need to let the provincial authorities decide who the provincial actors would be, and you need to let the municipal authorities decide who the municipal actors should be.

2535 That's what distributed access is about. So you create different classes of users and they in turn can assign rights to lower levels. That in fact is the U.S. model. That's how it's done.

2536 COMMISSIONER del VAL: So CANALERT, their proposal is for what they call authorized users ‑‑ it is actually authorized issuer ‑‑ is public officials who have legislative authority and/or responsibility for emergency planning.

2537 Do you agree? Would you add to that or take something away?

2538 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: I probably should have waded in on that point earlier because we were in fact consulted on the guidelines.

2539 We typically talk about emergency management. Planning is an aspect of preparedness, preparedness is one of four ‑‑ or if you're a heretic five ‑‑ recognized principles in doctrine of emergency management.

2540 So the old model was to talk about emergency planning. We don't talk about emergency planning any more, we talk about emergency management as a program and systems approach to the prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery related to emergencies. So I would just change a word there and it's probably close to being correct.

2541 COMMISSIONER del VAL: You would change "planning" to "management"?

2542 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: Yes. I think most legislation now, particularly the draft federal legislation, the revised Emergency Preparedness Act, is now in fact called the Emergency Management Act, and I believe the new government has the intention of resubmitting that to the House.

2543 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you.

2544 Then in the emergency alerts, do you think we should limit it to only incidents that pose threats to life as opposed to also property?

2545 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: There are really two things going on there. You have the actual message content, and if you are familiar with the CAP protocol, CAP talks about the urgency of the message, it talks about the probability of the message. I have my CAP expert sitting in the back of the room.

2546 There is provision for geocoding and different types of messages or what are commonly known as EAS codes. So there are many, many elements in the CAP schema, which is an XML format, which is standard computer interchange format that is commonly used now.

2547 So within CAP you can define the kind of message it is and the urgency of it, and broadcasters have suggested that they only want to see an ongoing broadcast interrupted for the most urgent messages, direct‑to‑air.

2548 But you could have other classes of messages, in fact there are other classes of messages. Some broadcasters might say, well, if it's the second level we will put it out at the next commercial break as opposed to automatic over‑the‑air.

2549 Third would be something of less importance, but nevertheless something that should go to the public. That can be done at the next news break.

2550 So CAP within it embedded provides information about the severity of the message.

2551 The other side of this, though, is, do you want to build infrastructure just for the most urgent message, or do you want to build a system or infrastructure that will handle the full spectrum of emergency messages or emergency public information? I would argue the latter.

2552 Experts have said, if you just build a system that's only for the most severe incident, the tornado or the flash flood, you now put it on the wall, it's behind glass and there is a sign there that says, you know, "In the event of the most urgent thing break glass and pull this lever and use this system just for that thing".

2553 As a guy who deals with floods every year, and at all times of the year, that is not very practical for me, and it's not very advisable for my staff. To have two different consoles, two different systems on two different machines in two different rooms for a flood watch vice a flood warning, that defies common sense.

2554 So whatever gets built should be able to handle messages of various types and severities. The issue becomes business rules for which of those messages are allowed to go direct‑to‑air. Certainly the broadcasters are partners in this and I think they should only be obliged to facilitate direct‑to‑broadcast of the most urgent messages, but we shouldn't build a system architecture that only is for those most urgent messages. It will hardly ever be used.

2555 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. That's very helpful.

2556 Going on, about public education. What advice would you give with respect to a possible public education program to inform the public of the existence of the alerting system, how it will be used and what the public should expect of the alerts?

2557 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: If you will indulge me, a very short story.

2558 Last spring in New Brunswick we had some severe flooding and it came a lot harder than was predicted and it caught people by surprise. We had a whole bunch more rain in fact than our Environment Canada colleagues had predicted and that skewed our models and we were wrong on a forecast.

2559 So during the flood we actually had one woman who called up EMO ‑‑ we have a toll free number ‑‑ and she was in desperate straits and she needed help. There was water coming in her basement, she didn't know what to do. She actually living in a city. We said, "Have you called 9‑1‑1?" And she said, "No."

2560 Anyway, she hung up and a month later at a public meeting she approached me and she was in tears, she was weeping, she was extremely upset. She had been given the runaround, she called the 800 number, no one would help her, they wouldn't tell her what to do. I said, "What did they say?" She said, "Well, call 9‑1‑1." "Well, did you do that?" "Well, no, I didn't know what 9‑1‑1 was."

2561 She was from Newfoundland. Newfoundland doesn't have a province‑wide 9‑1‑1 program. Now, since I was six years old I knew ‑‑ and I grew up in Grandmere, Québec ‑‑ I knew you called 9‑1‑1 and the cops came and they took care of whatever the problem was.

2562 You can't have an emergency program, particularly around known hazards like a nuclear site, without having a public education component. But similarly, if we are going to have a national system for public warning, the public have to know about it. In the absence of public education there will be very many people who won't know about it, so you could have tragic consequences.

2563 So I would argue that you must have public education associated with any initiative like ACA.

2564 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you.

2565 So a national alerting system must integrate its procedures and facilities with those of emergency planning organizations at the various government levels, the three levels of government.

2566 Now, governments and government officials, however, change. That is a fact that may hamper the ability of a national alerting system provider to ensure that coordination occurs in a consistent and substantive manner, and a change in government may also raise different priorities, especially with respect to emergency planning.

2567 What processes or mechanisms would you suggest be in place to ensure the necessary ongoing coordination between the national alerting system and government officials at the three different levels of government?

2568 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: We have very good governance structures that have been built since 2001. I won't belabour them all, but before 2001 much work in public security and emergency management was disconnected, within the federal family and nationally.

2569 There has been a tremendous improvement since the creation of PSEPC and the publication of the national security policy, which is the overarching policy guidance for emergency management work.

2570 What I can tell you is that we have an effective forum of deputy ministers ‑‑ there are two of course, there is a federal one which is chaired by PSEPC, but there is also a federal, provincial, territorial one. Those deputy ministers have on their work place CANALERT and issues relating to public warning.

2571 The senior officials responsible for emergency management is an FPT group, so you have 14 jurisdictions and then you also have federal officials at a DG level from PSEPC and Industry Canada and others as needed. That body essentially is responsible to get the work done. And there is accountability.

2572 So public warning as a national program I think would simply plug into the existing national governance structures that we have at a ministerial level, at a deputy minister's level and at an official level.

2573 As you know, and as you have heard, work is ongoing. So we have a governance structure in place and when a program is developed we would ‑‑ national programs require national governance, so there would be an adjunct to manage that piece.

2574 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you.

2575 Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.

2576 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner del Val.

2577 In your description you described that there were various levels of warnings and you said that there was obviously the imminent, then you said that there were those that could be broadcast at the next commercial break and, finally, the other, the lesser degree that could be discussed in the next newscast.

2578 You said that you had discussions with Pelmorex regarding their plan. Have you every raised with them the issues of the secondary and third layer dissemination of information, because my understanding is that the service that they are proposing is for a very immediate warning.

2579 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: It is, but remember they are part of that last mile. So on the broadcaster end I think to some degree they get to decide. We in fact have an agreement with Pelmorex that says they will publish over The Weather Network and MétéoMédia the most urgent class of messages, but that's it. So it is life safety.

2580 Flash flood would be a typical example in New Brunswick. Tornado warning also, but that would originate with Environment Canada, it wouldn't originate with me. But we would certainly do flood warnings, we would do boil orders where E. coli has been discovered in a municipal water supply, those kinds of things.

2581 My argument is that the architecture of the systems that we create nationally to enable the transmission of these messages shouldn't just be limited to those most urgent messages. But in terms of direct‑to‑broadcast, yes, I would say they should be limited to just the most urgent class.

2582 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

2583 Legal counsel wants to ask you a question.

2584 MR. McCALLUM: What has been the experience, then, with Pelmorex? For example, since the agreement have you actually disseminated some of those warnings and have them go over Pelmorex's system.

2585 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: Thankfully, no, in that we have had an easy spring in New Brunswick. But last year ‑‑ I want to give you an analogy, because one of the complaints about our response in New Brunswick last year was "You were warning us, but when the situation changed you didn't come and knock on the door and tell us how high the water was going to be in the backyard." Well, from a technological perspective I had no way of doing that.

2586 What they have asked us to do, in essence, in public hearings, is "We know you were ringing the alarm bell." We were at a warning level on Tuesday and it flooded on Friday. So we put out warnings on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday and three times on Friday, but it still wasn't enough because those were generalized warnings and they didn't tell people what the impacts were going to be where they were.

2587 People seem to have difficulty interpreting something that says "There is going to be 4.3 metres in Jemseg tomorrow". The don't really know what that means.

2588 So really what they said is, "We know you were ringing the alarm, but when it got worse we wanted you to ring the alarm bell harder."

2589 So the reason I sat down with my partners in this initiative that we have ‑‑ and it's not just Pelmorex, it's also Comlabs, Communication Laboratories, who are the vendor for the U.S.‑based ‑‑ the new U.S.‑based system.

2590 What I said was, I wanted to be able to ring the alarm bell harder, and that's essentially what Pelmorex has offered to do. So when we have the most urgent type of message, this is an added thing that we can do.

2591 What is unique about their technology is, it gives me geographical specificity. I'm not talking about turning on 815 head ends. I'm talking about turning on one head end, the one that just communicates down into the affected area.

2592 If they were able to further develop their system, they would be able to provide us with more geographical specificity than that, perhaps down ‑‑ and depending on what we do with CAP, probably down to census subdivision areas. So we are talking the ability to segment a municipal area and just target those folks.

2593 So I might have wondered off the topic there, counsel, I'm sorry.

2594 MR. McCALLUM: I just wanted to get a sense of what you had to do and what they had to do to implement the agreement.

2595 So what you had to do was sit down and specify the types of alert that you would provide, and what they had to do was to put in specific equipment.

2596 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: You are mostly right.

2597 Just to be clear ‑‑ because I'm just hearing some of the comment, I'm not sure people have quite grasped this concept ‑‑ I don't send anything to Pelmorex. What I do is, I publish an EAS message using a CAP standard. They and Rogers and CBC and anybody else could go to the place where that message is published and they in turn could disseminate it if they chose to do so.

2598 Pelmorex is one corporate entity that has said "We will do that for you". None of the other ones have done that.

2599 But there seems to be a willingness from some of the industry intervenors here to do that sort of thing, so I would say, "Okay, fine. Come talk to me. We can tell you how to do it."

2600 The suggestion that it is non‑trivial to take that CAP message and disseminate it, I think you need to take that with a grain of salt. It costs Pelmorex money to enable the picking up of the message from a publicly accessible place and putting it out over their infrastructure.

2601 Clearly there are costs involved. I didn't incur any of those costs, that is something that they did internally for their own reasons.

2602 MR. McCALLUM: Sorry, in clarifying something unfortunately you confused things for me just to one extent.

2603 You published the message on a website?

2604 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: The message is actually published in the U.S. emergency infrastructure.

2605 MR. McCALLUM: How does Pelmorex know to go to that website to get it and distribute it?

2606 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: We use the application that Comlabs provides. So the application that I use to create the emergency alerting message, the CAP message if you will, that uses a standardized format, that same software Pelmorex has and their rights on that system automatically ‑‑ I'm not sure whether it's a pull or a push, but anyway, they receive notice of that message and they can actually receive the message automatically because somewhere in their rights it says "Anything that gets published by New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization by this authorized user on the system, they have an interest in that."

2607 They now have the message and they disseminate it in accordance with the terms or whatever, in accordance with the content of the message. So if the message says, "This is for Restigouche County", it goes to Restigouche County. But if it says it's for Restigouche County but it's not an urgent message, the it wouldn't go out.

2608 So it is what is commonly known as a managed network. So they are a user on the network, I am a user on the network. I publish alerts within my geographical boundaries of various types. They are paying attention to that and their application automatically serves up to them any messages that I have created that satisfy the conditions.

2609 MR. McCALLUM: So if there is a flood heading for Saint John, New Brunswick and I am the cable operator in Saint John, New Brunswick, could I have access to your message in some way and put it over my system?

2610 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: Indeed you could, but you would have to be a member of this managed network, so you would need a licence that would probably ‑‑ and I'm not a proponent for the vendor ‑‑ it would cost a monthly service fee to be a member of that network, and there is a one‑time set‑up fee.

2611 But once it's set up, yes, when I publish a message and it goes out over The Weather Network, it could also go out over Rogers from their head end at Saint John, if in fact they have a head end in Saint John. I know they have one in Fredericton.

2612 So they would have to enable something on their end. They would incur a cost. We talked about costs. But it is doable.

2613 They don't have to wait for CANALERT to roll out a console or a system or an application. This is off‑the‑shelf and it's in common use, by the way I might add, in 11 States.

2614 MR. McCALLUM: Is your alert published in any publicly available place simultaneously with it being published in the way you have described?

2615 MR. MacGILLIVRAY: The user of the system, the issuer has a choice to enable or not enable a message for public access. So I can enable messages for public access. An Amber Alert would be an example where you would do so.

2616 However, I'm not sure that there is much of a community of practice out there yet in Canada to take advantage of that feature, but once it's known there is no reason why it couldn't be served up by somebody on a website or one of the telcos couldn't elect to disseminate that to subscribers on an SMS service of some kind.

2617 So yes, once it's enabled for public access it's in a standardized format, an XML format, it is relatively easy for third parties to take that message and do with it whatever they want to do with it.

2618 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2619 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, counsel.

2620 Thank you, Mr. MacGillivray.

2621 We will break for lunch. We will be back at 1:30 p.m.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1228 / Suspension à 1228

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1332 / Reprise à 1332

2622 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please. À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

2623 Madame la Secrétaire.

2624 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

2625 Before we continue, I would just like to make an announcement to indicate that the applicants have filed their undertakings with the panel and that is the undertakings from Pelmorex, Bell ExpressVu and CBC/Radio‑Canada.

2626 For the record, Pelmorex has asked that one document be kept confidential. All other documents will be made available on the public file. If anybody wishes to view them, they will be in the public examination room. Thank you.

2627 We will now go on to the next panel of interveners, which is CanWest Media Works Inc., CHUM Limited and CTV Inc.

2628 Gentlemen and ladies, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

2629 MR. BRACE: Thank you.

INTERVENTION

2630 MR. BRACE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Rick Brace and I am the President of CTV.

2631 Before we start our presentation, I would like to take a moment to introduce the members of our panel here today.

2632 On my immediate right is David Goldstein, Vice‑President, Government and Regulatory Affairs for CHUM Limited.

2633 On my immediate left is Robert Hurst, President, CTV News; and to his left is Peter Kent, Deputy Editor, Global TV News.

2634 Behind me are from my left, John Medline, Director of Regulatory Affairs for CanWest Media Works Inc.; Dickie Overdeek, CTV's Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy Strategy; and Rob Malcolmson of Goodmans, our Legal Counsel.

2635 Our appearance before you today represents a first. Canada's largest private broadcasters have joined together to present a unified front in opposition to the applications by Pelmorex, CBC and ExpressVu, applications that seek access to our signals and to our programming without our consent.

2636 Today we appear before you not as competitors but as broadcasters with the common objective of continuing to perform a public service in times of crisis while protecting the integrity of our signals and maintaining our editorial independence.

2637 At the outset, let us say that we absolutely do support a voluntary system that would provide early warnings of emergency situation to broadcasters and improved emergency preparedness.

2638 We oppose these applications for five reasons.

2639 First, as television broadcasters, we have always provided a vital public service in times of emergency, before, during and after the event. This is our covenant to our viewers and it is one that we take very seriously. A compulsory system that forces broadcasters to cede control of their signals to a third party breaches that covenant and erodes our mandate.

2640 Second, we already work together with the relevant authorities when emergencies arise and we voluntarily participate in public sector alerting initiatives, as we did in the case of the Alberta Emergency Public Warning System and Ambert alert systems.

2641 Third, we do not see the value in a mandatory and in some cases for‑profit system that allows third parties to interrupt broadcaster signals to distribute generalized emergency alerts without the broadcaster's consent. Not only would that compromise our programming, it would also undermine our editorial independence and journalistic integrity, principles that are fundamental to the Canadian broadcasting system.

2642 Fourth, we do not see the value of a mandatory system that forces consumers to pay for a service which they already receive from local broadcasters and specialty news services. Any public alerting system should provide a truly public service to consumers, absolutely free of charge.

2643 Fifth, it is clear that these applications are entirely premature. To date, the process has been driven by technology with no real regard to editorial content or control.

2644 Robert.

2645 MR. HURST: Thank you, Rick.

2646 These applications are contrary to the fundamentals of editorial independence and journalistic integrity. If approved, authorized users could override a broadcaster's signal without that broadcaster's consent and with no consideration to what is actually on the air, which in cases of emergency will already be live and on the scene.

2647 There is a reason why article 5 of the Radio‑Television News Directors Association Code of Ethics states that:

"Intrusion into content should be resisted."

(As read)

2648 There is a reason why the Broadcasting Act makes a point of stating that:

"It shall be applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings."

(As read)

2649 And there is a reason why the Act makes broadcasters responsible for their programming.

2650 And there is a reason why section 7 of the Regulations protects a broadcaster's signal from being altered or deleted without broadcaster consent.

2651 The reason underlying all of these statements is the same: to protect broadcasters from interference and to maintain editorial independence.

2652 Alberta's voluntary Emergency Warning System provides a good example of how a well‑intentioned initiative is still in need of improvement.

2653 In 2003, there were 447 authorized users for Alberta's Emergency Warning System alone. Today, this number has grown to over 1,000. Multiply that across Canada and we are looking at thousands of users with the authority to deliver unfiltered messages to viewers.

2654 Last year, the Alberta system issued nine alerts within four days to warn the public about heavy flooding. In some instances, these alerts, which were already outdated by the time they were broadcast, covered up the local 6:00 p.m. newscasts in Calgary which were already reporting the same story live and on location.

2655 Following this incident, Alberta revised the criteria for issuing alerts. The new criteria require that flood alerts be issued only where a situation is life‑threatening, imminent and where they are not interrupting radio and television information of equal or greater value.

2656 In other words, the Alberta system recognizes the vital role that broadcasters play in emergency reporting. The applications before you do not.

2657 MR. KENT: Editorial independence and journalistic integrity aren't just lofty statements of principle. News reporters and editors are acutely aware of the importance of information that is both timely and accurate.

2658 If blanket alert information is out of date, it can be confusing, even dangerous, especially if it overrides actual live on‑the‑site coverage of the event. Such situations actively compromise the ability of journalists to do their jobs and work against, not for, public safety.

2659 In times of crisis, people need the reassurance of a human presence, a human dimension, not just an impersonal alphanumeric screen.

2660 When torrential thunderstorms and flooding hit Toronto last August, municipal officials were slow to respond. Nonetheless, Global's meteorologist provided updated advisories into programming live from our Don Mills studios while camera crews and reporters provided live coverage from severely flooded areas in the lower valley along the Don River.

2661 That coverage contributed to emergency services awareness of the developing situation and assisted in the rescue of homeless people stranded by rising water.

2662 That same month, Environment Canada issued a rare tornado warning for Toronto. Because the storm was fast‑moving, it would have been impossible to use relayed text crawls. They would have been dated by the time they hit the air. We went live.

2663 In August 2003 when forest fires consumed part of Kelowna, B.C., Global's CHBC provided round‑the‑clock marathon coverage, delivering emergency services messages, both specific and general, from Fire Department Headquarters and live reports from various locations around the valley.

2664 Our station was widely recognized for the immediacy and accuracy of evacuation alerts during the worst of the firestorms and for providing updates to evacuees on the state of their property and in some cases their pets and for relaying all‑clear and return information when the danger passed.

2665 David.

2666 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Peter.

2667 These are just a few examples of the types of local coverage that are at risk of being overridden by a blanket automated All Channel Alert system.

2668 There are also many serious questions that remain unanswered by these applications.

2669 1. What is the status of CANALERT and how will it roll out?

2670 2. What happens if the information inserted into the broadcast signal is wrong, omits critical information, sets off panic, or, in the worst possible situation, ends up causing lives to be lost instead of lives saved? Who is responsible?

2671 3. Are the service providers or the government prepared to indemnify broadcasters from liability that may be caused by the alert messages?

2672 4. Who exactly would be the authorized agencies and the persons within those agencies? How will emergency messages be prioritized when there are competing demands on the system and, in essence, who gets to pull the trigger?

2673 The applicants haven't addressed these issues and these fundamental questions. We are concerned that to date this process has been driven by technology with no regard to editorial control, discretion or judgment.

2674 Rick.

2675 MR. BRACE: To conclude, CTV, CanWest and CHUM strongly oppose the Commission sanctioning a mandatory for‑profit framework that allows any third party to insert an emergency message into a broadcaster's signal without the broadcaster's consent.

2676 We believe the best solution is to build on the existing systems local broadcasters have in place to alert and advise their viewers.

2677 You have our commitment to take a leadership role in the development and the implementation of a voluntary system that allows broadcasters to maintain their editorial independence and journalistic integrity.

2678 You also have our commitment to continue to make our news coverage of emergencies available across our specialty networks and radio properties where circumstances warrant, as we did in September of 2001.

2679 We take our responsibility to public safety seriously and we will continue to make ongoing improvements.

2680 We do not believe that Canadians should have to pay for services that are already provided by local broadcasters and specialty news services nor should broadcasters be expected to pay for the implementation of a mandatory third‑party for‑profit system over which they have absolutely no control.

2681 Each of CTV, CanWest and CHUM are committed to improving emergency awareness and to developing and implementing an effective public alerting system but we need to be an integral part of the solution, not having it dictated to us through a mandatory system that leaves no room for editorial discretion and that is being developed through a process that has not been sufficiently consultative.

2682 For these reasons, we would ask that the applications before you be denied.

2683 We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

2684 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Brace. Thank you, gentlemen. I will have Commissioner Pennefather start with the questions.

2685 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2686 Good afternoon. Thank you for your intervention and I have also your written comments here. I wanted to pursue basically two lines of questioning, if you will, but we might wander into other areas.

2687 Clearly, one is that you have said, and I believe you say it a little less but I am sure you still maintain your position, united as it is, that you are committed to participate in an emergency alert service developed by the Government of Canada in consultation with broadcasters and BDUs, et cetera. I assume that is still your position?

2688 MR. BRACE: Absolutely.

2689 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So when we look at this, as you said, Mr. Goldstein, the blanket automated All Channel Alert system, that is the same thing that we are talking about, an emergency alert system Canada‑wide? So without putting the adjectives, that is what we are talking about?

2690 MR. GOLDSTEIN: That is correct.

2691 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Let us look at that then and assume that such a system is important and we will discuss a couple of points. Then we will discuss your role and what you do currently and how you see that evolving either on its own or in coordination with such a national alert system.

2692 So those are the two lines, equal in importance, and we will try to see if we can flesh a few things out.

2693 One of the most important issues for you, and which is developed at great length, and we have a panel that can probably give us some very good comments on editorial, journalistic Code of Ethics and concerns.

2694 I think we are very clear on what your concerns are. I think they are related not so much to the mandatory but to the change to the Regulations which would allow the insertion of a message without agreement; is that correct?

2695 MR. BRACE: I would say that the mandatory issuance is an issue for us as well.

2696 But really, I think you are absolutely correct, it is really the ability for someone to insert information over our signal, and information that: number one, we haven't consented to; number two, that we really haven't had an opportunity to either review or perhaps adjust in some manner or form that might be more up to date and react to in any way, that just kind of gets passed through and goes onto the air without any kind of supervision from our editorial areas. That is really the concern.

2697 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Let us assume that because you are interested in participating in a national alert system that one of the advantages or one of the, let us say, underlying necessities of such a system is the timeliness and the speed with which that alert ‑‑ and let us be clear, for purposes of discussion, a warning of imminent threat to life ‑‑ and that that would aid in a considerable manner what you also would be doing.

2698 If you consider that ‑‑ I am assuming you do ‑‑ as fundamental to a national alert system, do you have any sense that the fact that such a national alert system would be developed based on guidelines and protocols similar, for the sake of discussion, to the guidelines and protocols developed to date by CANALERT that such guidelines and protocols would not define the alert in such a specific manner that your concerns would be allayed to some extent?

2699 MR. BRACE: I think ‑‑ on the contrary, I think that we would like to take a proactive role, which we haven't had the opportunity to do to this point in time, the consultation process in developing the protocol.

2700 I am still referring to a voluntary system, however. Let me be clear on that.

2701 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay.

2702 MR. BRACE: But having said that, what we would be interested in doing is taking an active role in working with CANALERT or any other agencies that may be involved and we have heard many different variations over the last day and a half as to where these alerts may come from and the number of users and so on and so forth.

2703 But I think that what we want to do is play a role in that, a responsible role that we believe we can bring to the table with the expertise as broadcasters that can help develop the protocol, the way messages would be delivered, the format they would be delivered and the actual content that they would be delivered. I think that that is where we would like to start.

2704 Then I think the next step is how they get delivered to us and what happens from that point going forward.

2705 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: We could stay on that latter piece of the puzzle then. Let us assume that the consultation process starts right now.

2706 Let me put to you that if we are being very specific on the Regulation point 7(d) and in the best interests of a national alert system being in place, would you not be prepared perhaps to look at the possibility that your agreement to alter the programming in these very specifically designed circumstances, protocols, guidelines discussed to your satisfaction ‑‑ would there not be a way to:

2707 (a) accept a wording, if you have one to suggest, for 7(d) which you would be comfortable with ‑‑ considering that you will be part of discussions, you must have considered such a possibility; and

2708 (b) other than changing the wording, is there a way to sit down and formulate a pre‑agreement, if you will, that in certain circumstances such an alteration would be correct, thereby limiting and specifying and giving us very specific language that would allow for the insertion of a message so carefully defined through protocols and guidelines?

2709 Would that help?

2710 MR. BRACE: Potentially it could but without the framework established out of the gate ‑‑ and it goes to the prematurity issue that we have with the applicants and with the discussion that we have heard over the last two days ‑‑ it would be difficult for us to kind of notionally agree to that. I think that we need to understand much more of the specifics.

2711 The timeliness was a good point, an excellent point, Commissioner Pennefather, and I am going to have Robert and Peter maybe talk to this a little bit.

2712 The system that for us would be ideal would be a voluntary system whereby after a protocol had been developed, a set of guidelines had been issued and we all had agreed to them that the information could be delivered to the broadcaster and the broadcaster could then deal with it. And there is a lot of complexity in that. I understand that.

2713 But in terms of timeliness, at this point I would like to turn to Robert to talk about what is the difference in timing that it would take to get a message to the consumer and to the necessary audience by doing it this way as opposed to the ways that have been proposed over the last day or so.

2714 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Could I just ‑‑ excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Hurst, but certainly that is a very important line of our questioning and that basically is to satisfy the record that we understand what you do currently and how you are developing across the united front of the broadcasters in this area.

2715 But just to remain on the question of the insertion on programming for the moment. We have talked about the possibility of a discussion on either an amendment to the Regulations which would suit your concerns ‑‑ and you may want to get back to us on that ‑‑ and (b) perhaps other pre‑agreements.

2716 That is just my term. It is not any term we have thought through legally but it is just an idea to say that your agreement is already given ahead of time.

2717 MR. BRACE: I like the latter comment better, the pre‑agreement. I mean if there was a pre‑agreement that we could come to after due diligence and having the consultative process take place that we could all say, all right, that in certain situations this may be what we are in agreement to do, that to us is a pretty good definition of consent and if that were the process it seems to me that altering article 7 would not be necessary.

2718 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: That being said, let me delve then with perhaps Mr. Hurst and Mr. Kent a little more on the concerns for altering the programming in this particular case.

2719 It appeared to me ‑‑ and I can take the general principle and we can all understand that and it is in the Act. But in this particular case, we have a balancing act perhaps of the national interest and when we are being very serious about not misuse but correct use of such a system.

2720 I had the impression reading your intervention that you were concerned that these messages were coming from government, that that was part of your concern for editorial control, editorial codes of ethics and so on.

2721 Can you elaborate a little bit on assuming agreements were made, assuming everything went ‑‑ bottom line, the insertion of such an alert would more than likely come from certain government bodies judging from the discussions we have been having, be they provincial, local or federal?

2722 MR. HURST: Commissioner, you used a phrase which we think is very important, "correct use."

2723 Yesterday, we heard which was a lot of engineering and technical can you do, can you not do.

2724 I think from a news perspective ‑‑ and we have been the ones running this last mile. I think the industry talks about the last mile of delivering emergency messages. We have been the ones running that last mile for the last 30‑40 years, and in that last mile there are a whole bunch of checks and balances, the primary one being accuracy.

2725 In the last year or so, with several alerts, we have had difficulties with accuracy from emergency authorities that have been issuing alerts that we caught, that we filtered. So in terms of what might conditions be, accuracy and the ability to control and check and check for accuracy is fundamental.

2726 The larger principle being, and this comes back to your phrase "correct use," and it really is what are the guardian facts about protecting public confidence in the system.

2727 We have had four Amber alerts in the Toronto area, in southern Ontario in the last two or three weeks. Last June in Alberta we had 16 or 17 flood warnings. Those flood warnings, one of which included a sewage backup in a street in Lethbridge which went over the public airwaves, I would argue and I think our news people would argue that that kind of warning denigrates public confidence in the system.

2728 We think we would like to really engage as those who have been running the last mile, engage the public alerting officials about our experience about public panic, accuracy, follow‑up. If you do a warning, then what do you do?

2729 So there are conditions but it comes down to accuracy and overall I would say reinforcing and protecting public confidence in an emergency alerting system.

2730 Peter.

2731 MR. KENT: Commissioner, if I could just jump in.

2732 In speaking to what we consider to be the premature nature of this licensing procedure in the absence of a consultative process either with Industry Canada, with CANALERT or with the applicants before you this week, there has been a lot of talk in the past couple of days, vague references to who pulls the trigger.

2733 It is not so much our concern that it is a legitimate government agency, a commissioner of public safety, a police chief or a fire chief but as we have seen in Alberta with their gradually evolving Emergency Warning System, there are now close to 1,000 individuals authorized to launch an alert, to pull the trigger, and at the same time realizing that this trigger could be pulled with content which, in our experience in Alberta particularly, has proven to be out of date and misleading.

2734 We have got to realize and we have to remind ourselves that there is no single silver bullet coming out of the guns of any of your applicants here this week. This is a multidimensional solution.

2735 We have heard talk of sirens, we have heard talk of cellular and digital text alerts and I think we can't possibly discount the importance of radio in all of this. I think radio is going to have to be a leading partner in any mandatory CANALERT system if that is what we are to eventually inherit.

2736 MR. BRACE: I think just in ‑‑

2737 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, I ‑‑ I am sorry, go ahead.

2738 MR. BRACE: Just in closing the loop on that, we actually do believe it is a government process. That is the way we would intend to go.

2739 To answer your specific question, we have not yet to this point in time designed language to alter article 7.

2740 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, I think, in fairness, what the applicants have presented to us and certainly what interveners have talked about is a system which is designed to avoid the errors, to try to set things, going forward, in a framework of very clear guidelines and protocols.

2741 We are certainly hearing from interveners to the effect that at that level a mandatory system is what is required out there in the communities across the country.

2742 Backing up from there, what would be very helpful too is to get your experience. So I am going to go down the other line of questioning and talk a little bit more about how you currently handle urgent time‑sensitive alerts and particularly what do you do in smaller markets because part of the thesis here is that Canadians and everyone concerned here in the Commission should look carefully at the current system, that the broadcasters are, and I quote you:

"the primary purveyors of emergency messages, the primary alert system in Canada." (As read)

2743 So we should know more about what you do and how you do it and particularly in smaller markets where one would assume you have not got a 24/7 newsroom in operation, transmitters are often fed from distant markets for part of the broadcast day. How does that provide us with assurance and consistency?

2744 MR. KENT: Well, your question provides an excellent opportunity to correct the record.

2745 Yesterday, Pelmorex inaccurately suggested that broadcasters were inexperienced in terms of delivering emergency alerts.

2746 In truth, we do it regularly and have for half a century in the case of the major networks, since the dawn of television in Canada, and not only with weather alerts.

2747 We do it with any number of public safety alerts, individuals with guns, school lockdowns.

2748 We do it with natural disasters in terms of the Kelowna forest fires and the southern Alberta floods. Small communities ‑‑ our Lethbridge broadcaster was involved there.

2749 Most important of all, and the Ontario Public Safety Commissioner spoke to this today, his delight with the way private broadcasters have engaged and execute for him, for the province the Amber Alert Program, which is a relayed urgent message to private broadcasters which we then reconfigure and present in a uniform fashion on each of our broadcast outlets and we are enjoying ‑‑ there are still some snags to be worked out of the system but it is working very well.

2750 In our smaller markets as well, the news directors in those smaller markets are generally joined at the hip with both civic officials and emergency officials in those markets, and to our knowledge, and with the exception of some spontaneous microburst weather situations which are not always deliverable in a timely ‑‑ in as timely a fashion as we would all like, we aren't aware of any glaring examples or outstanding complaints.

2751 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: To get ‑‑ I'm sorry, go ahead.

2752 MR. HURST: May I just talk from CTV perspective about small markets and by way, Commissioner, perhaps of giving you some examples.

2753 Most small markets in Canada are under the news gathering and news reporting of our stations all across the country.

2754 So let me give you three water examples. Walkerton was a prime example. No prior emergency alert would have prevented the deaths because the municipal authorities and the city council and the public water works and the provincial ministry in fact were trying to hide what was going on there.

2755 As soon as the public health official advised a boil water advisory we were all there and we were there for weeks. That's a small community up on the ‑‑ heading to the Grey Peninsula.

2756 Second one was Kaschewan, the native community, where ‑‑ it's a long way away and I think all broadcasters did an exemplary job alerting that community and the larger community about that water crisis.

2757 A third one might be Wabamun Lake, between Edmonton and Jasper on the Yellowhead Highway, last August when a CN freight train dumped 700,000 litres bunker sea into the lake. We were there within hours. CN and local officials did not declare that this was an emergency for four days.

2758 We can always do better. To the specifics of your question, how often are we staffed. Our news system is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year and we are set up if there are alerts in places where we are not staffed at two o'clock on a Sunday morning, a smaller station, which we are not, we know how to get a hold of those people to alert them that there is a major crisis in their community.

2759 MR. BRACE: And just in interest of balance we better let CHUM have a say.

2760 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Oh, absolutely. I'd make sure you did.

2761 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I mean, the Commission knows that we have had a great deal of experience in small markets and it's always a balancing act, of course, and everybody would love to have all the resources at their disposal and they don't, but I think we have to pull back and take a look at a bigger philosophical issue of is local coverage better than coverage that's coming from a national source or a central provincial source and the interference of that upon which local news people gathering news, assessment of the situation, are actually there on the ground and able to watch that.

2762 We operate one of the smallest I think ‑‑ Wingham, Ontario, is one of the smallest licences, conventional television licences, in the country and do we have a 24 hours news bureau there? No. Do we have a central hub out of London that has ‑‑ do we have people that are covering Wingham? Yes. Do we have a mechanism by which we can alert the folks in Wingham as to weather conditions and other conditions, yes, and we went through that when went the blackout, which, you know, has been well talked about today.

2763 We also are in the position wherein most of our communities we have radio stations as well, and, you know, it's an interesting thing that ‑‑ there has been very little talk about radio's contribution to emergency preparedness and we can spend a whole amount of time on that and we may just do that in a couple of weeks.

2764 But taking one step back, we're going to have a larger discussion, Commissioner, about the role of local television with the Commission in probably a few months.

2765 This is a cornerstone of what we do. Any erosion, to Rick's earlier point, about our credibility with the marketplace, especially when we know that from time to time these issues ‑‑ these centralized issues are in fact wrong, makes us culpable for the situation and that becomes a bigger problem for us than a timing issue on when information can get out, because if the wrong information is getting out on a very timely basis it's still wrong information.

2766 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Let's just go on that, just for a moment.

2767 First of all, I'm struck by the fact that you seem to be assuming that one system would replace the other. In discussions with interveners ‑‑ and I take the point that what we're talking about here also should be of benefit to the public ‑‑ that there is room in this country and a need for a national warning system and for obviously the continuing support of local media in terms of ongoing information and I think I discussed this very point with the gentleman from the Salvation Army this morning. So I don't think it's talking about replacement.

2768 Secondly, you seem to be assuming that the national alert system ‑‑ correct me if I'm wrong ‑‑ is one which will increase errors in the system. It would appear to me that the discussion is around avoiding such errors in the system through a national system set up under guidelines developed, let's say for the sake of argument, through CANALERT.

2769 MR. GOLDSTEIN: To Mr. Brace's point and my other colleagues, we're all looking for more tools to put in the toolbox and a system by which we can get more timely information that we can pass on to our viewers and listeners is always of help.

2770 The question becomes do we confuse viewers and listeners when information that is coming from elsewhere is put on top of our signals without consent when we may in fact be covering the situation from a much closer vantage point.

2771 MR. BRACE: I think the point you make, Commissioner Pennefather, is really strong, but when the system is in place ‑‑ that's our concern, is that we don't know what that system is, we don't know what government bodies or we don't know who the trigger pullers will be, who the authorized users will be.

2772 And it kind of seems strange to us, it's confusing, that we're here today because of an application that caused a call for applications on and all channel alert without first having that system kind of defined, at least even broadly defined, without a consultative process, that included the broadcasters, and we seem to be put in a position here of kind of defending our position against the ability for a third party to intrude on our signal, when, you know, in point of fact, had it been a situation where a system had been broadly established ‑‑ you know, never mind narrowly defined ‑‑ and was then brought to the table, so that we understood what we were being asked to agree to or asked to ‑‑ asked to acknowledge, it would be a bit of a different story.

2773 But, you know, there has been no consultation process. We don't know what we're getting into.

2774 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, let's take that point. I think there is evidence on the record that the consultation has occurred. Whether it's to your satisfaction or not we'll leave it to the record to decide, but I think what is important right now, if you agree, is that taking advantage of your knowledge of what currently is underway in some of the issues.

2775 For example, leaving aside the national alert system concept, to enhance your ability to service the communities on a more consistent basis, has there been discussion across ‑‑ amongst broadcasters ‑‑ you're concerned about a national alert system interfering with your programming, I don't mean in a legal sense, but confusion. What about the confusion of different networks carrying the same warning, the same concerns, in different ways across the networks?

2776 Have you talked about co‑ordinating amongst yourselves? Have you looked at the costs of upgrading your networks to provide better, safer, more consistent emergency alerts?

2777 MR. BRACE: I would say to this point in time it has been a very individual concept, that CTV has looked after its own affairs and similarly with CanWest.

2778 We do actually cooperate in many instances and Peter can maybe elaborate on some of that.

2779 MR. KENT: If I can speak again to the Ontario implementation of the Amber Alert, there are very sharply defined protocols in place in terms of how Amber Alerts are declared, who is allowed to declare them, the messages communicated to news organizations, to broadcasters, and put up onto highway signs and onto radio stations, but within the terms of those very closely‑defined conditions we must present them in a uniform way.

2780 We are not limited, we don't do it with one single alert. In most cases it's a continuing alert. We refer back to the authority organization and we prefer, and as we heard from the Commissioner of Public Safety in Ontario this morning, he is delighted with the success of that program and the success in these early days. We have been doing Amber Alerts for barely a year now in Ontario, but he thinks that system works and we do too.

2781 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Mr. Goldstein, in your presentation on behalf of your colleagues, you were given the task of listing a number of questions on page 8. I believe they're the same questions in the written intervention.

2782 Any answers? Do you have any ‑‑ would you care to comment on some of these points?

2783 MR. GOLDSTEIN: First of all, I hate to be put in this position, but I actually disagree with the public record on the consultative process.

2784 I can tell you on CHUM's behalf there was one meeting with our CEO about three years ago and any other consultation that has happened through the Industry Canada process has been with our local radio engineer, so just to correct that piece of the public record, I don't think it's been very consultative with broadcasters.

2785 So we don't have a very good sense of what the status is with CANALERT and I don't think ‑‑ I think my colleagues will agree with me that our piece of the puzzle has not been incorporated in that.

2786 Secondly, there is ‑‑ there are liability issues and, Commissioner, I think you dealt with some them earlier. Commissioner del Val dealt with some of them earlier.

2787 We are responsible for what is on screen, the Act is very clear, and as somebody whose day job it is to deal with CBSE complaints and others, we have to be very careful about the trust that we develop with the community, so that the messaging that they're getting ‑‑ they don't the difference between whether it's going to be a national service or whether it's your local broadcaster giving you that sort of news and that goes to the covenant that Mr. Brace spoke of earlier.

2788 There are legal issues and, again, all of this goes to control and consent.

2789 So I guess I have questions because I don't have the answers to them at this point in time.

2790 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: On the latter question ‑‑ I'll get back to liability in just a moment or perhaps my colleagues will ‑‑ but on the last question you're dealing in the day to day as broadcasters with emergencies and making judgment calls.

2791 You mentioned the situation that ‑‑ your concerns in Alberta. What exactly ‑‑ who would be the authorized agencies and the persons within those agencies?

2792 In looking at the national alert proposals, all of them, CANALERT guidelines come into the picture and there are some definitions there. Do you have any comment on those and currently how do you deal with this situation of recognizing an authorized agency?

2793 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I'm just going to start, because there are people at this table with much more editorial experience than I have, but I just ‑‑ Commissioner Fantino said something very interesting today, which is every emergency begins as a local event.

2794 We have experience in the local communities that we represent, either with TV or radio, with direct relationships with the police force, the emergency services, and that's in fact our first line of engagement and it's something that we work on very closely, and I'm sure my colleagues do with their local stations as well, and we have an internal protocol of how we're going to deal with those issues and those relationships that exist.

2795 So when something happens in Ottawa, for example, or in Pembroke, we understand what has to go into motion to make sure that the community is being served.

2796 It's not that we're not interested in other information, but the question is how are our viewers and listeners being served if in fact there could be mixed messages being sent between what's coming from the national service or in this case a provincial service and what's coming from our local news gatherers.

2797 And then I'll let perhaps my other colleagues can add.

2798 MR. HURST: We work with emergency officials in every local community, fire, police, and I'm sad to report that mistakes in emergency alerts today, from those emergency officials, which would presumably be rolled into this national service ‑‑ mistakes are widespread.

2799 We work with these police departments and fire departments and emergency officials on a daily basis.

2800 Let me give you two examples. The Alberta situation that we talked about last June, the broadcasters, it was their initiative and they went back to the Alberta Emergency Alerting System and said, "You guys are crying wolf. You're out of control here. You're denigrating the system." Because we work together in Alberta, those faults and problems were tightened up. It was our initiative that did it.

2801 Three weeks ago there was an Amber Alert in Southern Ontario, Wellington County, a child missing. It was issued by the OPP, which is a pretty good authority in police services.

2802 The child was found 90 minutes later. How do we know that at CTV news? Because we did due diligence with the police department to find where they were on this case. The initial warning was very vague. Where are we supposed to look? Where are you asking us to ask the public to look? And it was very vague.

2803 The child was found 90 minutes later, but the Amber Alert incorrectly went on alerting people in Southern Ontario for the next four hours.

2804 The next day in our discussions with the OPP as cooperative together, they admitted that they broke their rules and regulations and they needed to work better with us.

2805 We have had no discussion with CANALERT in a national level about this.

2806 In the hallway during our lunch break I had a nice chat with the gentleman from Emergency Measures New Brunswick. We need to have more of those discussions. We are only as good as the information that is provided to us and for us to get emergency critical information out to save lives ‑‑ not property ‑‑ to save lives that's our job one, but it's not a perfect system by a long shot and I don't read anything in the CANALERT guidelines that would give you those daily checks, those hourly, minute‑by‑minute checks of fuzzy or unclear information.

2807 MR. KENT: Just to underline that, Commissioner, we believe that there has been far too much focus on the engineering challenges and far too little on the content generation and relaying.

2808 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, just on that point, let me go back to the concept of a national alert system going forward and I believe you said very clearly that you felt that should it go forward in addition to what broadcasters do that it should be voluntary on the part of broadcasters.

2809 Question: You have heard from the interveners, there seems to be dissatisfaction, there is perhaps several who have said it should be mandatory because the decision of whether to deliver emergency alerts, warnings to the public should not be in the hands ‑‑ and I don't say this with any disrespect for the work you do or neither does anyone else ‑‑ just at that level it should not be in the hands of broadcasters, but rather be mandatory.

2810 Any further comment on that point?

2811 MR. BRACE: I think based on a consultative process where we could come up with a format that satisfied us in which we had significant input, offered our expertise and obviously listened to the people and the needs that these various agencies would put forward.

2812 I think that would then lead us to a framework that would be workable for us, in a voluntary context. I maintain that.

2813 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: In a voluntary context.

2814 MR. BRACE: In a voluntary context.

2815 MR. KENT: Absolutely. And in the case of Alberta, where we have experienced some frustrations, we still are all committed to the Alberta Emergency Warning System and we still are prepared to execute the warnings that they issue.

2816 The discussions that we had after the glitches occurred last June has resulted in, we believe, a more cautious approach in the way advisories are issued and in the ways that we can supplement them and make sure that outdated advisories aren't being overlaid over live coverage from an emergency scene of a very different situation.

2817 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you, I appreciate your comments this afternoon.

2818 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2819 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Pennefather.

2820 Obviously you are all here today as individual broadcasters. At the level of CAB, are you having any discussions regarding emergency alert or is it that it is a matter up to each individual broadcaster?

2821 MR. BRACE: To this point in time it really has ‑‑ other than the co‑operation that we have with each other at certain times in sharing uplink trucks at disasters and even sharing cameras and other technical gear ‑‑ it really has been a broadcaster‑by‑broadcaster approach.

2822 I think what's driven the system, in all honesty, has been the competitive nature that exists at this table.

2823 We're out every day to try and beat each other to a story. We're probably going to take separate cabs after we leave the hearing today and go back to doing just that, beating each up wherever we can, but that has really kind of driven, you know, the need to get to the information first, to make sure that we're first at delivering it and to make sure that we absolutely follow up and deliver the best and most informative stories that we possibly can.

2824 At the CAB level, which was your specific question, to this point in time it's not something that has really been on the agenda.

2825 MR. GOLDSTEIN: If I can just add, to our understanding the majority of the discussions between the CAB or ‑‑ and Industry Canada or CANALERT have to our knowledge been on an engineering basis and not on a programming and content basis, to our knowledge.

2826 And again, that ‑‑ you know, when we discuss this with our editorial people this is what we ‑‑ this is the sense that we have of the discussions at this point.

2827 MR. BRACE: I think David straightened the record on behalf of CHUM and I can say that on behalf of CTV, and I'm sure Peter can do likewise on behalf of Canada CanWest, but from a senior level there has been no consultation whatsoever.

2828 THE CHAIRPERSON: Today is almost a first.

2829 MR. BRACE: It's almost a first. It's all been at a technical level to decide how can we get the signal from here to here, what's the best way of distributing it, but really has not emphasized anything on content, on editorial correctness, on follow‑up, on who pulls the trigger.

2830 I know that our CEO, because I asked him directly, has not been consulted. I as president of the company have not been consulted directly. The people in the editorial areas have not been consulted.

2831 And, Peter, I think you can say the same for ‑‑

2832 MR. KENT: Absolutely. The same exists and Global and CanWest Media Works.

2833 And to speak ‑‑ it's been interesting for all of us to listen to the discussions of liability and avoiding liability. Every day we address breaking news situations and emergency alerts of different levels and the last thing on our minds ‑‑ we're aware of our responsibilities and our accountability and our liability, but the last thing on our minds is dodging that liability issue.

2834 What we are concerned about is an intrusive third party which may, in fact, bring complications to our lives and to the lives of our viewers.

2835 MR. BRACE: And what seems to be proposed here is a system that puts the liability at our feet. Because in all honesty, when a viewer watches a program and if they're watching CanWest, CHUM or CTV and an alert were to come on and for whatever reason that alert was inaccurate and caused panic and caused people to leave their homes prematurely, only to have them looted, whatever the case may be, who gets sued? It's the station that's being watched. Where did I see it? I saw it on CanWest. I saw it on CHUM. I saw it on CTV. That's where they come first.

2836 And what has been absolutely clear over the last two days is that no one is willing to take responsibility for that ‑‑ no one is willing to indemnify.

2837 And here we sit as kind of the people at the end of the chain that are hanging out there in front of the public and we are at ones most at risk and we're the ones that have been least discussed.

2838 MR. GOLDSTEIN: And if I could just add, it all comes down to consent. That's our major point.

2839 THE CHAIRPERSON: That being said, and I ... there are other channels that each of your groups here have, that are programmed with material that is not necessarily live, that is not necessarily news‑driven. I'm thinking mystery, I'm thinking ‑‑ well, TSN at least you have live people. But I think maybe ‑‑ I'm trying to find out another one that you ‑‑ that is in your foray.

2840 But what happens on those channel if there is an imminent need for a warning?

2841 MR. BRACE: David wants to follow up here, but I can tell you that from our point of view, and I can give you an example, that when a story is of significant enough nature on TSN, for example, we actually will redirect people to CTV news or CTV Newsnet.

2842 That's kind of the ‑‑ that's ‑‑ I wouldn't say it's a formal policy, to be quite honest, but it's just the editorial policy we kind of follow. We use our judgment in making that kind of a decision. And David?

2843 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I just want to go back to the example of the blackout and, yes ‑‑ and we do ‑‑ we have done advisories on our specialty channels, but when stories like that ‑‑ you know, all politics is local, all catastrophes are local.

2844 We took two very different approaches based on very different markets and I'll give ‑‑ use Ottawa and Toronto as an example.

2845 In Toronto we decided that all of our radio and television services were going to go to the CP24 signal. That was a reliable place for updated information and, in fact, it was kind of fun to watch, because it was the only ‑‑ because it was obviously running on generators, it was only the lit place in all ‑‑ in that section of downtown Toronto and people came from all over downtown Toronto and they were sitting outside as if Hilary Duff was in the Much Music studio, watching the monitors on CP24 to find out what was going on.

2846 That was the same signal that they were getting if they were listening to CHUM FM or to 1050 CHUM.

2847 In Ottawa, we ran to the CFRA feed, so our TV station and all of our local radio stations went to the CFRA feed, because of the nature of the ‑‑ of the emergency.

2848 Each us will have a different way of dealing with those circumstances.

2849 THE CHAIRPERSON: But what you say here, seems to have applied to your over‑the‑air services. I'm talking your specialty service.

2850 MR. GOLDSTEIN: And we have and have no problem in including in ‑‑

2851 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because take ‑‑

2852 MR. GOLDSTEIN: In Ottawa, you ‑‑

2853 THE CHAIRPERSON: You just used Ottawa as an example. If there was to be ‑‑ what would you do on Brevel if it was limited to Ottawa?

2854 MR. GOLDSTEIN: We have ‑‑ first of all, we have the ability to do crawl for Ontario signals. We have the ability to do crawl and ‑‑

2855 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that will be available across Canada.

2856 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Certainly. And people will know if the crawl relates to an Ontario incident, somebody who is watching in Alberta will understand that that's ‑‑

2857 THE CHAIRPERSON: Obviously. If you say it's happened in Ottawa, it happens in Ottawa.

2858 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

2859 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, you said that the discussions were mainly technical. The discussions may have been technical, but I have the list here of the people who have participated in various CANALERT meeting and they are regulatory affair representative of the CHUM organization, for example, but there were no representative of CTV or Global, I can see that from the list, and there were also representative from the CAB, both from the technical and the legal perspective.

2860 Mr. McCallum?

2861 MR. McCALLUM: Just on the wording of the regulation, 7(d), as you know, says no changing except in accordance with an agreement entered into with the operator of the service and I just wondered if you'd put any thought to are there any circumstances where consent or agreement could be deemed to occur?

2862 MR. BRACE: I think without the value of the consultative process we're not at this point in time prepared to go forward or make any suggestion, but I'm going to turn to our legal counsel for further comment, if necessary.

2863 MR. MALCOLMSON: Thank you, Rick. If you are going to go down the path of amending 7(1)(d) to allow the signal to be interfered with in times of emergency, I think at minimum you have to define "authorized users" and, secondly, there has to be some allocation of liability by the authorized user, because CTV or CHUM or Global is going to find itself in the situation of having a legal responsibility under section 3(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act of being responsible for the content of a broadcast. That's a responsibility that exists by statute.

2864 You amend 7(1)(d)to allow someone else to insert content into the signal and potentially without providing for some sort of allocation of liability, you have unlimited liability at the broadcaster level. So that needs to be dealt with.

2865 It could be dealt with in the definitions of 7(1)(d) so that, for example, a authorized user would be someone who has agreed to indemnify the broadcaster for liability resulting from a false message.

2866 There are ways to deal with it, but the liability issue needs to be dealt with.

2867 MR. McCALLUM: Okay. And in terms of authorized user, do you have any suggestions on that part of it?

2868 MR. MALCOLMSON: I think the CANALERT definition is a good start, but it's missing the liability piece.

2869 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2870 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, gentlemen, lady. Thank you very much. Madame Secrétaire, Mrs. Secretary.

2871 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I would now invite the following interveners to come as a group at the front.

2872 They are Mr. Cal Gardner of the City of Sarnia; Mr. Alain Normand of the City of Brampton and also for the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers; the associate deputy fire chief Kevin Duffy for City of Mississauga; Mr. Garry Morden of the Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services.

2873 We can start with Mr. Normand for the City of Brampton followed by his presentation for the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers. You'll have ten minutes for your presentation, Mr. Normand.

2874 MR. NORMAND: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

2875 Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, because I have two presentations what I would like to suggest is that I let my colleagues from Mississauga and Sarnia go first and then come back and talk on a more broader view on behalf of the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers, if you don't mind.

INTERVENTION

2876 MR. DUFFY: Hello and thank you to the Commissioners and all others present for allowing us the opportunity to appear here today and discuss our point of view on the Pelmorex proposal.

2877 My name is Kevin Duffy. For the record, I'm the assistant deputy chief of the City of Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services.

2878 I'm here at the behest of the fire chief, Garry Morden, who initially contacted the CRTC on this matter. And unfortunately, the mayor was unable to attend today and she may still be ‑‑ had she been here I think she would still be outside with Chief Fantino discussing the Province of Ontario and how it works with municipalities.

2879 Most municipalities and emergency services in Canada are wrestling with the challenge of how to effectively notify and update citizens in the event of pending or ongoing emergency situations. These emergencies may include the declaration of a local emergency by appropriate officials or perhaps the emergency may span many jurisdictions wherein emergencies are declared in some or all of these jurisdictions.

2880 The emergency may also be a localized event that does not necessitate an official declaration of emergency, but for which local information may be immediately required by the public about the nature of the event and any significant precautions they may take or which may already have been taken by local agencies, such as road closures, evacuations and the like.

2881 For example, in the last three years the City of Mississauga has had three large‑scale chemical industrial events wherein there would have been a great safety advantages if we had the ability to alert local citizens as directly and precisely as possible.

2882 Now, regardless of the nature or scale of the emergency, the information required in such cases must be timely, as numerous interveners pointed out; must also be accurate; must be properly sourced and approved; and it must be quickly and consistently disseminated.

2883 Members of the public may in many, if not most, cases be expected to be passive recipients of this information, although many municipal emergency plans now include an education component that over time will assist citizens in learning where and how to actively seek information about an emergency.

2884 We are here today because currently in Canada there is no nationally accepted standard for providing emergency alert information to the public.

2885 While an unpredictable collection of media outlets will follow an emergency event, the ultimate message concerning the event is theirs, the timing of information release is theirs, and each has a relatively limited audience that may not even be the intended audience.

2886 Also, citizens are often faced with messages that may differ from one jurisdiction to another, message delivery channels that may vary and primary information sources that may differ, varying from politicians to emergency services to local industry.

2887 In Mississauga, for example, it is almost impossible to have a media message effectively heard by the public as the Toronto media focus on the message from the City of Toronto, which may be completely different.

2888 The problem impacted us heavily during the blackout of 2003 and also during the SARS event earlier that year.

2889 In general, the current media shotgun approach to alerting the public to an emergency situation increases the potential to confuse or mislead citizens, it can miss many or most citizens all together and it is difficult to educate the public about where to go for accurate information, where there is no consistency across jurisdictions.

2890 Accordingly, the City of Mississauga supports the Pelmorex proposal as a rapid, accurate and predictable method of emergency alert contact. This system will reach a very large number of citizens and it is a system about which citizens could be readily educated to actively seek information in the future. It is flexible as to geographic jurisdiction and it utilizes existing technology that can be implemented today without further forums for funding and without further committee processes that may never deliver a alternate product.

2891 Most citizens are already familiar with weather notification messages and could adopt easily to receiving information in this fashion on non‑weather emergencies.

2892 Implementing the Pelmorex proposal would not preclude other systems or proposals that could add to a recognized nationwide emergency contact system to reach the maximum number of citizens. However there should be no delay in dealing positively with this proposal.

2893 The Pelmorex system is ready for deployment today and it will greatly assist in meeting the immediate emergency notification challenges faced by Canadian municipalities.

2894 Thank you very much.

INTERVENTION

2895 MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much for this opportunity to address the Commission.

2896 My name is California Gardner. I'm the emergency planner for the City of Sarnia. The City of Sarnia has been involved in emergency planning with the Chemical Valley Emergency Co‑ordinating Organization for well over 50 years.

2897 The City of Sarnia through its police services has provided emergency public alerting to the citizens of Sarnia and the surrounding communities since the 1980s with great success.

2898 Our community profile, we compromise ‑‑ the region is 127,000. It's a small area. The city counts for 72,000 of that total population.

2899 Bill 148, the Emergency Management Act makes it mandatory that every community in Ontario formulates an emergency plan and that every community appoints a community emergency management coordinator, the CMC.

2900 The first part of any good plan is how to warn the public; however, it is the portion of the plan that is most often deficient.

2901 The City of Sarnia under City by‑law 150 of 2004 established its emergency plan. Under that by‑law we've also ... have authority who is responsible for notifying the public is addressed in our emergency plan, so it's covered under our municipal by‑law, which the Emergency Management Act allows us to do.

2902 The head of council is the only individual at the local municipal level that can declare an emergency. This decision is as a result of advice from the primary control group, which is made up of police, fire, health units, so forth.

2903 There are two international bridges that provide the second largest truck crossing in Ontario with the largest volume of dangerous goods. In 2005 this was approximately 1,800,000 trucks.

2904 There are 20 major pipelines crossing from the Canadian side to the U.S. side. These pipelines range from 6 to 42 inches in diameter. It is estimated that it would take equivalent to 12 bridges to handle truck traffic to handle this volume.

2905 The new international rail tunnel was completed in 1995, which now accommodates all double stack containers, multilevel carriers.

2906 The local CN yard is the largest to handle dangerous goods in the Great Lakes Region and the second‑largest international rail yard in Canada.

2907 Sarnia and the surrounding area have 30 major chemical plants. These industries pipelines transportation corridors account up to 40 percent of the chemicals in Canada, 80 percent of the chemicals in Ontario.

2908 Emergency public alerting in Sarnia and the surrounding area is essential to our community, based on the makeup of our local industry, transportation network and the fact that we are identified by Environment Canada as being located in Tornado Alley.

2909 As you can see, public alerting is important to Sarnia.

2910 Currently our emergency notification system includes TV interruption of most local Cogeco cable TV channels directly from our emergency operation centre; radio interruptions of all three local radio stations directly from the Sarnia OC; municipal emergency sirens with PA systems in risk areas.

2911 We're probable the only city in Canada that has all three of those capabilities.

2912 We tested with Industry Canada an telephone, e‑mail, pager, cell phone, emergency notification system with Bell Canada as well.

2913 More common yet less effective forms of emergency communications to the community involve door‑to‑door notification, loud mobile PA address systems and community websites.

2914 All communities need emergency notification systems. Most of the emergencies we've heard today occur at the local level. We agree with that.

2915 Most communities could experience one or more of the following: Tornadoes, forest fires, flooding, chemical emergencies, nuclear, contaminated water lines, power outages, et cetera.

2916 Again, the first part of any good plan is how to warn the public. Communications.

2917 There is no one system that will alert all the people all the time. But a combination of affordable systems at the local level, provincial level and at the federal level will meet all of our needs.

2918 We support the Pelmorex initiative because:

2919 Affordable for all communities across Canada, not just communities like Sarnia, which are financially supported by industries and local media.

2920 Available on all cable channels and satellite carriers, not limited to just a few local cable channels.

2921 It is already tried, tested and workable for all of Canada. Turn on your TV right now and you'll see The Weather Network. You'll see your local information.

2922 Already has encrypted and secured internet communications systems between the Pelmorex network and those who have the authority to activate the system for the community, the province or the feds.

2923 Less intrusive to television viewers with a crawler which also provides information to the hearing‑impaired viewer than what is currently being used.

2924 Offering a standard form of public alerting that can be recognized across Canada as a standard. When you move from London to Sarnia, same standard information. We don't have to educate the public as much. This would provide uniformity and framework that could be built on.

2925 Our concerns are: that recent trends indicate that more and more local radio and TV broadcasts are moving to satellite feed from other larger broadcasting systems. This is allowing less availability at the local level to provide emergency public messages, especially at night. If the system is interrupted at the larger broadcast system, then the message is sent out to a far larger viewing area than it needs to be.

2926 Another fear is that the CRTC will postpone this initiative based on other prospectus, which may or may not compliment the current needs for emergency public alerting.

2927 We need a standard emergency public alerting system in Canada that meet the needs of the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Pelmorex is offering a system that is currently workable is available to us now and it is time for us to have a standard national system.

2928 Thank you for your time and for allowing us to present today.

INTERVENTION

2929 MR. NORMAND: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you very much. I would like to address the Commission on behalf of the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers.

2930 My name is Alain Normand. I am President of the Association, which represents over 450 professional emergency managers working in the province of Ontario.

2931 The primary role of the emergency manager is to ensure that citizens, business and stakeholders are protected to the best of our ability during an emergency.

2932 With the increase in number, intensity and range of impact of emergencies we have experienced in Ontario and Canada over the last decade, the work of the emergency manager has become more and more complex.

2933 Emergency managers have to be knowledgeable in weather patterns and the impact of extreme weather.

2934 They need to understand local river courses and streams and the risk of flooding attached to it.

2935 They must be aware of trends caused by global warming and, in particular, the impact of heat waves.

2936 They must know about severe winter storms and be on the lookout for them.

2937 They need to have a basic understanding of urban planning and land use planning to prevent building in high risk areas.

2938 They need to understand the potential for emergencies caused by hazard goods handling and nuclear risks.

2939 They must also keep track of the risk related to terrorism and violence in our society in order to initiate appropriate security measures.

2940 Emergency managers also have to be knowledgeable in principles of business continuity to ensure the public still has access to services even during a major disruption.

2941 Finally, emergency managers must understand the impact of health emergencies such as SARS, West Nile Virus and looming pandemic influenza.

2942 In all of these aspects emergency managers have recognized and accepted their responsibility. We have increased training and exercising in the province in order to prepare our professionals for these eventualities.

2943 Emergency manager in Ontario and Canada, because they have taken their responsibilities very seriously, have also initiated research and development of new programs, tools and systems to enable them to do the job as professionally as possible.

2944 Partnership with educational institutions, private enterprise and other organizations with common interests and goals have been established for that same purpose.

2945 At the same time, the public expectation and the risk of liability has risen exponentially. To ensure that the public is adequately informed, emergency public awareness programs and emergency public education programs are constantly being refined and upgraded.

2946 We work closely with risk management and insurance organizations to enhance our preparedness and diminish the risk to our population, as well as reduce the possibilities of costs incurred by governments to defend against liability.

2947 I am sharing all of this in an attempt to indicate to this Commission how seriously we are approaching you today to ask that you urgently take action on the proposals brought before you.

2948 While we can invent new tools to make our work more efficient and protect people better, there are areas for which we are dependent on regulation.

2949 Telecommunication has always been one of the most import tools for an emergency manager. While we have made great strides in order to ensure better communication between emergency responders and their stakeholders, we regrettably notice that we are at least a decade behind in Canada in comparison to our neighbours to the south when it comes to public alerting.

2950 Public alerting, where it is available, has time and time again proven to save lives, while at the same time its absence has repeatedly been a factor invoked where there was loss of life.

2951 Public alerting is one of the most crucial tools that emergency managers require to be able to do their jobs of protecting lives. Unfortunately, in Canada this tool is only available when local media are willing to provide it.

2952 The voluntary nature of the present system of media‑based public alerting has regularly shown to be unreliable. It is left at the whim of the media owners.

2953 While our sole purpose as emergency manager for making use of public alerting is to inform the public of imminent danger and provide instructions as to how to cope when facing such danger, we find that media has a different purpose which is much more related to profit‑making. They said this themselves recently in the presentation that they are actually in competition over stories.

2954 Media aims to have the most captivating, controversial and sometimes gruesome coverage of emergency possible. We contend that news is not solely information; news is entertainment.

2955 During the 2003 SARS outbreak, media has shown exactly how unreliable it was. The whole 905 ‑‑ this is the 905 telephone area code ‑‑ surrounding the city of Toronto was left on its own with regards to coverage of their particular plans for prevention and mitigation of SARS in their communities. Most of the communities in that area have no media in their jurisdiction and rely on the Toronto media to inform their public. However, the only information that was available was the coverage of a situation at the Toronto City Hall and at Toronto hospital.

2956 Although press releases were sent, press conferences were organized, telephone calls from mayors and officials were launched to various newsrooms, very little of this information actually ended up on the air.

2957 The same situation occurred again right after the 2003 blackout. Once the power was back, municipalities had important messages regarding conservation of energy and measures to protect citizens during the heat wave that ensued, but the only information emanated again from downtown Toronto.

2958 There was reference also to the August 2005 floods. Again the messages that we are given by the media was only about the Finch area flooding in Toronto, where actually at the same time there were lots of other municipalities in the GTA that were affected by this intense rain and we couldn't get our messages out.

2959 We have heard comments that this proposal should be left to interested parties, but we have experience that shows that the interest is not widespread enough and often too narrow in focus.

2960 We have attempted to bring in the media as partners in emergency management. Too often we find that this plays against us. As a case in point, media was invited recently to attend an exercise with evacuation of a new Boeing with about 600 people on board. The exercise was successful in that all 600 people were evacuated in minutes.

2961 In the process, however, a dozen people suffered from sprained ankles and a few bruises. Unfortunately, the next day the headline, instead of praising the company for its effort in making the plane safe and training its crew in emergency procedure, dwelled on the few minor injuries that the actors sustained.

2962 This is but one more example demonstrating the media is not attempting to be a partner in emergency management and therefore must be compelled to act for the wellbeing of our citizens.

2963 We are saddened to say that because of their failure the choice can no longer be left to the media. If we have to choose between editorial independence and saving lives, in my mind the choice is very clear.

2964 This is why we urge this Commission to quickly approve the proposals as presented and provide us with the tools we need to protect lives.

2965 When the project was presented the first time, we gave it full support. We were extremely disappointed by the decision of the CRTC to delay what was to us a decision that could not afford to be postponed.

2966 Although some qualify the proposal as premature, we contend that this solution is actually late in coming. The expectation that we will have perfection both in the technological and procedural aspect of this proposal is doing a disservice to the citizens of Ontario and Canada. Any further delay in approving the project could cost Ontarians and Canadians their lives and their health.

2967 I have heard you worry about the definition of emergency. We say that the emergency managers already know the definition of emergency since we have been using it for decades now and actually it is in legislation in many places.

2968 You worry about the responsibility of authorized users. I can reassure that you are dealing with professionals in the field of emergency management. I do take exception with the comments that we just heard, saying that broadcasters are actually better at providing information then emergency managers.

2969 You are concerned with the questions of languages. We too have been concerned with this for a long time, but making the rest of the community wait even longer until we have devised the perfect system for the sake of minorities is only risking more lives.

2970 In the end, you are asking the applicant to resolve all these matters before you accept the proposal. We contend it is not up to the applicant to resolve these matters, but is up to the emergency managers to refine the ways they use the tool at their disposal.

2971 Technological and procedure details are not a valid reason in our minds to delay this project any longer. You must act now. Any items that need to be clarified, streamlined or improved upon to make the project work should be part of the recommendations attached to the approval, not a reason for refusing the project.

2972 On behalf of the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers, I wish to thank you for giving us the opportunity to make it known how important this tool is to the work of the emergency managers in Ontario and in Canada.

2973 Thank you.

2974 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2975 I am asking Commissioner del Val to initiate the questions.

2976 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you.

2977 I will direct my question to the panel and then anyone can take up answering and then the others could add if they feel necessary. Thank you for taking the time to intervene.

2978 This was a question that I had directed to one of the earlier intervenors. I think we can agree that an actual alerting system must integrate its procedures and facilities with those of emergency planning organizations at the municipal, provincial and government levels.

2979 However, governments and their officials come and go. So if there were a new government, for example, then they could have a new five priority or whatever.

2980 What processes or mechanisms would you suggest be put in place to ensure that the necessary ongoing coordination between the national alerting system and the three levels of governance will be put in place?

2981 MR. NORMAND: If I may, particularly in Ontario I can say that this has already been resolved, because the Ontario system is not reliant on politicians and change of government. The Ontario system is legislated, by which every community in Ontario must have a designated emergency manager and an alternate, which means that that person is an employee, not a politician, not an elected official. It is a position, not a person. So if that position is changed, it becomes vacant, somebody else fills it, then automatically whoever gets into that position becomes the person that is authorized. Certainly that has been resolved at the Ontario level.

2982 MR. GARDNER: In the case of Sarnia, we have it in our emergency plan as a municipal by‑law. Again, it's not a particular person, it's not an elected official. We have the Sarnia Police Service provide that service because they are a 24‑hour service, they also look after our 9‑1‑1 system. It is also a senior officer. They do training once a week on that. It is only 30 minutes of training once a week, but they do that.

2983 It's governed. They are legislated by federal law, provincial law and municipal by‑law, so they are part of that authority. They are governed what they can do and what they can't do.

2984 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I am jumping to the question of the form of alert.

2985 We have talked about the possibilities of the message popping up that directs you to another channel. That is model one.

2986 Model two is where the boxes are automatically switched to an emergency alert.

2987 Then the third model, there's a pop‑up on all channels receiving the alert.

2988 Do you have any views as to what is preferable?

2989 MR. DUFFY: That's a difficult one, just speaking for the Fire Service in the city of Mississauga.

2990 You want to get in front as many people as you can. The scrolling message along the bottom of the screen is quite effective. It may be difficult ‑‑ well, we tend to think everyone owns a computer and everyone has access to a telephone. That message right there may be the only message, so I think it's very important to get as much into the visible message as you can so that people who are watching it are as well apprised to the situation as they can be.

2991 That's not to make the message, you know, turn it into War and Peace. It has to be succinct and properly structured.

2992 I think, by the way, the syntax of the message can be readily established and followed. So some of the broadcasters that are somewhat concerned about what the message might appear like and what is in there, I think the content as to where the message is for ‑‑ I don't think you are going to deliver a message for Mississauga to Vancouver for example and not have people notice that it really doesn't apply to Vancouver. You would put the name of the jurisdiction involved in the message. Certain things like that can be covered off.

2993 I do think, however, it is fair for the broadcasters to be concerned that the content of the message be accurate, because that can be very challenging particularly for a fast developing situation which, by the way, I don't think the media in consultation can be on the scene and consulted fast enough to deal with some of the hazmat scenarios, hazardous materials scenarios, that occasionally arise.

2994 I alluded to three that, as luck would have it, they were contained. Two of them were highly visible. They involved large explosions and fires and you get all kinds of inquiries on that basis, and people coming to the scene. Things get pretty complicated pretty quickly and sometimes the information available to emergency responders on the scene isn't very good information. It's not clear. Sometimes it's not clear that you might have wrong information.

2995 So it is fair to make the comment as was made, that the actual information given to the public be well considered and that it be accurate. You know, mistakes may get made. I think that's part of the game and you have to realize this is never going to be perfect because you could have the wrong content in there.

2996 What you want to guard against, I believe, is frivolous use of the system. The backed up sewer, I mean, that's wrong. Those sorts of things can be worked out. If this was easy it would have been done 50 years ago. It's not easy, but to say it's not easy doesn't mean it's impossible. These things can be worked out. The protocols can be put in place, the format can be arrived at.

2997 A lot of the work has already been done. Let's learn from the Alberta experience. Let's use that to make sure that those sorts of things don't happen, or that they happen as minimally as possible.

2998 MR. DUFFY: That may be a little longer answer than what you were looking for.

2999 COMMISSIONER del VAL: yes.

3000 MR. DUFFY: I wandered a little bit, but I think getting as much information in front of them when you have the opportunity is very important.

3001 COMMISSIONER del VAL: No, that's good because I wanted to ask that question.

3002 The broadcasters, you have heard, the panel before you had said that they should be the ones to decide on the content.

3003 I think I have heard Mr. Normand on this and your view is very clear on this issue already, so I would like to see if Colonel Gardner and Mr. Duffy would have anything to add to that view.

3004 MR. GARDNER: We have a very good relationship with our local media. In fact, when we interrupt programming it's only once or twice a year for something that's major, It's something that we can't wait. We can't wait to get the radio stations up and running or the local cable provider. We also page the media out. So we include them right from the start. But at first we want to get the message out, what the public needs to do, shelter in place.

3005 Then we always advise them to listen to the local radio stations and we give the radio call letters as well. We are not taking the job away from the broadcasters, we are directing the public where they can get their information from. So it's just an initial alert.

3006 Again, the radio and TV, and even other media from outside the community, are on pagers which we pay for and we notify them. At the same time I'm being notified they are getting the same message. So it is not an opportunity to hide anything. We want to get that message out there so we are sharing that information.

3007 We have been lucky, because we have media that will work with us. At times there are difficulties, but we need to get the correct information out then and at 2 o'clock in the morning, that's our only method of doing it.

3008 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Who do you think should have the final say? Do you think the broadcaster should be able to say ‑‑ if you hand them a message and say, "Look, this is urgent, it's got to get out, people are going to die", and they look at it and say "We haven't done our due diligence", who do you think should have the final say on whether such a message gets broadcasted.

3009 MR. NORMAND: I'm afraid that the experience has shown us that we can't rely on the media, particularly in places where the media is not located there on site.

3010 We have in Ontario 444 communities. Only maybe a dozen ‑‑ I don't know because I haven't done the count ‑‑ only a handful have actual media in their municipality. All the others rely on media that comes from somewhere else.

3011 Now, occasionally when there is sensationalism there they do show up on site, maybe the day or maybe a day after. Very rarely do they come in before when there is a warning aspect, so we can't rely on it. The responsibility is at the emergency managers level and we have taken this responsibility.

3012 I heard so much talk about liability. The emergency managers have already taken responsibility for so many things that we could held liable with. Just recently the Criminal Code was changed with Bill C‑45 to give more liability risk and actually criminal risk if we neglect to realize where the risk lies and neglect to do something about it.

3013 We are already in the business of liability risk. This is not something we are afraid of. We have taken that responsibility and we will face what comes with it. But we don't pretend that because of the fact that they are afraid of liability, because they have a very narrow focus, both geographically and in content, we don't think that the broadcasters should have the final say. It should be left up to the emergency managers.

3014 MR. DUFFY: Thanks. If I could just add a little bit to that?

3015 There has been some mention of risk, certainly from the coalition of broadcasters that were sitting here earlier, and also the gentleman from Rogers I think when he was asking for the CRTC or someone to give him some direction. That might help them strictly from a risk point of view. If they are required to do it, it is pretty tough to sue somebody for putting a message on that someone else told him to put up there and has jurisdiction to tell them that.

3016 So I think the risk of the broadcasters in some cases, given the power of the CRTC to regulate their activities, I think the risk could be constrained almost to zero.

3017 Again, whoever provides the content of the message, whether it is municipality or, in our case, Emergency Measures Ontario, Emergency Management Ontario or the emergency services, you know there is a big onus on them to try to get it right, and we are all well aware of that.

3018 The emergency management legislation allows for good faith decision‑making, and it also allows for the possibility that you might make mistakes because the process isn't perfect.

3019 I think once the viewership got used to the idea of this being a controlled process that the broadcasters or the cable company, or any other group that might get into this later, are really required to produce or provide the feed, provide that opportunity for the message to be relayed, that they will understand that someone else is responsible for putting an accurate and timely message on the screen and they are just doing their best to do it with the technical system that has been made available.

3020 Also, in regards to who makes up the message, I come back to that 5‑minute timeframe. When I did my initial talk I noted that there are all kinds of different emergencies that can crop up. You have your slow‑developing, long‑term events, it could be widespread, not widespread, but certainly in the fire suppression and hazardous materials business you see a lot of quickly developing situations that mostly get resolved, but you also see the potential in many cases for things that could happen if things had gone just a little bit differently.

3021 I think in those particular cases consulting with someone about the message almost becomes impossible because of the timeframe involved.

3022 Now, I would say again that the syntax of the message, how it is put together, that could be agreed to upfront, nationally, provincially, whatever. I'm sure that could be constructed very easily. Getting the content in there, I don't think you could leave that to the media. I understand their concerns, but I think that would be very difficult for very many, many events.

3023 As I said earlier also, the getting it accurate, whoever puts that together, that can be a very big challenge so they are right to be wary of the potential problems that could come from an inaccurate message, but I don't think it's their problems. After the public has been properly educated, it's our problem and we have to wear that as professionals.

3024 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I think in our applications CBC has also talked about their radio component, putting the signal out on radio.

3025 I'm not sure, I think at least Sarnia specifically mentioned support for only Pelmorex. I could be wrong, I'm sorry, one of these three.

3026 Do you support both or is it just Pelmorex who approached you or is there something ‑‑ did you mean to just pick one, or is there a reason why you're not also supporting CBC?

3027 MR. NORMAND: If I may, on my side I can say that we have had more communication with Pelmorex so we are more at ease in talking about that. We have been talking. Plus the fact that it already came and we knew about it the first time it was presented to the CRTC. We had examined it then, now we examined it again, so we are more at ease talking about it.

3028 However, one system does not preclude the other. We want to have as many tools in our back pockets as possible and if CBC comes up with a plan and a program we will work ‑‑ emergency managers are ready to work with any organization that has a plan.

3029 We know, as I think Cal said, we need to have a number of tools because not everybody is watching TV at the same time, not everybody is listening to radio, so we need ‑‑ and possibly we do need the sirens as well. We need as many ways as possible to reach people.

3030 MR. DUFFY: If I could just add to that?

3031 The Pelmorex proposal is here today. I realize there are some additional steps that must be taken with equipment and fine‑tuning and some of the processes that have been discussed here about who develops the message, and so on, but generally speaking that appears to be a relatively short and doable project where the decision that comes from this hearing, or any closely associated hearings, is kind of the gatekeeper.

3032 The CBC proposal seems to require quite a bit of money and other things and political decisions. You know what, if that happens I suppose that's great, but there is no guarantee that it's going to happen. If everything hinged on that, we would be back in the same boat I guess we were with this proposal. I wasn't involved the first time around, but 1999 or whenever it came forward, and where nothing has happened.

3033 As Alain mentioned, there are lots of different scenarios for trying to contact people, they are not even all at home. Some of our biggest issues are contacting people who aren't in the area. If you have a school lockdown, which that is a police issue and it may not be an emergency in Mississauga, but it might be an emergency in, I don't know, Hearst or Smiths Falls or something like that. It would certainly be viewed as a local emergency; they wouldn't necessarily declare an emergency.

3034 But those sorts of things can involve people who aren't at home, aren't in their car, aren't near a radio, aren't near television, don't have a computer, and you try to get everything. I suppose if we could get everybody to carry an AM radio, I mean if you are in the emergency services business that's nirvana, but most people don't wake up in the morning and worry about that sort of stuff.

3035 So we have to be realistic about everybody's focus in life. We are in this business so we think about that kind of stuff. But you want to get as many as you can, recognizing you are not going to get all of them.

3036 But the Pelmorex proposal is here today. A lot of wrinkles that have to be ironed out to make it work will help with any other proposals that come along, but those other proposals aren't very well developed yet, or don't seem to be from our point of view ‑‑ from my point of view. I can't speak for the others.

3037 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Thank you for your time.

3038 Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.

3039 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Pennefather...?

3040 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3041 I would like to first of all welcome you all, welcome you and, Mr. Duffy, welcome. I must say, though, I miss not meeting the major.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

3042 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: No disrespect, but would you please give her our best. She is quite a model in this country for women caring for their community for as long as she has.

3043 I wanted to get back to your point about the text and making sure that it's as correct as possible, and then to Monsieur Normand saying "We would like as many tools as we could to get the message to as many people as possible."

3044 How do we keep consistency? So if the protocols are created ‑‑ we have talked a lot about the CANALERT guidelines. In your view, are those the guidelines which would be applicable in this case that would satisfy the various emergency organizations?

3045 I want to be clear about this, because the more we talk the more I want to understand from your point of view. You must have your own protocols to what happens when, what emergencies cause what locally.

3046 When you issue an alert that you want to go to these television systems via, let's say, a Pelmorex or a CBC proposal, how does that message then get back onto the television screens in a way that is consistent?

3047 Who sets the guidelines for the text, the format, et cetera?

3048 We have been assuming that the organization nationally, since this is a national alerting system, would use the CANALERT guidelines s they are currently drafted or something similar.

3049 Could you just help me with that?

3050 MR. NORMAND: Yes. Certainly we are very much in favour of the CANALERT and moving it forward and refining it and coming up with very defined standards as to what messages can contain, how they process, the levels of messaging that can be used. So, yes.

3051 And we have been working with CANALERT on various aspects ‑‑ a lot of our members, not me directly, but some of the members participate ‑‑ and we see that as the first part.

3052 But we have always, in a certain sense, taken that step already at the municipal level by first having that one conduit, which is the emergency manager certainly in Ontario, the designated person who is already there and that is the person that has the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the message, to make sure it is transmitted.

3053 Where we run into problems is that when we hand it over to the broadcaster the message may take a different format because it is not following those same standards.

3054 I'm not saying right now we are all emergency managers following that same standard. When CANALERT comes up with more detail we certainly will adopt them and work with them and train some of our people as well to use them.

3055 But our problem is not the defining of the message, the problem is once it's out of our hands we have absolutely no control over it, and that is what we say we need to change.

3056 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Part of the concern has been from various angles that once it is out of your ‑‑ ships off to a third party, be that the cable directly as Rogers was discussing, or ExpressVu, or a third party as in the Pelmorex proposal or the CBC, that it remains consistent to what you put forward. If it arrives at that point and there is another set of protocol or guidelines which would change it and it arrives back in your community not the way you sent it, you are assured that that circle will be complete and accurate through your system?

3057 MR. NORMAND: Right. Which is why we think that the provider, the system that actually puts the information out follows the same protocols as we do, which was why we wanted to adopt the CANALERT system, because we think the provider, the broadcaster at the other end, the cable companies, Pelmorex, they will all follow the same standards. So we are pretty reassured that once we hand it over it will remain the same message all the way to the citizen who then certainly gets it.

3058 The other aspect that we haven't maybe talked about is that even though we want to have as much information as possible on the screen, we do have also systems where our citizens can then confirm the message.

3059 As part of our emergency plans we have an information plan which requires us now in Ontario to have a public inquiry aspect.

3060 So we have to have, during an emergency, a call centre or a central line where people can call in to get information, to get more details. We will never have enough details on the screen to be able to tell you exactly what you have to do in every situation.

3061 Certainly we look at some of the things in the SARS and the instructions of what you should be doing were pretty long. There was a long list of dos and don'ts. We don't pretend that that is going to all appear on the screen.

3062 However, if citizens have a way to go back, we already have the systems in place to provide the additional information, whether it be on websites or through call centres or special information lines.

3063 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: What do you have for the visually impaired and hearing impaired?

3064 MR. NORMAND: Not all of them, but a lot of municipalities already have access through the ATT hearing impaired ‑‑ correct me ‑‑ the ATT system. We are already connected to those. We have systems, the access through the Internet.

3065 We also have systems actually for other languages where we have access to translation services that if we do get requirement through our call centres ‑‑ not every municipality, but a lot of them, and as we grow this is going to become more and more frequent, but we have these systems already in place to be able to take care of those communities.

3066 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: In addition to your system I believe the proposal in front of us has proposed that for the visually impaired they would hear a message. Again, the text and what is contained ex‑event plus as much information as is reasonable to put in to say "Here is what you should do." One of those "Here is what you should do" is call a 1‑800 number specifically for the purpose of giving more information to those who could not see.

3067 My question yesterday was: What assurance would we have that you at your end would be able to respond, or who would respond so there would be a connection there, so that 1‑800 call wasn't going not to you but to someone else?

3068 Do you want to comment on that?

3069 MR. NORMAND: Certainly, as I said, a lot of the municipalities right now would be able to respond. We already have 1‑800 lines or local information lines that would be picked up right away for that exact purpose.

3070 However, I know that at the province there is also capacity to support municipalities that don't have these kinds of resources through the provincial Emergency Operation Centre.

3071 Kashechewan for example is certainly a situation where the municipality itself was unable to cope and needed the province to step in and the province took a very major role in helping with that evacuation.

3072 So in other similar situations the province is there. The responsibility of the province is well laid out in legislation that they are to come in. Where a municipality determines that they are unable to cope with their existing resources the province steps in and takes over at least some of the functions. One of the functions is that they already have centralized lines for the province.

3073 It would be not much of a stretch to be able to transfer. We already transmit information about our emergencies in our municipalities to the province. It is a requirement that as soon as we have an emergency in our community we need to advise the province of what the emergency is and what we are doing about it.

3074 So that information would be available at the province and people would be able to hook up through the province in this way. So I don't see it as a major stretch.

3075 MR. DUFFY: I'm sorry, if I could just maybe add a little bit to that.

3076 I might suggest that in that particular area any language that was to be considered would be somewhat general because you can't get ‑‑ a federal body like the CRTC now, you are working in an area that involves provincial jurisdiction, some municipal jurisdiction, and so on, and I think that it would he difficult to make the legislation fit all the permutations, combinations, and so forth, of what is out there.

3077 If the language is inherently detailed, and we will talk directly about a 1‑800 number of whatever else, I mean in general terms we are already required to provide reasonable access to government service for people with an assortment of challenges and I'm sure that this could be legislated in such a way that all those things be taken into account, whether you are talking about people who are visually impaired, hearing impaired, unable to read/write English, I don't know. There are a variety of things.

3078 But I think you would have to make sure that it is dealt with in the preamble or wherever else, but it would be difficult I think to put requirements in about technical solutions that, as Alain pointed out, might not be readily delivered.

3079 In the 9‑1‑1 world we have this wireless location technology, but you have municipalities that aren't able to deliver. Particularly in the United States, which seems to be a couple of years ahead of us on that, the legislation was written so that the phone company delivered something only if the local emergency services delivered something and it became a chicken and egg problem. So in this case I think you would want to make the language quite general.

3080 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: My point wasn't that we would directly say, but the proposal has been made to us that the service would provide this 1‑800 number, so I'm trying to see at the other side how realistic a solution that would be, assuming that all your systems are in place.

3081 One final question on the public education side.

3082 If such a national alerting system came into play in addition to what normally happens in you communities, 9‑1‑1 through to calling into the emergency service, all the other things that usually happen, what are the key features of a public education process to tell people what this national alert system is all about and how it fits with your operations in the case of emergency?

3083 Any comments on public education?

3084 MR. GARDNER: We do a number of public education events. Emergency Preparedness Week is one where we provide information to the local population. We go to the school boards as well, so all the schools are notified about public alerting, what they should do, requirements, 72‑hour kits.

3085 The Red Cross is involved with that, the Salvation Army is involved with that as well. The CAER Organization, which is Community Awareness and Emergency Response Organizations. So we do a lot of that. Welcome Wagon. There are pamphlets that go into all the Welcome Wagon.

3086 Also we are mandated too by the Emergency Management Act in Ontario to provide a public educational program to the community. So we provide that. Also, on our website there is information on "How will I be alerted? What should I do in a chemical release warning", and so forth. We also have links to the federal different organizations as well, and to provincial organizations, so they get information from there as well.

3087 That is pretty much throughout Ontario I believe now, because we are audited on it each year.

3088 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay. Thank you.

3089 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gardner, I will have a few questions for you.

3090 In your presentation you mentioned that you have three local radio stations and you are capable of interrupting their programming to have a warning message.

3091 So you go directly without telling the stations that you are going to broadcast a message, or how does it work?

3092 MR. GARDNER: We have a network. All the plants are on one radio, the hospital, ourselves, we can talk to each plant individually or all at one time. So when there is an issue that occurs, we provide that information to the public. We have an agreement with the local radio stations whereby after hours if there is no one there we have one number that contacts ‑‑ it's their hotline we call it, it calls all the radio stations at one time. If they are not there, then we access the radio system.

3093 But at the same time we are doing that, we have their pagers, we have their cell numbers, we have their home numbers. If phone lines go down we will actually send cruisers to their residential addresses to pick them up to get them to the radio stations if we require them. We do that automatically.

3094 As soon as we interrupt any radio or TV program, we announce who is doing it, what the issue is ‑‑ it is a very brief message ‑‑ we tell the population what they need to do and then we advise them to continue to listen radio Sarnia Lambton for further information. Once Sarnia Lambton is in place they continue to do broadcasting.

3095 We have a direct line with our radio stations, both in our EOC and our 9‑1‑1 system. So once they are in operation there, if there is a story that they hear they can confirm that is the actual information.

3096 For example, we had a caller call into the radio station and they said two of the plants were evacuating. Radio Sarnia Lambton was able to call 9‑1‑1 directly, find out that it was just a shift change, during an emergency, but someone went by, saw all the cars leaving two of the plant, and automatically assumed that it was an evacuation.

3097 In other locations that might have gone on the air and then panicked the public. Then they call 9‑1‑1, then it hampers the system of 9‑1‑1. So we want to avoid those issues and that's why we have been able to do it.

3098 The media is also welcome in our EOC, which we are probably really different in allowing that, but they are our partners in it. But at the first time we need to be able to do it under a 10‑minute timeframe, and you can't get people to a radio stations, and also satellite feeds.

3099 THE CHAIRPERSON: Regarding the Cogeco Cable, you say on most of their local Cogeco ‑‑ you mean on the community channel, the barker channel, or do you mean on all the signals that they are carrying?

3100 MR. GARDNER: Currently what we do is, we test the cable the first Monday of the month at 12:30. All municipal centres and industrial centres are sent out at the same time. We have an agreement with Cogeco. At this time the message goes from our 9‑1‑1 centre, our EOC operations centre, to the local Cogeco office. Some of those ‑‑ we interrupt the programming that originates from the local area, so it's approximately 40 out of the 60 channels.

3101 So there are 20 channels that we aren't able to interrupt any more. Some of those channels come directly from the Toronto area or the Burlington area. CTV is one channel that we can't do interruptions.

3102 That's why I'm here today is that we do have a great system, but little by little we are losing channels. I would like to see a standard created where that if someone moves from Toronto or out west, they come to Sarnia, that TV message is the same message, we don't have to re‑educate them on that.

3103 Also, the availability of doing all channels, because we are losing them, and more and more people are going to satellite feed as well.

3104 You know, it's a good system, but we need to get on board.

3105 THE CHAIRPERSON: Efficient.

3106 MR. GARDNER: Yes.

3107 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Gardner.

3108 MR. GARDNER: Thank you.

3109 THE CHAIRPERSON: Legal counsel has a question for you.

3110 MR. McCALLUM: Just one small thing. In Sarnia you interrupted you said, I think, just like twice in the last year. The previous group said that in Alberta there are about 1,000 authorized users that can interrupt the system in Alberta.

3111 I just wondered if you had any thoughts on the definition of "emergency"? What would be the appropriate things for the Commission to think about in terms of emergency? Should it be emergencies of an imminent nature or present an imminent threat to public safety?

3112 What should the Commission consider to ensure that the number of interruptions are the small number rather than too large a number.

3113 MR. GARDNER: We base it on life‑threatening or the potential to be life‑threatening. To me that seems the only reason, the only cause to do it. If there is any other reason to do a public announcement, then that is what the media is there for, to provide the information and give them the phone numbers where they can get that information from. So we tried to limit it to that.

3114 Also, we are only interrupting the local area, whereas the Alberta system, my understanding is, is interrupting a huge area. So it could be a population of 28,000, but when they do it they could be interrupting over a million viewers. Sometimes that's overkill and I think that can get you into more trouble than the way we do it which is interrupting local area.

3115 That's why I think the ‑‑ I mean, there might be other situations out there, but the Pelmorex system will localize that, and that meets our needs as well.

3116 MR. McCALLUM: Where does your own definition come from? How did you come up with that definition?

3117 MR. GARDNER: We were just doing this for 20 years and we have been in emergency planning for 50 years, so it just seemed commonsense that ‑‑

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

3118 MR. NORMAND: If I can add also, the province of Ontario does have a definition of what an emergency manager is ‑‑ an emergency is, and is very clear that it is a danger or an imminent danger that would require resources beyond normal resources which are assigned to be ‑‑ I don't have the exact wording, but go beyond the normal ‑‑ because of its magnitude, beyond the normal day‑to‑day operations of existing resources of the community.

3119 That is the basic. Again, it does apply to property as well, but for the purpose of public alerting we are restricting it to health and safety and preservation of life

3120 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you.

3121 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3122 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Normand, Mr.Duffy, Mr. Gardner, thank you very much.

3123 MR. GARDNER: Thank you.

3124 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take a 10‑minute break, so we will be back at 20 to 4 o'clock.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1527 / Suspension à 1527

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1547 / Reprise à 1547

3125 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please. À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

3126 Madame la Secrétaire.

3127 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

3128 J'inviterais maintenant le prochain intervenant, qui est Québécor Média, messieurs Édouard Trépanier, Claude Sauvé et Daniel Proulx, à faire leur présentation. Vous avez 10 minutes pour le faire. Merci.

3129 M. TRÉPANIER : Merci.

INTERVENTION

3130 M. TRÉPANIER : Monsieur le Président du Comité d'audition et Vice‑Président du Conseil, mesdames les conseillères, membres du personnel, mon nom est Édouard Trépanier. Je suis Vice‑Président, Affaire réglementaires, Québécor Média.

3131 M'accompagnent aujourd'hui, à ma gauche, monsieur Daniel Proulx, Vice‑Président, Principal ingénieur, Ingénierie; et à ma droite, Claude Sauvé, Vice‑Président, Programmation Tous Deux de Vidéotron.

3132 Nous sommes heureux d'être ici aujourd'hui afin de contribuer aux délibérations entourant les demandes de service d'alerte multi‑canale.

3133 Claude.

3134 M. SAUVÉ : Merci, Édouard.

3135 Chez Vidéotron, nous considérons que l'offre au public d'un service normalisé d'alerte multi‑canale fait naturellement partie de notre stratégie multi‑service. Nous offrons des services de divertissement, des services d'information, des services de communication, et nous croyons que la sécurité complète vient au forfait.

3136 Nous avons examiné les demandes à l'étude, et nous avons conclu que, avec la connaissance du marché dont nous disposons aujourd'hui, le service d'alerte pour retransmission en mode analogique est trop coûteux.

3137 En outre, sa granularité est insuffisante pour offrir un service pertinent.

3138 Enfin, l'ajout de nombreuses composantes à une architecture déjà trop complexe et d'un équilibre délicat constitue un véritable risque technologique.

3139 Par ailleurs, l'accélération récente du déploiement de la distribution numérique nous porte à croire que, à la fin de 2007, la majorité de notre clientèle utilisera la technologie numérique.

3140 Compte tenu du temps requis pour le processus décisionnel, pour la planification de déploiement national, pour la mise en oeuvre du système, et pour la période de test pratique, nous sommes convaincus qu'au moment où le service d'alerte sera lancé, la technologie analogique basculera vers le déclin.

3141 En effet, toutes ces étapes pourraient facilement prendre plus de deux ans, ce qui nous amènerait vers la fin de 2008 ou le début de 2009.

3142 Dès l'an prochain, les terminaux de normes ouvertes dites OCAP, ou open cable protocol, seront disponibles chez les détaillants d'appareils électroniques. Les téléviseurs munis d'une carte OCAP sont déjà dans les magasins, et les téléviseurs avec mémoire intégrée pour recevoir les algorithmes d'accès téléchargeables sont à 18 mois de la vente au détail.

3143 Nos prévisions sont donc à l'effet qu'en 2008 ou en 2009, nous arriverons au seuil critique où nous devrons décider si nous maintenons la technologie analogique pour une minorité dite réductible.

3144 Dans ce contexte, il nous semble inapproprié que le Conseil impose la distribution d'un service d'alerte multi‑canale pour retransmission analogique, et ce, peu importe qui en assume les frais, car l'utilisation d'un tel service analogique serait éphémère et les investissements requis pour l'installer perdus.

3145 Quant au service d'alerte pour retransmission numérique, notre premier choix, c'est clairement que le Conseil ne nous l'impose pas. Mais il faut être réaliste.

3146 Comment penser que les organismes veillant à la sécurité des Canadiens puissent appuyer leur action sur un service d'alerte si ce service est disponible dans certains cas et ne l'est pas dans d'autres, selon le gré d'entreprises privés de distribution?

3147 Daniel.

3148 M. PROULX: Merci, Claude.

3149 Dans le cadre d'un projet d'offre d'un service normalisé d'alerte multi‑canale, nous reconnaissons le besoin de mettre en place un tel système pour la sécurité publique, et nous avons choisi d'appuyer Pelmorex dans sa démarche qui vise à déterminer une architecture viable pour les opérateurs de réseau.

3150 Par le passé, nous avons déployé des systèmes de diffusion ciblés en collaboration avec cette requérante, et cette dernière a été sensible aux enjeux technologiques rencontrés lors de la mise en place.

3151 Pelmorex se dit encore prêt à travailler avec les distributeurs et à jouer le rôle d'aggrégateur avec un ensemble d'organismes publics qui sont souvent moins bien coordonnés que nous le souhaitons.

3152 En numérique, nous envisageons collaborer avec Pelmorex à la détermination de l'architecture technologique la plus appropriée pour la mise sur pied d'un réseau d'alerte nationale.

3153 Lorsqu'il s'agit de la tête de ligne ou le coeur de notre réseau, nous sommes d'avis que chaque opérateur de réseau doit demeurer responsable de déterminer la meilleure façon d'intégrer un service de ce type à son architecture, au système de contrôle, ainsi qu'aux applications logicielles des terminaux numériques.

3154 Alors que Pelmorex, grâce à son expérience acquise avec l'offre de services ciblés des prévisions météorologiques, s'engage à jouer un rôle d'intégrateur/collaborateur, les autres requérantes ne veulent pas s'en mêler et ne s'intéressent pas aux coûts afférents.

3155 Le plan d'affaires de Pelmorex le démontre, les coûts ne sont pas négligeables. Nous pensons que, comme grande nation démocratique, le Canada devrait en assumer le fardeau financier, mais afin de faire avancer le dossier d'un système d'alerte nationale, Pelmorex a consenti à prendre un risque financier et à nous refiler la facture, ainsi qu'à nos clients.

3156 Si le Conseil a le pouvoir de convaincre les organismes publics responsables de la sécurité des Canadiens de réviser leur position et d'assumer les coûts, nous l'encourageons à le faire et à insister sur un principe voulant que, à moins que le Parlement en ait décidé ainsi, il n'est pas convenable de compter sur des entreprises privées pour défrayer des services publics.

3157 Édouard.

3158 M. TRÉPANIER : Alors, ce n'est pas de gaieté de coeur que Vidéotron appuie cette requérante, mais bien afin de contribuer à faire avancer un dossier que nous reconnaissons être d'une grande importance.

3159 C'est en tenant compte de ces circonstances que nous demandons au Conseil, s'il juge à propos de mettre en place un service alerte multi‑canale, d'approuver la proposition de Pelmorex pour retransmission en numérique seulement; d'autoriser la retransmission des services d'alerte en mode analogique sur une base volontaire; d'inscrire dans l'ordonnance de distribution et/ou dans le Règlement que ni l'entreprise de distribution de radiodiffusion, ni la chaîne dont la programmation est altérée ne sont responsables du contenu diffusé par un message d'alerte ou du bon fonctionnement de l'alerte; de s'assurer que seuls les frais de mise en oeuvre et d'exploitation soient compris dans la facture à refiler au public, selon une comptabilité supervisée; d'encadrer la définition d'alerte de façon à n'y inclure que les nouveaux messages d'alerte qui menacent les personnes; de définir de façon limitative les organismes publics déclencheurs autorisés d'alerte; et enfin, de rendre la requérante imputable devant le Conseil au cas où le public serait d'avis qu'il y a abus d'utilisation.

3160 Mesdames, Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie de l'attention portée à notre présentation. Nous sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.

3161 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Trépanier. Merci, messieurs Sauvé et Proulx.

3162 Si je comprends bien, en utilisant votre conclusion à la page 8, essentiellement, ce que vous nous dites, c'est que... bon, vous nous demandez un certain nombre de choses, dont une a fait l'objet de discussion avec plusieurs des intervenants. C'est l'identification des organismes publics déclencheurs autorisés d'alerte.

3163 Plusieurs ont suggéré que la définition qu'en donne CANALERT était une définition qui leur était acceptable. Avez‑vous des commentaires à ce sujet‑là?

3164 M. TRÉPANIER : Pas de commentaire additionnel au fait que CANALERT est un organisme public certainement apte à déterminer quels sont les organismes qui seraient autorisés à diffuser des alertes, et en ce sens, nous croyons que Pelmorex a fait le travail nécessaire d'aggrégateur pour s'assurer qu'il n'y aurait pas utilisation frivole d'alerte.

3165 LE PRÉSIDENT : D'accord. Mais si je prends la définition, effectivement, de * authorized user + dans le document de CANALERT ‑‑ malheureusement, je ne l'ai pas en français avec moi ‑‑ mais on peut quand même croire que c'est limitatif, mais c'est limitatif à un grand nombre d'intervenants.

3166 M. TRÉPANIER : Peut‑être je me répète, mais effectivement, c'est ce travail de relation avec ce grand nombre d'intervenants qui devient important et certainement qui demande beaucoup de temps pour arriver à tenir compte des besoins de l'industrie de la radiodiffusion et de la distribution.

3167 Si, par exemple, il y avait 1 000 intervenants au Canada, ça deviendrait ingérables, et c'est pour ça que ça prend un intermédiaire, nous pensons, entre Vidéotron et les organismes publics aptes à produire des alertes.

3168 LE PRÉSIDENT : On a entendu aujourd'hui qu'il y avait en Alberta 1 000 intervenants. Donc, au Canada, il y en aurait, à ce compte‑là, 10 000, 12 000.

3169 Bien, limitons ça au territoire qui est desservi par Vidéotron, parce qu'on voit bien... on a vu aujourd'hui des représentants des corps de la sécurité publique, on a vu des gens des corps policiers, des corps de pompiers, et tous ont des pouvoirs ‑‑ du moins, c'est ce qu'ils nous ont dit ‑‑ de déclencher des alertes, des alertes très localisées.

3170 Évidemment, le chef des pompiers de Mississauga ne parlait pas de déclencher des alertes à Toronto, il parlait de déclencher des alertes à Mississauga. Mais malgré tout, c'est un nombre important d'intervenants, et tous disaient que, dans leur propre municipalité, dans leur propre région, ils n'étaient pas les seuls à avoir ce pouvoir‑là, c'était un pouvoir... bien, premièrement, c'est un pouvoir 24 heures par jour, sept jours par semaine. Donc, on parle de nombreux intervenants.

3171 Je comprends que Pelmorex veut jouer le rôle d'interface dans tout ce monde‑là, mais vous, vous nous dites d'en limiter le nombre. Et je comprends aussi qu'il n'y a pas des interventions continues‑là, il n'y a pas des événements... une chance, on n'a pas des événements de manière continue, et j'espère qu'on n'en aura jamais de manière continue.

3172 Mais c'est quand même beaucoup de personnes qui sont impliquées dans l'émission de la commande.

3173 M. SAUVÉ : Je pense qu'un élément important, c'est, si on veut que ça soit efficace, ça va prendre, effectivement, des normes nationales, ça va prendre un contrôle national à quelque part pour voir qui peut déclencher des alertes.

3174 Je peux comprendre, effectivement, qu'il y a différentes personnes, différents groupes, mais le danger qui nous guette avec ça, c'est de se ramasser avec un service... vous connaissez sûrement la contine Pierre et le loup là ‑‑ je ne sais pas si c'est Pierre ‑‑

3175 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui.

3176 M. SAUVÉ : ‑‑ mais l'enfant qui criait, au loup, au loup, au loup, puis un moment donné, la vraie fois que le loup est arrivé, les gens ne réagissaient plus.

3177 Donc, je pense que le danger est réel à ce moment‑là. C'est pour ça qu'on pense que le nombre d'intervenants doit être contrôlé.

3178 Ceci dit, moi, je pense que... je dis moi, Vidéotron, on n'a pas le goût d'aller négocier avec chacun de ces intervenants‑là pour voir si c'est justifié dans leur cas à eux qu'ils puissent déclencher une alerte, et je pense que ça, c'est les normes nationales qui vont permettre de définir qui devrait l'être.

3179 Mais on pense que c'est important de garder un système qui va être utilisé seulement dans les recours vraiment importants.

3180 LE PRÉSIDENT : Et c'est pour ça que vous appuyez le projet de Pelmorex, parce que ça vous évite à vous d'avoir à filtrer chacune des interventions?

3181 M. TRÉPANIER : Effectivement, et en plus, il s'agit d'une titulaire de licence assujettie au Conseil, ce qui nous donne l'occasion s'il y avait abus d'intervenir auprès du Conseil pour essayer de trouver une façon que le Conseil, par exemple, demande à Pelmorex, si on ne peut pas s'entendre, de trouver une façon d'ajuster le système pour que les alertes soient vraiment prises au sérieux partout au pays.

3182 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, ça évite... effectivement, ce que vous dites, c'est que Pelmorex étant déjà une titulaire et ayant déjà, donc, une expérience avec le Conseil, et vous aussi, il y a un mariage qui est plus facile qu'avec un tiers indépendant qui naîtrait d'une volonté de gérer des systèmes d'alerte?

3183 M. TRÉPANIER : Tout à fait, et qui serait probablement peu préoccupé d'intervenir un nombre de fois exagéré et d'interrompre la programmation d'entreprises de programmation qui sont généralement responsables de leur contenu.

3184 LE PRÉSIDENT : Maintenant, vous dites aussi dans certaines conclusions que les messages d'alerte qui seraient diffusées, c'est des messages d'alerte qui ne concernent que les personnes.

3185 Or, on a bien entendu que... dans certains cas, on a parlé aussi d'alertes qui concernent aussi la propriété ou des dommages aux biens. Une tornade, ça peut, effectivement, affecté des personnes, mais ça peut aussi être extrêmement dommageable à des biens matériels.

3186 C'est sûr que si on fait un message pour une tornade, je présume qu'on peut... la tornade elle‑même, elle est, effectivement, un danger pour les deux dans ce cas‑là.

3187 J'essaie de penser à une situation d'urgence qui serait uniquement spécifique aux biens là. J'en ai pas qui me viennent à l'esprit. Mais pour vous, c'est clair dans votre esprit que c'est limité à des menaces à la vie de personnes?

3188 M. TRÉPANIER : C'est bien notre intention que ce soit limité à des menaces à la vie ou à l'intégrité de la personne, et ce n'est sûrement pas facile de tirer la ligne exactement au bon endroit.

3189 Dans la présentation de Pelmorex, il y avait, par exemple, tempête de neige au Québec, et nous, on s'est consulté et on s'est dit, bien, au Québec, on est habitué à des tempêtes de neige, et pour nous, ce ne serait pas suffisamment important.

3190 Maintenant, si on parle de vents de 160 kilomètres/heure, peut‑être que là, c'est autre chose. Alors, il y a une question de jugement, et on s'en remet aux experts.

3191 LE PRÉSIDENT : Vous nous parlez aussi d'inscrire dans une décision du Conseil ou une ordonnance dans un Règlement que ni l'entreprise de distribution de radiodiffusion, ni la chaîne de programmation ne sont responsables des contenus...

3192 Avez‑vous pensé à un libellé pour une modification réglementaire?

3193 M. TRÉPANIER : Non, Monsieur le Président. On n'a pas fait l'analyse réglementaire, à savoir quelle serait la meilleure façon d'arriver aux objectifs...

3194 LE PRÉSIDENT : Que vous souhaitez?

3195 M. TRÉPANIER : Oui, c'est ça. Exactement.

3196 Avec monsieur McCallum à bord, je suis convaincu qu'il va vous faire des suggestions de grande qualité.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3197 LE PRÉSIDENT : Mais il va peut‑être revenir avec un question à la fin.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3198 LE PRÉSIDENT : Elle est déjà prête.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3199 LE PRÉSIDENT : Je comprends votre argument concernant la distribution en mode analogique à l'effet que, bon, la technologie change tellement rapidement que vous prévoyez que l'ère du numérique est tellement près.

3200 Mais est‑ce que vous serez réellement dans l'ère du numérique à travers tout votre territoire pour les dates que vous avez mentionnées?

3201 M. TRÉPANIER : Je vais demander à mon collègue Claude de commenter sur l'aspect de l'accélération et du fait que la clientèle recevra la numérique à partir d'un certain moment, et à mon collègue Daniel de commenter peut‑être sur les développements technologiques.

3202 Quant au nombre de clients de Vidéotron qui ne sont pas ou qui ne seront pas dans les, je dirais, deux ou trois prochains mois, ne seront pas... n'auront pas accès au numérique, on parle de peut‑être 25 000 clients sur 1.4, 1.5 millions. On parle de zones très éloignées qui sont de tous petits réseaux.

3203 Alors, en terme de proportion, je pense que c'est... je ne dirais pas négligeable, mais c'est quand même une toute petite proportion.

3204 LE PRÉSIDENT : Mais c'est peut‑être eux qui ont besoin d'être avisés d'un événement cet après‑midi?

3205 M. TRÉPANIER : Peut‑être, mais je vous soumets que si je demeure à Chapais ou à Chibougamau et il se passe quelque chose de bien important, je vais aussi l'apprendre rapidement, parce que tout le monde va être sur le perron.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3206 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui.

3207 M. SAUVÉ : Puis le risque d'acte de terrorisme lorsqu'on est là est peut‑être plus mince aussi.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3208 LE PRÉSIDENT : Non, mais... enfin, les probabilités d'une tornade à Chapais sans doute aussi.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3209 LE PRÉSIDENT : Mais émettons l'hypothèse d'une tornade, c'est sûr que tout le monde va être sur le perron, et il restera rien que des perrons.

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3210 M. SAUVÉ : Possiblement.

3211 Pour reprendre le point, effectivement, au niveau de la distribution numérique, on est en période rapide de croissance.

3212 L'année passée, on a fait plus de 135 000 de croissance de clients numériques, et on est rendu maintenant à.... bien, au 31 décembre, on était à près de 500 000 clients. On parle, donc, d'une croissance qui a vraiment accéléré, où vraiment, il y a un engouement pour le service numérique.

3213 Récemment, il y a eu des chaînes numériques francophones, qui n'étaient pas disponibles auparavant, qui ont vu le jour. La distribution numérique à haute définition prend de plus en plus d'ampleur.

3214 On prévoit rajouter encore six services, et l'ensemble de ces services‑là, on pense, vont amener de plus en plus nos clients, même les irréductibles qui avaient peut‑être des fois juste la base analogique, on pense que pour ces attraits‑là, ne serait‑ce que pour la haute définition, on va voir encore s'accélérer ce transfert‑là.

3215 On est même surpris de l'engouement puis de la vitesse auquel ça va. Donc, on est pas mal certain que vers 2008‑2009 on aura des décisions importantes à prendre dans ce sens‑là.

3216 LE PRÉSIDENT : Avant peut‑être que monsieur Proulx...

3217 Ça, c'est 500 000 abonnés qui ont, aujourd'hui, un terminal Illico, qu'il soit acheté, qu'il soit avec un PVR, qu'il soit... le terminal de base là?

3218 M. SAUVÉ : Oui.

3219 LE PRÉSIDENT : C'est de ça dont on parle?

3220 M. SAUVÉ : Oui. On parle... je ne vous parle pas de terminaux, parce que si je vous parlais de terminaux numériques, ça serait encore plus que ça. Il y en a plusieurs par foyer même.

3221 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, vous parlez de 500 000 foyers qui sont passés au numérique, et il peut y avoir plus qu'un terminal...

3222 M. SAUVÉ : Oui.

3223 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...numérique par foyer?

3224 M. TRÉPANIER : En fait, sans divulguer des choses qui n'ont pas été divulguées, je dirais qu'on est entre 35 et 40 pour cent de nos clients qui reçoivent la distribution numérique, et je ferais remarquer que les autres grands distributeurs au Canada sont davantage avancés que Vidéotron.

3225 M. PROULX : Notre préférence pour le numérique, c'est surtout au niveau de la granularité.

3226 Quand on parle de distribuer des messages d'alerte, puis qu'on veut cibler de façon précise à qui s'adresse ce message‑là, de façon à ce que le message soit pertinent, c'est qu'on préfère avoir un système numérique qui nous permet de cibler quels abonnés vont avoir le message.

3227 LE PRÉSIDENT : C'est parce que j'avais ça comme question pour bien comprendre la notion de granularité. Ce que vous dites, c'est finalement, c'est une zone extrêmement bien définie, donc, qui peut être adressable pour à qui envoyer, de manière très restreinte, le message d'alerte, parce que ça vous concerne.

3228 Ce matin, on a entendu le chef de la sécurité publique de l'Ontario qui nous parlait... parce que, au Québec, quand même, on a une usine nucléaire, mais probablement pas dans votre territoire. Mais lui, il disait qu'elle n'est pas loin dans votre territoire. Elle est dans votre territoire?

3229 M. TRÉPANIER : Non. Non, tout près.

3230 LE PRÉSIDENT : Elle est tout près, Bécancour. Mais il disait qu'ils avaient des règles, effectivement, pour rejoindre les résidants à trois kilomètres autour de cet emplacement‑là.

3231 Quand vous me parlez de granularité, c'est exactement ce que vous... c'est le même concept, c'est‑à‑dire on est capable de définir de manière très restreinte les populations qui demeurent autour de centres qui nécessitent davantage d'interventions de sécurité.

3232 On peut penser à Montréal est avec ses raffineries. Donc, évidement, c'est un secteur où il y a plus de danger, je suppose, que sur le sommet du Mont‑Royal.

3233 Donc, la granularité, c'est...

3234 M. PROULX : C'est exactement ça. C'est qu'on peut cibler à peu près... avec la technologie actuelle, les gens me disent à peu près 6 000 portes qui seraient visées par une alerte, un avis d'alerte.

3235 Puis si on avait besoin, avec les modifications logicielles, on pourrait certainement raffiner encore plus cette granularité‑là.

3236 LE PRÉSIDENT : Parce que c'est uniquement du logiciel, donc, ce n'est pas de l'équipement?

3237 M. PROULX : C'est du logiciel.

3238 LE PRÉSIDENT : C'est du logiciel.

3239 Monsieur Trépanier nous a dit tantôt qu'il restait encore 25 000 abonnés qui seraient dans des zones uniquement de type analogique.

3240 Par 2008‑2009, est‑ce que ces territoires‑là seront devenus aussi des territoires où la technologie numérique sera implantée, ou ça demeurera encore des territoires à service analogique, et si c'est le cas, quels seraient les coûts qui seraient reliés à offrir un service de sécurité dans ces territoires‑là?

3241 M. PROULX : Ce sont des très petits territoires. Fort possiblement qu'on pourrait desservir ces régions‑là avec une granularité suffisante pour que le service soit pertinent.

3242 Puis les coûts, dépendant de la solution technologique, ça pourrait coûter... c'est difficile à donner un chiffre parce que ce sont toutes des petites pochettes réellement petites, puis il va falloir faire une grille pour chacune de ces pochettes‑là, mais certainement que si on n'est pas numérique, on trouvera une solution pour que ces gens‑là soient alertés.

3243 LE PRÉSIDENT : Parce que, effectivement, ils pourraient tous recevoir le même message parce qu'ils sont tous dans un territoire bien défini?

3244 M. PROULX : Bien défini et souvent très petit.

3245 M. TRÉPANIER : Et souvent, étant des régions éloignés, ils ont une ou parfois deux stations de radio que, évidemment, tout le monde écoute parce que c'est difficile de recevoir autre chose.

3246 Mais j'aimerais vous rappeler que dans notre intervention écrite, on a fait remarquer que si on décidait... et on pense que c'est le genre de décision qu'on devra prendre en 2009, peut‑être même en 2008.

3247 Si Vidéotron décidait de poursuivre la service analogique pour une clientèle qui ne veut pas changer de téléviseur ou avoir un terminal, une fameuse boîte noire, dans sa maison, à ce moment‑là, on est ouvert à trouver des solutions analogiques, excepté que le risque aujourd'hui, que l'on croit véritable, c'est que l'on décide de se retirer complètement de l'analogique, sauf dans des petits réseaux très éloignés.

3248 LE PRÉSIDENT : Ne croyez‑vous pas qu'il y aura toujours des irréductibles? Je ferais le pari qu'il y a encore des téléviseurs noir et blanc.

3249 M. SAUVÉ : J'ai pensé ça pendant un certain bout de temps, mais je vous dirais que, de plus en plus, on voit même que la base des irréductibles diminue, et je pense qu'est‑ce qui va faire la plus grosse différence, c'est la haute définition.

3250 C'est parce que même des gens... des fois on se dit que les gens prennent le service de base du câble seulement pour avoir une meilleure réception de TVA ou de Radio‑Canada ou des chaînes principales. Je pense que si c'est justement pour avoir une meilleure réception, ils vont vouloir, ces gens‑là, un jour ou l'autre, faire la transition vers la haute définition.

3251 Donc, on pense que ces irréductibles‑là, rendus à ce moment‑là, vont être de moins en moins difficiles à convaincre d'aller vers le numérique.

3252 M. TRÉPANIER : Et j'ajouterais ‑‑ si vous permettez, Monsieur le Président ‑‑ qu'il arrive un moment dans la gestion de la bande passante... qui, évidemment, coûte une fortune, parce qu'il s'agit d'investir toujours des dizaines, quand ce n'est pas des centaines de millions de dollars pour cette fameuse bande passante.

3253 Il arrive un moment où ça devient plus payant pour une entreprise de distribution de convertir les gens, un peu malgré eux, avec au moins une petite poussée dans le dos, que de les conserver dans la distribution analogique, qui prend 6 MHz par canal.

3254 LE PRÉSIDENT : On a parlé au cours des deux... particulièrement hier, mais ça été reposé sous forme de question à plusieurs des intervenants d'aujourd'hui. On a parlé de trois modèles d'émission d'un message.

3255 Il y a Pelmorex qui propose une diffusion en bande. Dans la présentation audiovisuelle qu'on nous a fait hier, la bande défilante est au milieu de l'écran plutôt qu'être en bas ou en haut de l'écran, puisqu'il y a des services de nouvelles continues qui utilisent la bande du bas. Donc, ils diffuseraient la bande défilante au milieu.

3256 Il y a Radio‑Canada qui a proposé un panneau d'alerte rouge un peu semblable comme celui dont on trouve sur MétéoMédia quand il y a des alertes.

3257 Il y avait dans la proposition écrite d'ExpressVu... quoique, hier, ils nous ont dit qu'ils favorisaient maintenant plutôt le panneau du type de celui que Radio‑Canada proposait, mais eux, ils proposaient une bulle dans laquelle on pouvait trouver une invitation à aller se repositionner à un autre canal pour avoir le message d'information.

3258 Est‑ce que vous avez, vous, réfléchi à la méthode la plus appropriée pour offrir un message d'alerte?

3259 M. TRÉPANIER : Je vais demander à mon collègue Daniel de vous parler des implications technologiques.

3260 Mais tout simplement, d'un point de vue graphique, j'aimerais dire que ce qui importe, c'est que l'entreprise de programmation affectée... qu'il n'y ait pas de confusion de la part du public entre ce que l'entreprise pourrait ajouter et ce qui est un véritable message provenant d'un organisme public.

3261 Alors, s'il faut se rendre jusqu'à la page rouge et le lettrage blanc en gros caractères, je pense que des experts graphiques pourront peut‑être vous conseiller sur l'effet là‑dessus, mais d'un point de vue technologique, il y a des distinctions.

3262 M. PROULX : Le système que nous utilisons, c'est le système de Scientific Atlanta. Ça fait que si on allait avec la solution, je dirais, vanille de SA, ça serait un affichage ou un fostiôme. Ils ont les deux options, ça fait que au choix de Pelmorex ou des gens qui sont responsables d'établir des normes.

3263 Si ça ne convient pas, il faudra demander au fournisseur de revoir la programmation du terminal. Puis à ce moment‑là, en fonction de délais de coûts, on évaluera.

3264 Mais d'office, ça va être la même solution que les gens qui utilisent Scientific Atlanta.

3265 LE PRÉSIDENT : Et qui est‑ce qui utilise Scientific Atlanta présentement?

3266 M. PROULX : Il y a nous. Il y a Rogers pour une partie de ses réseaux. Je ne sais pas si c'est la totalité de ses réseaux. Je ne peux pas répondre.

3267 M. TRÉPANIER : C'est un affichage pour une page ou c'est un...

3268 M. PROULX : Non, c'est un overlay.

3269 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, c'est une image fixe ou...

3270 M. PROULX : C'est une surimposition sur vidéo.

3271 LE PRÉSIDENT : Une surimposition. Alors que le projet de Pelmorex qu'on a vu hier, c'est une bande défilante qui passait au milieu de l'écran.

3272 M. TRÉPANIER : Je pense que le projet de Pelmorex, c'est effectivement une superimposition sur l'image.

3273 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui. Alors que dans le cas de Radio‑Canada, c'est une interruption...

3274 M. TRÉPANIER : Oui.

3275 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...avec le défilement d'une bande horizontale, qui est déroulante aussi....

3276 M. TRÉPANIER : Oui.

3277 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...parce que le message était en français et en anglais.

3278 M. TRÉPANIER : Oui. Dans ce cas‑là, c'est, je pense, ce qu'on appelle un forced tuning, c'est‑à‑dire que, de façon virtuelle, tous les canaux sont changés instantanément à un seul canal qui a ce panneau‑là, alors que la solution de Pelmorex, c'est esthétiquement et technologiquement plus sophistiqué.

3279 Est‑ce qu'elle est plus efficace? C'est là que je n'ai pas la réponse, mais en termes esthétiques et technologiques, elle est plus sophistiquée.

3280 LE PRÉSIDENT : D'accord. J'avais une question, puis je l'ai perdue. J'espère que ça va revenir.

3281 Oui. On parlait de message bilingue, et évidemment, vous avez des abonnés francophones, vous avez des abonnés anglophones.

3282 Êtes-vous en mesure d'envoyer un message en français à tous vos abonnés francophones et un message en anglais à tous vos... il y a plusieurs permutations possibles.

3283 C'est-à-dire que vous savez que cet abonné-là est un abonné francophone. Donc, même si, au moment où la bande défilante passe, il est à l'écoute d'une station de langue anglaise, il aura le message en français, ou si c'est la réciproque, c'est-à-dire c'est quelqu'un qui essaie de devenir bilingue et qui écoute une station francophone?

3284 Parce que les statistiques montrent qu'ils n'écoutent pas beaucoup, sauf pendant qu'ils sont dans des cours d'immersion.

--- Rires / Laughter

3285 M. SAUVÉ : Ou pendant les séries du hockey avec les Canadiens, tant qu'ils ne sont pas éliminés.

3286 Je vous dirais que je pense que, sur la base de ce qu'on a dit tout à l'heure au départ sur le fait que je pense que le système ne doit pas utiliser de façon inappropriée, donc, de façon contrôlée, moi, je pense que l'important, c'est d'avoir un système qui est efficace et qui est le moins coûteux possible.

3287 Je pense que s'il y a vraiment un message d'urgence important à passer, que le message arrive bilingue, avec la version française en premier, la version anglaise, je pense que l'important, il y a une urgence, donc, je pense que ce qui est important, c'est de passer la communication le plus rapidement.

3288 Si le fait de vouloir l'isoler, dire, O.K., je veux que sur un canal anglais, on a un message en anglais, et que sur le canal français, on a un message en français, moi, je pense qu'on va complexifier encore plus tout ça. Donc, ça risque de coûter encore plus cher, tout en augmentant le risque qu'il y a en arrière de ça.

3289 Donc, moi, je pense qu'on devrait garder ça... monsieur Péladeau avait tendance à dire KISS, Keep It Simple and... Je pense que, dans ce cas-là, si on parle de message d'urgence, donc, on pense qu'on devrait se concentrer à dire passons le message le plus rapidement possible. Si c'est plus simple de le faire bilingue d'un coup sur tous les canaux en même temps, je pense que c'est l'approche qu'on devrait prendre.

3290 LE PRÉSIDENT : On nous a aussi parlé de la problématique sur les canaux à demande. Est-ce que ça serait vrai aussi chez Vidéotron?

3291 M. PROULX : Il y a des enjeux technologiques à résoudre. C'est une question d'intégration. Quand on développe nos applications interactives ou sur demande, on ne tient pas compte aujourd'hui d'un éventuel système d'alerte, puis les systèmes ne sont pas développés en tenant compte de cette réalité-là,

3292 Si on devait mettre en place ce système d'alerte là, on devra en tenir compte dans nos développements, puis intégrer avec nos fournisseurs une solution qui, comme Rogers a dit, s'assure que le service est, mettons, vidéo sur demande, que la session qui va être interrompue soit, soit bien récupérée ou qu'elle se termine correctement.

3293 Mais aujourd'hui, on ne tient pas compte d'un éventuel système d'alerte dans nos développements.

3294 M. TRÉPANIER : Si vous permettez, Monsieur le Président, j'ajouterais que n'étant pas technologue et observant ce qui se passe dans la vraie vie, quand on reçoit généralement un logiciel d'une entreprise avec laquelle on fait affaire, le logiciel ne fonctionne pas bien, puis on fait une liste de choses qui ne fonctionnent pas, on le test pendant des semaines, on le retourne, ça revient, ça ne fonctionne pas encore tout à fait bien, et avant que ça soit en production, il se passe plusieurs mois généralement.

3295 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, il y a une période qui permettrait peut-être de faire les ajustements nécessaires, et qui permettrait de résoudre ces problèmes-là.

3296 Je sais que les gens de Rogers, ce matin, disaient que ça serait des interventions tripartites, parce qu'il faudrait que les fabricants de logiciel des services de vidéo sur demande se concertent aussi pour faire fonctionner ces systèmes-là.

3297 M. PROULX : Dans notre cas, ça serait plus que ça. Nos nouveaux clients VSD vont être supportés par deux compagnies. On a une compagnie qui fournit la plate-forme de vidéo sur demande; il y a Scientific Atlanta qui fournit à quatre ou cinq parties.

3298 Ça fait que ça ajoute un niveau de complexité, mais je ne crois pas que c'est quelque chose qui est...

3299 LE PRÉSIDENT : Si je comprends bien, quand vous dites 2008, on est peut-être rendu à 2009?

3300 M. TRÉPANIER : C'était un peu le message.

3301 LE PRÉSIDENT : Vous avez, évidemment, soulevé la question du tarif demandé par Pelmorex, et dans sa réplique, Pelmorex nous a dit qu'il était disposé, dans un environnement uniquement numérique, à considérer une réduction du tarif par abonné demandée.

3302 Avez-vous des commentaires supplémentaires à fournir à cet égard, ou si la réponse de Pelmorex vous satisfaisait?

3303 M. TRÉPANIER : Lorsqu'on parle d'analogique, on parle souvent de pièces en terme matériel, de pièces physiques, et lorsqu'on parle de distribution numérique, on parle logiciel généralement. Donc, c'est normal et tout à fait souhaitable qu'il y ait une diminution du tarif si le Conseil décider d'obliger la distribution en numérique seulement.

3304 J'ajouterais que, comme nous le recommandons, qu'il y ait une comptabilité séparée du service de programmation, et de cette façon-là, le Conseil puisse s'assurer que seules les dépenses qui visent à offrir un service d'alerte de qualité soient acceptables dans le tarif que Pelmorex pourrait exiger de notre part.

3305 M. SAUVÉ : Si je peux ajouter, il reste qu'on requestionne quand même le fait que... on pense que la sécurité publique est une activité publique du ressort des gouvernements.

3306 Même, puis je ne veux pas mêler personne, mais même, je pense que Radio-Canada dans son intervention disait que pour sa partie qu'ils veulent développer, en autant qu'ils aient les fonds pour le faire.

3307 Je trouve ça un peu spécial qu'on dise, O.K., cette partie-là, vous la développer avec les fonds publics, mais une fois rendu chez le distributeur, ça deviendrait des fonds privés ou les consommateurs en bout de ligne qui défraieraient.

3308 Donc, là-dessus, on continue à penser... on pense que c'est, avant tout, une question de sécurité publique. Donc, on pense que ça devrait être, avant tout, l'argent public que l'argent privé qui finance ce projet-là.

3309 LE PRÉSIDENT : Cependant, il y en a qui ont fait la remarque ce matin, notamment, que... Je pense, par exemple, aux représentants de l'Armée du Salut qui disaient que ce n'est pas différent des systèmes de télécommunication 9-1-1, où c'est les consommateurs qui en assument, finalement, le coût, et que c'est raisonnable dans une société démocratique qu'on paie pour notre propre sécurité.

3310 M. SAUVÉ : Je pense que c'est l'ensemble de tout ça qu'il faut prendre en considération, mais à ce moment-là, il faut s'assurer que ce qui est chargé aux consommateurs touche vraiment uniquement cet aspect-là, puis qu'il n'y a pas de prise de profit à l'intérieur de ça. Je pense que c'est l'assurance qu'on doit, tout le monde, avoir.

3311 LE PRÉSIDENT : Même pas un profit raisonnable?

3312 M. TRÉPANIER : Si vous permettez, je ne voudrais pas contredire mon collègue, mais si le gouvernement canadien décidait que les citoyens canadiens devraient être en mesure de recevoir les alertes pertinentes et adéquates, sans autre exigence financière que les impôts que l'on paie, je pense que ça serait la meilleure solution.

3313 Si le gouvernement canadien requérait des entreprises privés de participer pour qu'on y arrive, je pense qu'un entreprise privée est là pour faire un profit raisonnable, et je trouve tout à fait correct, évidemment, dans une comptabilité supervisée, qu'il y ait profit.

3314 LE PRÉSIDENT : Dans votre mémoire écrit, vous êtes intervenu sous le nom de Québécor Média et aux noms de SUN TV, de Groupe TVA, ainsi que de Vidéotron. Dans votre présentation orale d'aujourd'hui, vous vous limitez à l'intervention de Vidéotron.

3315 Est-ce que le Conseil doit comprendre que TVA et SUN TV n'ont pas de préoccupation par rapport au service proposé par Pelmorex ou Radio-Canada ou Bell ExpressVu?

3316 M. TRÉPANIER : TVA et SUN TV ont une préoccupation très importante qui a fait partie de notre intervention écrite et aussi de l'une de... en fait, de notre recommandation numéro 3, que la chaîne dont la programmation est altérée ne soit pas responsable du contenu diffusé par un message d'alerte ou de son bon fonctionnement.

3317 C'est très important que... parce qu'on a parlé beaucoup de questions de responsabilité juridique, et c'est très important, en fait, et je pense que le chef des services de sécurité de Mississauga l'a dit, que l'entreprise de programmation soit dégagée de toute responsabilité.

3318 Même si, sous la Loi de la radiodiffusion, elle l'est, si le Conseil désigne dans une ordonnance que, dans ces cas-là en particulier, il n'y a pas de responsabilité, en fait, c'est très important de le faire.

3319 Et si en plus, et ce n'est jamais ce qu'on souhaite comme entreprise privée, mais si en plus, le Conseil décidait d'imposer la distribution d'un service d'alerte, sans me substituer à un juriste, je pense que ce serait assez facile de défendre qu'il n'y a pas de responsabilité civile de la part des chaînes de programmation.

3320 LE PRÉSIDENT : Ça complète mes questions, mais notre procureur en aurait quelques‑unes, au moins une en tout cas, pour vous.

3321 Me McCALLUM : Oui. C'est, notamment, sur ce point 3 de la page 8 de votre présentation écrite de cet après-midi. Je décrirais ça comme une mainlevée de responsabilité.

3322 En suggérant ça au Conseil, vous êtes-vous inspiré d'un modèle qui prévoit quelque chose de similaire?

3323 M. TRÉPANIER : Non, Maître McCallum. On a simplement... j'ai simplement crû que, dans le cadre de la rédaction d'une ordonnance, il était possible au Conseil d'expliquer que le service de programmation de radiodiffusion n'avait pas la responsabilité du contenu pendant le message d'alerte.

3324 Maintenant, j'ai aussi entendu des discussions concernant les réseaux, et je suis sensible au fait qu'il existe probablement une problématique de délégation dans ce cas-ci vers le haut, c'est-à-dire vers la source.

3325 Et effectivement, est-ce qu'un organisme public peut détenir une licence, et est‑ce que la Loi de la radiodiffusion peut suffire à régler cette question-là de façon nette et claire, je n'en suis pas certain, je ne le sais pas.

3326 Me McCALLUM : Donc, vous n'êtes pas au courant si une autre entité comme le Federal Communications Commission ou une autre entité qui a pris des responsabilités sur les alertes aurait émis une ordonnance ou un avis public avec une disposition semblable?

3327 M. TRÉPANIER : C'est exact, je ne suis pas au courant d'une telle chose.

3328 Me McCALLUM : Donc, vous n'avez aucune opinion si une intervention législative serait nécessaire pour que le Conseil donne une exemption de responsabilité?

3329 M. TRÉPANIER : Non. Je pense qu'il s'agit d'un beau défi pour un juriste, mais je ne pourrais pas prendre une position là-dessus.

3330 Me McCALLUM : Merci.

3331 Merci, Monsieur le Président.

3332 LE PRÉSIDENT : Messieurs Sauvé, Trépanier et Proulx, merci.

3333 M. TRÉPANIER : Merci.

3334 LE PRÉSIDENT : Madame la Secrétaire, nous passons à l'intervenante suivante.

3335 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

3336 I would now call the next intervenor, Telco TV, to come forward.

3337 Miss Mainville-Neeson, you have 10 minutes for your presentation. You may want to introduce your colleague. Thank you.

INTERVENTION

3338 MS MAINVILLE-NEESON: Good afternoon. My name is Ann Mainville-Neeson and I am Senior Regulatory Legal Counsel at TELUS. With me is Jenny Crowe, Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, at MTS Allstream. We are here on behalf of Telco Television Association of Canada.

3339 Telco TV represents the broadcasting interests of MTS Allstream, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, otherwise known as SaskTel, and TELUS, all of which are new entrants in the broadcasting distribution industry and all operate on a full digital basis.

3340 Les commentaires de Telco Télé portent généralement sur l'élaboration et la distribution d'un système d'alerte tous canaux en cas d'urgence.

3341 Telco TV urges the Commission to be technologically neutral in its decision regarding the applications by Pelmorex, CBC and Bell ExpressVu by not mandating the use of a specific technology for offering an all-channel emergency alerting system.

3342 Fundamentally, all the applicants propose to offer the same service, namely, an all‑channel emergency alerting messaging system but each proposes to do so using different technology.

3343 Pelmorex is the only applicant which is requesting mandatory carriage of its service by all BDUs. Pelmorex submits that it has extensively studied the networks of BDUs and it believes that its proposed service can function on all different types of network configurations and distribution technologies.

3344 With all due respect to Pelmorex in its research and trials, Telco TV submits that the delivery of an all-channel emergency alerting service, a service that must be tightly integrated into the distribution network, is best left in the hands of the broadcasting distribution undertakings, the BDUs.

3345 Pelmorex is proposing the forced integration of its proprietary technology into the networks of all BDUs. If the Commission were to approve Pelmorex's application, the ability of BDUs to upgrade their systems or introduce new features would be hindered because they would likely need to consult with Pelmorex to ensure that these upgrades and new features are compatible with Pelmorex's proprietary system.

3346 The use of proprietary technology means that BDUs would not be able to easily find a work-around solution where there is incompatibility.

3347 Accordingly, by granting mandatory carriage of Pelmorex's proprietary service, the Commission will be granting to Pelmorex a degree of control over the BDUs' networks. In the fully digital IP-based distribution environment where network evolution is fast-paced, delays caused by a third party's proprietary solution would be untenable.

3348 Telco TV members do not consider that Pelmorex's offer to sit on its technical committee is a sufficient compensation for any loss of control over its network.

3349 It is also important to note that Pelmorex is seeking to implement a one-size-fits-all solution, whereas there are many different types of distribution technologies and configurations of distribution networks in Canada.

3350 Particularly relevant in this respect is the fact that Pelmorex's proposed system is not even digital-centric, rather it is anchored in old analog distribution technology.

3351 While Pelmorex seems to have adapted their proposed service to work in a digital environment, the service doesn't take advantage of the full capabilities of digital distribution.

3352 For example, the focus of Pelmorex's proposed service is on the headend of the BDU and it seems to entirely neglect the fact that digital operators can also control what goes on in the set-top box.

3353 Focusing on the set-top box rather than on the headend would allow for more discrete targeting of emergency messages. It would also allow two-way communication to verify that the message has been received.

3354 Telco TV further submits that Pelmorex's focus on the headend is not only inefficient for its IP-based members, it is also problematic for at least two of its members which make use of a super headend, that is to say a single headend for numerous serving areas.

3355 Accordingly, for these BDUs, implementing Pelmorex's system without any modifications would result in, for example, an emergency message targeted to a small town or area in Alberta being distributed across the province.

3356 Telco Télé réitère que les entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion, les EDR, sont les meilleurs joueurs dans la chaîne de radiodiffusion pour établir et mettre en place un service d'alerte tous canaux en cas d'urgence.

3357 Les EDR qui offrent un service de télévision sur une plate-forme IP, telles que les membres de Telco Télé, seraient capables de configurer un système qui serait moins coûteux et plus efficace que le système proposé par Pelmorex.

3358 Telco TV submits that the Commission should not grant mandatory carriage rights if it chooses to approve any of the applications for an all-channel emergency alerting service.

3359 Telco TV submits that BDUs should be entitled to choice in implementing an all‑channel emergency alerting service. BDUs know their network best and can make the most informed decision on what would work best for them whether it be a service such as that proposed by Pelmorex or the CBC or a tailor-made solution such as was proposed by Bell ExpressVu.

3360 Telco TV submits that all that would be needed for the BDUs to be able to implement an all-channel emergency alerting service is an amendment to section 7(d) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.

3361 Telco TV suggests that regardless of whether the Commission decides to approve any of the current applications, it should undertake an amendment to the Regulations.

3362 Section 7(d) currently prohibits a BDU from altering a programming service to insert an alert message without the permission of the operator or a network responsible for the service.

3363 This requirement for consent cannot remain if any all channel emergency alerting service is ever to be introduced. It is impracticable for BDUs to be expected to obtain consent of each programming service it distributes for the insertion of an emergency message.

3364 Public emergency alerting should not be subjected to negotiation.

3365 Telco TV further submits that arguably even if the Commission were to approve Pelmorex's application, this section of the distribution regulations would still need to be amended, because contrary to what Pelmorex stated in its responses to questioning yesterday, this is not in any way similar to licencing a multi‑channel service such as a VOD service.

3366 An all channel emergency service is by its very nature interrupts the service of other programming services.

3367 Authorizing a programming undertaking to offer such a service does not provide the necessary authority for a BDU to alter or delete the signal of the other programming services they distribute.

3368 Telco TV sports the amendment of the regulations proposed by the CBC, namely that the provision be amended to read as follows:

"a licensee shall not alter or delete a programming service in a licenced area in the course of its distribution except for the purpose of transmitting an authorized emergency public alert message."

3369 I thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of Telco Television Association. Thank you.

3370 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Commissioner del Val?

3371 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you for the intervention.

3372 I just would like you to back to the part of your presentation right before ‑‑ I think it is probably your final paragraph where you are talking about this 7(d) and where you were talking about the programming service on ‑‑ I didn't quite understand what you were ‑‑ the point you were making.

3373 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, the point we are trying to make is that licencing a service and giving it, for example, mandatory carriage doesn't by that fact enable the BDU to alter or curtail the signal.

3374 Just because you licence a programming service to do something, doesn't mean ‑‑ it is not like what Pelmorex indicated yesterday, that it is just like licencing any multi‑channel television service.

3375 A VOD service has multi‑channels, but they are all their own discrete channels. It is not on top of other services.

3376 COMMISSIONER del VAL: And therefore you support the 7(d) amendment.

3377 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Yes, we do.

3378 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. Now, so that is one point of clarification I needed from your written intervention, because you started off with saying in your summary and then you repeat and you are quite consistent in your written submission that approval of these applications, like all three, may be premature.

3379 So can I ‑‑ should I read that to mean that if ‑‑ everything would be premature except for the 7(d) amendment requested by CBC?

3380 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, you ‑‑ I guess knowing how long it takes to amend regulations, it might be prudent for the Commission to start that process.

3381 I have no doubts that we will end up in Canada with a full ‑‑ some type of all channel emergency alerting service, as part of a whole larger context of public alerting, using cell phones, using all kinds of different platforms.

3382 So starting that process is in fact warranted, while approving the applications, we think might be premature, simply because the CANALERT ‑‑ it is still unclear where public authorities will go to ‑‑ and if we support, as we do, the choice in selecting which service we might take or creating our very own service to offer alert messages, we don't think that it is ‑‑ that it's appropriate to move forward before the government has actually ‑‑ the Federal Government has implemented something that is practical.

3383 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. I'll just ask this more directly.

3384 Do you feel that the amendment of 7(d) is premature, given all of the submissions that you have heard over the past two days?

3385 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: No, I believe the Commission can start with that.

3386 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Now, Telco TV, although, you know, MTS, Telus and SaskTel, although not insignificant, it is still a relatively small part of the BDU system.

3387 What if someone said in response to what you are ‑‑ to your proposal, something along the lines, I think, of what the municipalities were saying, that you cannot wait until there is perfection before you roll out, so you cannot take the view that we cannot save all lives therefore don't save even a few.

3388 Now, what do you ‑‑ what would you say to that? Are you asking that no action be taken until the technology has been perfect, until every single BDU large or small can also roll out the system?

3389 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: No, no, absolutely not. And our basis for suggesting that it is premature, has nothing to do with technology. We could do so right away. We are IP‑based. I think things are ‑‑ our point is that things can be done in a technology environment that don't require solutions such as Pelmorex's.

3390 If the Commission thought that it was prudent to move forward right away and expected us to roll out such a service we would certainly do so, you know, immediately.

3391 Our concern is without the databases created by ‑‑ and the central organization to distribute the messages, the content of the messages, that is where our concern is.

3392 And so if the Commission were to licence, for example, CBC and Pelmorex and any service that might come out to offer such a service, we would then pick one of those perhaps to ‑‑ or sign up on whatever database to receive directly the messages from the authorized agencies.

3393 MS CROWE: I just have something to add. Part of the prematurity I think is right now under section 7(d) we can't effectively offer a service anyway. It just is impractical to obtain the consent of all programmers out there, including, you know foreign programmers to alter their signal.

3394 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. By the way, your oral submission today has answered quite of few of the questions that I have, so this will be much shorter.

3395 But now of ... does it make ‑‑ if some point down the road there was the broadcast ‑‑ broadcasters and BDUs were mandated to participate in the national alert system, do you think that mandate, that order, should come from legislation, from the government, or from an agency such as ours ‑‑ such as the CRTC?

3396 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: I would certainly hope that it would be a concerted effort, so perhaps the direction might come from federal legislation and put into the policy from the Commission.

3397 Whether it is one or the other, I think makes very little difference to the Telco TV members.

3398 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. On the issue of mandated service, I'm looking at paragraph 26 on page 10 of your written submission and you are talking about how it is not necessary to mandate and that it may prove ultimately unwarranted. Currently what is needed is a commitment on the part of the broadcasting industry and ... and a commitment to participate in the system when it is in place.

3399 Now, so if you agree that a commitment is in order, is warranted, why can't we have the commitment carved in stone and have it mandated?

3400 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Simply because it's unnecessary. We are not opposed to mandating that the service be offered. We are opposed to having a specific technology being forced upon us.

3401 But I do think that the Commission should really seriously consider whether it is necessary. Why mandate something that will be done? I think all BDUs have every incentive to implement something and something that right now they can't, they are legally restricted from implementing, so we don't even know if there would be ‑‑ you haven't even tested if there is any will out there to have the implementation ‑‑ to have the service implemented voluntarily and I think that once you remove that restriction you might find that in fact BDUs will right away step up to the plate and offer the service.

3402 We have every incentive to do so. We care about our subscribers. We are good corporate citizens. There is every incentive to do so, so I think that it would just be overkill to mandate.

3403 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Then on the ‑‑ I wasn't clear whether in the first part of your oral presentation today that there is a suggestion that say we licenced ‑‑ approved Pelmorex's application, that the result would be ‑‑ that we are imposing a certain technology on the system. Is that correct?

3404 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, that is if you approve Pelmorex's application in its entirety, including the mandatory distribution, because if you're doing that, obviously there is no place for CBC, because there is no way that you would offer both services.

3405 So if we are forced to carry Pelmorex's our concern there is that effectively they are offering a technological solution. They are not simply offering a service that then we can take, adapt it to our own distribution network, which is ‑‑ each distribution network is very different. Even amongst the Telco TV members, we have ‑‑ we use different technologies, we would implement such a solution, differently.

3406 So to have one company, one which is really not an expert in distribution technology, to come in with their own boxes and to attach that to our networks is ‑‑ is a bit scary. We are concerned that we test every bit of equipment that goes onto our networks and here we would be having to rely on equipment supplied by Pelmorex and forced to consult with them any time we want to make any changes.

3407 COMMISSIONER del VAL: And that goes to the fact that the technology that Pelmorex is proposing to use is proprietary? Is that ‑‑

3408 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, it goes ‑‑ certainly that is a huge component, but even if they went with open source, the problem with that ‑‑ with their proposal is that it is a full service solution, one that is totally unnecessary for a distribution network.

3409 So for BDUs, distribution technology, that is our business. And so they are proposing to take control of part of our business and operate this little part of our network and that is something that ‑‑ that loss of control is something that would be untenable to the Telco TV members.

3410 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I just want to clarify that you are advocating for the BDUs both the freedom to choose which service and technology and the freedom to participate, those being two things, right?

3411 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: That's correct. Although, as indicated, certainly there is so many incentives for us to participate that ... we certainly would.

3412 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I'm not sure whether you were here when we talked about the three models of the forms of alert: Model 1, I call it, is the pop‑up message telling subscribers to tune to a particular channel; the second one is automatically switching all of the boxes to a channel that contains the alert; and the third is the pop‑up screen.

3413 From the Telco TV technology, from that perspective, what do you see are the advantages and disadvantages of each of those three models and the cost implications?

3414 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Okay. It would appear at this point based on our middleware that simply a crawl at the bottom of the screen would be the least expensive solution.

3415 Having heard a lot of interventions, you know, today and the submissions yesterday, that may not be sufficient for alerting our members of the public and so we may be looking at a different solution, either a forced tune to a large full‑screen announcement, perhaps bilingual, perhaps ‑‑ and I ... I've certainly taken note of the problems with having solutions, you know, tuning to an English message on an English channel, French message on a French channel.

3416 I'm very concerned with what we would do in cases of third languages. And so perhaps a simple bilingual message might be the best. These are all things we would have to investigate.

3417 All solutions, I believe, would be possible. The least expensive would be that crawl. Equally as inexpensive would be the forced tune. That can easily be done through our set‑top boxes, which means moving to another channel, which would have that full‑screen alert message.

3418 And the pop‑up box, I think, would be probably the most expensive and I think it is geared a lot more to the DTH system. I haven't investigated that with our engineers.

3419 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. What about ‑‑ sorry, did you want to add anything?

3420 What about VOD? Were you here when the Rogers panel was talking about it? Do you have any problems with your system, would you have any?

3421 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: We would probably encounter similar problems if we go with the forced tune. If we go with the crawl at the bottom of the screen, that would not create any problems with VOD.

3422 If we were forced in the scenario where the Commission were to issue a decision in the very near future we might start with that solution as being the easiest, namely just inserting that crawl and then look at different options later on, but certainly a forced tune where we change the channel, that would disrupt our VOD service.

3423 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Then going back, jumping back to the voluntary issue, if the BDUs distribute emergency alert messages on a voluntary basis, as an example what ExpressVu suggested, who in your opinion would be responsible for these messages?

3424 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: For the content of the messages?

3425 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Yes.

3426 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: We assume would be those authorities, the authorities who provide us with the content of the message.

3427 We would be acting simply as a distribution undertaking. We pass through that message. And so we believe that it should be the issuing authority.

3428 COMMISSIONER del VAL: And then ‑‑ and who would be responsible for the correct transmission of the messages?

3429 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: The correct transmission, any transmission problems, if it originates in our networks, we likely would be responsible for.

3430 Now, would we be ‑‑ have any actual legal liability, that would all depend on whether or not we were negligent generally. Is it a problem with our systems? Is there any other recourse with the manufacturer of the ‑‑ whatever equipment we are using? So then it becomes a tort law, finding out who is the negligent party, if anyone.

3431 COMMISSIONER del VAL: We may have covered part of it.

3432 If the ‑‑ if an alert system was mandated, what do you see right away would be your implementation problems and what could you do to forestall them?

3433 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Mandated as in we can choose whatever solution or ‑‑

3434 COMMISSIONER del VAL: No. If, say, Pelmorex were approved.

3435 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, if Pelmorex were approved, then we would have a lot of problems. Namely, that that super head end problem would be there.

3436 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay.

3437 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: We would have to go and fix that, which means that essentially we are implementing our own solution, but paying Pelmorex to offer what service we are not exactly sure.

3438 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay.

3439 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: So, you know, it can be done. That is the advantage of a digital ‑‑ fully digital network. There is a lot of advantages there.

3440 But if you approve Pelmorex then we end up paying for something that we can do ourselves more cheaply and more effectively. Not only that we'll have to do ourselves, because their system will not be compatible with our super head end configuration.

3441 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay. And it is based on the ‑‑ on Pelmorex's answer to the deficiency question on ‑‑ question 9, when they were asked how the proposed ACA technology would apply to the VDSL technology and I think your comment in the intervention was very little information was provided and it is based on that information.

3442 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: It is based on that information and the fact that they haven't consulted us on ‑‑ you know, had we been consulted we might have, you know, told them about this super head end configuration that everything that they have goes to the head end and that doesn't work for our systems, for two of our member systems.

3443 COMMISSIONER del VAL: If, say, the BDUs, including yourselves, were mandated to just provide this service, but you could choose whatever technology you wanted, what would then be your implementation problems?

3444 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: None.

3445 COMMISSIONER del VAL: If Pelmorex's application were granted, what in your view should be the monthly subscriber rate?

3446 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: I'm not sure if we should comment on that. We really believe that for our service we are not getting any value added from Pelmorex offering the service. We could do so much more cost efficiently, many of which would be one‑time costs so, you know, we are virtually offering this at a no cost or very very low cost system, you know, basis.

3447 COMMISSIONER del VAL: One more question on if Pelmorex were successful. I know I am trying your patience, but if they was successful and a mandatory carriage was also successful can you offer any views whether we should go by way of making that portion of the service a 91(h) service or should we be amending the distribution and linkage rules or how would we implement that?

3448 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Prefacing with the fact that we really prefer if you didn't go that route. If you were to mandate to approve Pelmorex's application in its entirety, so mandating carriage and the increase in fees, should it be a 91H or distribution in linkage? Well I think we really don't have an opinion on that, neither one of which is in our interest. And more importantly, I would like to reiterate that it still requires an amendment to the distribution regulations even if it is mandated as a 91H or through the distribution and linkage rules, we still can't offer that service if it is altering and curtailing the other programming services that we offer.

3449 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Yesterday CBC also came before us, so theirs is not a license application. But they did talk about perhaps offering their service to BDUs in the same way that Pelmorex would offer their technology for the BDUs.

3450 Now, if CBC offered you that service and, for example, we have a choice of suppliers, do you see any difficulties with the technology that CBC is proposing, namely the EAS technology?

3451 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: No, on a technology basis we see no problem in implementing the CBC's proposal. And in fact, if the Commission were to require us to offer an emergency alert service, you know, in the very near term before CANALERT, before there is any other type of centralized database where we could get information directly from authorities, then we may very well go with the CBC's service in order to have one stop shop to get the information that we need.

3452 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay, thank you. Now do you have any proposals besides the CBC's for wording to amend section 7(d) of the regs?

3453 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: We really think that the CBC's proposal is sufficient and would likely work very well. I understand there's been some questions on whether certain terms should be defined. I think those terms will be defined through the CANALERT initiative, so I think we are satisfied with what CBC has proposed.

3454 COMMISSIONER del VAL: And given what the panel of CHUM ‑‑ the broadcasters have to say, do you have any refinements to propose?

3455 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, certainly we believe that local broadcasters have a lot to offer. And what we are talking about here is a very simple and concise message that will be distributed across all channels. It does not in anyway replace what local broadcasters have to offer in an emergency situation. I would imagine that most people, if they were watching a speciality service or a foreign service, got one of those alert messages the first thing they will do is turn to the local station.

3456 And so, to me, one is not incompatible with the other. I think that we need local broadcasters to continue to provide that up‑to‑date information and broader information and the information that we need in those situations. But we also need to recognize that we are not always watching the local broadcaster when an emergency occurs. There is, you know, in the 500 or more channel universe there is good odds that a lot of subscribers are not watching their local broadcaster.

3457 So we believe that both are very compatible. And while there is certainly an alteration of the signal and to the extent that the broadcaster might be responsible for what is being displayed on their channel I think that emergency message then becomes or the content of that message becomes the responsibility of the issuing authority, not the broadcasters, whoever it might be, specialty service or the foreign service they might be watching. It becomes the responsibility of the issuing authority. And then the local broadcaster has its place once everybody tunes into them to get more information.

3458 So any refinements I think that it is a question of working together. I can understand the concern that local broadcasters have that this message appear to be coming from them and if there is anything that we can do we will definitely work with them to make sure that the message doesn't appear to come from them. You know, any thoughts on that would definitely be welcomed and we would work with them to address that concern.

3459 COMMISSIONER del VAL: There are also submissions to the effect that the Commission should decline to consider these ‑‑ applications of this nature, because that is not within our area of expertise. However, on the other side of the coin is that it is the Commission that administers the Broadcasting Act and these messages are being disseminated through the broadcasting system. So without the Commission's involvement, how would you see sort of the different emergency organizations ensure the broadcast and distribution of the alerts? Can you see that done without the Commission's involvement?

3460 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, I think that the ‑‑ to your first point, I think the Commission does have expertise over any broadcasting service and to the extent that this is disrupting both a broadcasting distribution undertaking to the extent that we are being forced to do something with our network and it is disrupting programming services, I think the Commission has expertise on that and can impose some rules on how this might be done. We are certainly hopeful that you will allow a lot of flexibility so that we can continue to operate our broadcasting system in the most efficient manner.

3461 As for the content of the messages and the threshold required for what messages should be issued, that of course is perhaps not the expertise of the Commission, but that is the federal government and other authorities that will be looking into that. But once that is established and we have a message, an alert message that needs to be distributed, how that is done I believe is when it goes through the broadcasting system is very much within the Commission's expertise.

3462 MS CROWE: And of course, like we have said before, in order to enable BDUs to deliver any alert service there would need to be amendments to section 7(d) of the regulations and so the Commission's involvement would be necessary to that extent.

3463 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: And maybe to add as well, I was very intrigued by what Rogers suggested about the Telecom Act and, you know, perhaps the use of the limitation of liability provision in that act might be useful here. But that was something new brought in today that I haven't fully researched.

3464 COMMISSIONER del VAL: What would you do to minimize the Commission's involvement? Like, what is the least amount of involvement you could see of the Commission?

3465 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: The simple amendment to 7(d) of the regulations I think would be the minimal and the one that has the most impact. I do take the point that issuing an expectation might be warranted so that BDUs know to ask, know that it is not just a permission. But if they are not aware of the trends in society towards wanting this kind of system to be put in place, perhaps the Commission could remind the industry that that would be warranted. But I think, at a minimum, all that is needed is an amendment to 7(d) of the regulations.

3466 If you take away the impediment I think the natural forces, the incentives that are out there for us to offer this very important service I think are there. So I think that is the answer to your question.

3467 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you, you have been very helpful. Those are my questions, Mr. Chair, thank you.

3468 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Pennefather.

3469 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I think we are close to getting to my question. I just wanted to follow‑up on that last conversation. Did I hear you say that short of a mandatory order saying you must carry the messages as received from a source for the time ‑‑ just for the point of discussion, the Commission could also require that certain things be done. What certain things did you mean?

3470 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well no, I was only following up on the discussion with Rogers and Mr. Englehart where he was being prodded by legal counsel here as to whether or not anything else needed to be done by the Commission other than amending the regulations. And we might expect that in amending the regulations in the way that we are seeking, you might also issue a policy notice that you expect the industry to move in a certain way. But perhaps simply amending the regulations, at least offering us the ability to offer the service the incentives are there I believe socially for us to want to move further. If you wanted us to move on this faster, you might issue a policy notice with an expectation.

3471 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Working backwards to the concerns expressed by representatives from the various emergency organizations, from the public in terms of consistency, accuracy, predictability, working backwards from there you are asking for flexibility, saying we will do it, it serves our interest to do it, we will do it as we wish. In what sense would we be assured that expecting you would be enough as opposed to making sure ‑‑ as opposed to, for example, the advantage of a third party being able to assure us that the protocols and guidelines attached to messages were coming right through down the line?

3472 You said at the beginning, I believe, the public alerting should not be subject to negotiation. So how far do the hands‑off go?

3473 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: The negotiation is with respect to programmers. Right now, as the regulations stand, for us to go and get permission from each and every programmer it is just highly impractical that that is, you know, in a 500 channel universe that just isn't going to work very well.

3474 But what we are suggesting is if you then change those regulations to make it possible for us to offer the service, so take away that requirement for consent and that opens up the door for us to be able to offer the service. I think you will see that we will offer the service without you requiring it of BDUs.

3475 Now, when we say that we want flexibility, it is not flexibility in offering the service at all, it is flexibility in how we do so. We don't believe that the application by Pelmorex that is on the table now is in anyway more efficient or more cost efficient and adaptable to our systems. So we want flexibility in choosing how we are going to offer it, whether it be using the CBC, maybe using an adapted Pelmorex version, but we don't want to be forced in using any specific technology. And we also don't believe that it is necessary for you to mandate us to offer any type of service, because the incentives are there for us to do it.

3476 Certainly, you know, numerous times the Commission will issue expectations that can be reviewed upon license renewals if you are looking for a hook on which you can have someone responsible to ensure that what you are asking to be done is in fact done. Issuing an expectation that is then reviewed at license renewal, for example, is certainly a less intrusive way than putting in a requirement in the regulations or other mandatory order.

3477 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay, one more then. Backing up through the system, if we say to the BDUs you can (a) choose, or not, to issue is alert; and you can (b) choose, or not, the technology you want; and you can (c) choose, or not, to deliver that message along guidelines provided by CANALERT with whom you will have no formal connection, how can the public be assured of consistent clear accurate messages?

3478 MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: I believe that once the CANALERT system is in place that that will be where BDUs gravitate for their information. You know, they are in the process of elaborating guidelines with the proper consistency and how they believe that messages should be displayed and there likely will be a lot of consistency in how BDUs will want to use the system.

3479 Now, how can you be ensured ‑‑ again, it can be part of the expectation that we would follow a certain model. I don't purport to know at this point what is the perfect model, should it be ‑‑ you know, does it need to be on a red screen, does it need to be preceded by these little buzzing sounds, that I don't know and I would expect that experts dealing with such public emergencies would tell us.

3480 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3481 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mrs. Pennefather. Mrs. Mainville‑Neeson and your colleague, thank you very much.

3482 Mrs. Secretary, we will move to the next intervener.

3483 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would now call on the next intervener, which is CKUA, Mr. Ken Regan and Mr. Kris Rodts, please. Gentlemen, you have 10 minutes for your presentation, thank you.

INTERVENTION

3484 MR. REGAN: Mr. Chairman, Commission Pennefather and Commissioner del Val, thank you very much for this opportunity.

3485 I am tempted to throw away the script because of the constraints of time and after sitting here for two days I am shegrinned frankly at the inclination to put corporate interest above public security. I am astounded at some of the things I have heard. And I am not trying to be melodramatic about this and I am not trying to be self‑righteous about it, but as far as I know CKUA is the only media outlet in this country that has voluntarily committed itself to working with a jurisdiction in the interest of public safety.

3486 My name is Ken Regan, I am the General Manager at CKUA. Kris Rodts is our Broadcast Engineer in charge of the EPWS program in Alberta for CKUA. Kris has 27 years in the industry, he is a former Director of Engineering for Telemedia Radio West and a former Director of Engineering for Newcap Broadcasting.

3487 I feel a little bit like the proverbial punching bag here today, because we took some body shots from our friends at CanWest because of our role as a prime partner, if you like, in emergency broadcasting and emergency management in Alberta, and from CTV and.. And I have great respect for all of the people here and all of their commitment, I really do. And we took a couple of slaps upside the head from the emergency management people from Sarnia and Brampton, etc. because of our role as a member of ‑‑ a proud member of the broadcast media.

3488 Be that as it may ‑‑

3489 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Regan, I want to reassure you while we may have heard what they have said and that is because it is already in the transcript, we will assure you that we have been waiting for your presentation because we want to know more of what you have been doing and you are part of our education today and to help us in coming up with the best decision possible.

3490 MR. REGAN: I appreciate that, thank you. I take a somewhat perverse pleasure in knowing that nothing I say here today may change the opinion of some of the people out there, so that is okay.

3491 Next year marks the twentieth anniversary of the Edmonton tornado, which was the impetuous, if you like, that lead to the development of Alberta's public alerting system ‑‑ the Emergency Public Warning System.

3493 Over the years EPWS and CKUA's role in it have been studied by delegations from the U.S.A., Finland, Denmark, provincial and municipal jurisdictions within Canada and our own federal government. The value of it, I think, is demonstrated in the draft CANALERT authorized user guidelines published by Industry Canada where they say other reference documents were consulted but, in particular, the Emergency Public Warning System guidelines developed by Emergency Management Alberta provided the most significant source of information. The EPWS provides a solid base on which to model nationwide public alerting practices since the Alberta system is the most advanced public alerting capability currently operational in Canada.

3494 In our comments I would like to outline our position with respect to the applicants, comment in these matters on some elements presented yesterday by applicants in the hope perhaps of offering some insight. I would also like to correct some inaccuracies within the record I think made by CBC with respect to EPWS and Alberta Government's position with respect to EAS conversion.

3495 Firstly, we support all of the applications in principle, frankly. Our concern is that this process is premature. As has been evident in the deliberations, there are conflicting testimonies, for example, to the efficacy of CBC's proposed EAS technology. No one, including the Commission, really knows whether or not a fundamental platform proposed with a $16 million price tag is appropriate for the job. The applicants themselves seem uncertain about or unwilling to comment with respect to the fundamental question of liabilities. How can we consider establishing such a critical and sweeping public program as a national alerting system without having an answer to the basic question of who is liable for what?

3497 Without knowing what a national alerting system is supposed to look like how can a provider or a carrier be licensed to build it? How can the Commission know which application best suits the criteria when the criteria themselves have neither been fully developed nor approved. The issue of a national alerting system is of vital importance and CKUA recognizes that Industry Canada and even the federal government are anxious to establish and implement one. We are just very concerned that licensing a system in advance of the vital components of protocols and criteria is going to undermine the credibility of the system or perhaps lead to confusion, dysfunction that is going to be counterproductive in achieving what you really need, which is trust and credibility of the system.

3498 Within our own jurisdiction there has been a great deal of reluctance, even occasional recalcitrants among broadcasters, some broadcasters, to fully participate in Alberta's Emergency Public Warning System. They all have their own reasons, some are concerned about the potential impact of a false alarm or an unauthorized activation. Some merely balk at the prospect of interrupting their programming for fear it might alienate their audience or their advertisers, depending on the timing of the alert and the nature of it.

3499 It is therefore CKUA's recommendation that participation by broadcasters in the public alerting system be mandatory. Public safety is a broadcaster responsibility, but it is a government obligation. We have heard discussions here today about ‑‑ from our friends at CanWest and CHUM and CTV about the media's desire and ability to report incidents of local emergency and that sort of thing. But the fact remains that media are reactive. Emergency management people are often, more often than not hopefully, proactive.

3500 On the question of the problems in inaccurate information coming from emergency management personnel on the ground facing an emergency, I think it is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black when the media starts talking about conveying false information. We are all guilty of it, it is an imperfect system. Media are no better at getting the message right than the people on the ground in a situation like that.

3501 We respect, as I say, completely the good will and cooperation demonstrated by everybody in this room and everybody participating in the CANALERT working group. But in our experience similar commitments made in good faith have disappeared in practice, subjugated to commercial interest or because they were simply ignored. A national alerting system is only a true public safety system if it is universal and it is constant. Any opportunity for discretion creates opportunity for failure. And when it comes to the fundamental issue of public safety failure is not an option.

3502 If the Commission is concerned, and I have heard expression of concern, about its jurisdiction with respect to making participation mandatory, we suggest the Commission simply adopt the practice of asking new license applicants, as well as any broadcaster seeking a license renewal, whether they would accept a condition of license requiring participation in the system and allow them at the licensing stage the opportunity to say no.

3503 CKUA has other concerns obviously with respect to the impact of licensing on our own contractual relationship with the Alberta Government. We have placed ourselves in a position where that contract represents about 18 to 20 per cent of our annual operating revenues. And I am loathe to take shots at my good friends at the CBC who are tax funded and we earn our keep, but the $700,000 that they referred to yesterday as being not a lot of money is a whole lot of money to an organization that is listener supported primarily, $500,000 is a whole lot of money. Anything that was determined by the Commission and/or government that would place in jeopardy that relationship would be a significant setback for us and possibly a real crisis for an organization like CKUA.

3504 Representatives or Commission counsel yesterday asked people from Pelmorex whether it was their intention to ride roughshod over organizations like CKUA or the system that we have in place in Alberta. And Pelmorex appropriately said that that is not their intention and we believe them. I think the issue is less one of being rode roughshod over ‑‑ if that is a word or a phrase ‑‑ and more one of the potential of shredding a system that exists presently.

3505 I think, as I say, a national alerting system must be universal and it must be constant in terms of even the small things, like how the message is delivered and what shape the message takes. You need consistency if people are going to get the message. Appreciating, as I say, the expressions of good will and the willingness of the broadcast people and telcos in the room to say it shouldn't be mandated, we are going to gravitate towards doing this kind of a thing anyway, I just don't think it is ‑‑ it is not a question of some doing it and everyone gravitating. If somebody is left out of the loop or if any one broadcaster at a local level, national level, regional level whatever, chooses not to participate you don't have a system, you don't have a public alerting system. So mandatory application I think is essential.

3506 A couple of things, if I may, to clear up the public record. The EAS technology adopted by CBC, there is some question here as to whether it is most appropriate technology for a CANALERT system. We believe at CKUA that it is inferior frankly to what is currently in use by Alberta and CKUA as part of our system and we can elaborate on that if you wish.

3507 On page 17, subparagraph 7 of their application CBC states:

"In Alberta the nature of alert messages has moved from those alerting the public to life‑threatening emergencies of an imminent nature to one that is closer to providing important but non‑critical information updates, for example, on flood warnings, an area which might be better left to normal broadcasting channels than to be carried over a short fuse alert system."

3508 We have heard other references today to, you know, people in Lethbridge or the Lethbridge flood thing where the system was activated to provide updates. People who, not knowing anything about the EPWS, might think that it was a whacko system, you know, run by a thousand‑strong hoard of people in Lethbridge who call in or activate it when their toilet backs up, that is not the case.

3509 The fact is that it is a very good system, it works. Since 1998 it has been activated, or 1992, it has been activated 38 times. The incidents that are being referred to in Lethbridge were improper activations of the system by anxious people on the ground wanting to do good for their community. The problems were dealt with, those people were met by EPWS officials and they worked out those issues. Again, it is not a perfect system, there never will be one. But we are doing the best we can and we think what we have is pretty good and people around the world seem to think so too.

3510 The examples that CBC cited as accepted practice, as I say, were outside the activation criteria for EPWS. It is a misrepresentation frankly for CBC to suggest those activations are an accepted element of EPWS, which is how I read their paragraph. And it is incorrect to suggest such incidents are a rationale for not considering Alberta's EPWS for a national application.

3511 CBC intimated yesterday that the Alberta Government is looking at revamping their system to incorporate EAS technology. Correspondence that I can read to you from Mr. Colin Lloyd, a senior official with Emergency Management Alberta responsible for EPWS, I quote:

"Having consulted my executive director I can confirm that Alberta has no intention to change the EPWS in context of what is currently before the CRTC. We support the principle of all‑channel alerting, because it gives an option of public alerting to the majority of provinces and territories who have no system at all."

3512 He goes on to say:

"In particular, we highly value our relationship with our contract partner CKUA. Whilst we have had discussions with CBC about the efficacy of direct to broadcaster trials, no firm commitment has been made about trialing or any other matter."

3513 Finally ‑‑ I am not even going to bother. In conclusion, CKUA recommends that this Commission defer consideration of the applications until such time as our national government and its agencies have fully defined and determined all relevant criteria frameworks, including funding frameworks and protocols for a national alerting system.

3514 CKUA believes that without knowing these things the Commission is unfairly compromised in trying to make an appropriately informed decision. We also believe that the stakes with respect to creating a viable, credible and reliable national alerting system are too high to risk making a decision that could prove faulty, incomplete, short‑sighted or, for whatever reason, in appropriate. The integrity of your decision on this matter is paramount if public trust it the system is to be achieved and public trust in the system is vital if any national alerting system is going to succeed.

3515 I will stop there and I thank you very much for the opportunity. I hope I didn't sound petulant, because I am not.

3516 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Regan. I will have Commissioner Pennefather as you the first question. Thank you.

3517 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, it is only 5:30, it is okay. (laughter)

3518 MR. REGAN: It seems later.

3519 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you for your intervention. It is ‑‑ there are a number of questions I could ask, but I will try to focus a little bit considering the time. But what you have brought is very important observations from the point of view of participating in a system that is up and running. Leaving aside, and again, as the Chairman so rightly said previously, we look at all pages of the transcript and we are not finished yet in this hearing.

3520 One of the things that I wanted to ask you about based on your written intervention is your concern about subverting, duplicating or integrating Alberta's existing system. So just stepping back a bit, taking your point that you feel we are too soon in the process, that we should not make a decision before certain protocols are in place. You have been here I think for a great deal of the discussion, if not all, and obviously you have been referencing and so have the applicants, the fact that we are coming close with guidelines on the table and we have made some references to that. We have participants like yourself and the emergency managers who can offer us advice on what constitutes definitions of users, emergencies and we have had enough of that I think to get a sense that people and yourselves can provide those definitions and do function within them.

3521 And at the other side of your point about we should wait is the demand of interveners and the concern that a national alerting system is needed in this country. Every thing is a balancing act, so let us just explore that a little bit more.

3522 In establishing the program in Alberta did you wait until everything was in place in terms of protocols and guidelines or did in fact the practice not help define that to some extent?

3523 MR. REGAN: Fair point.

3524 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And what kind of timing would you say would be involved before we could get to a stage where things were perfect?

3525 MR. REGAN: No, fair point. Certainly, the Alberta system has been and is today an evolutionary one, there is no question about it. And we have certainly learned from our experiences and our successes and our failures.

3526 I think the point is though that I think, I really do think we are so close right now to having the appropriate protocols in place that I think a deferral by the Commission to allow those things to be ratified, if you like, and authorized if necessary through legislation, I am not sure if that is necessary, but I think we are so close that you can afford to wait and I think it will give you a better opportunity to launch a nationwide system with a strong foundation of integrity to it.

3527 I think, and we have seen here this week, there are a lot of different views and opinions about how an alerting system should work or should be delivered and in what form it should be delivered. And, you know, there are a number of ‑‑ it is not just competing interests, just that there are differing opinions as to how it might all work. And I think, again, I think consistency is so important in getting the message out to everyone. We are not just talking about ‑‑ even French/English ‑‑ we are not talking about ‑‑ we are talking about Aboriginal peoples, we are talking about recent immigrants in our communities, the multi‑cultural communities some of whom will speak neither official language. There needs to be a way to convey to them the urgency of the situation.

3528 In Alberta we use a specific symbolized graphic and an audio alarm, if you like, signal and the whole idea is to get people's attention and to convey to them that there is an emergency.

3529 I just think you are very close to getting those standards in place, which I think is going to give you a better opportunity to have a credible system from the get‑go.

3530 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, these things are usually partnerships, so sometimes bringing the parties to the table around an eventuality fine tunes their thinking and makes things happen. And I was going to ask you that, in fact, in Alberta how you have found solutions in matter the of language, Aboriginal languages. So, as I say, I assume these things going forward.

3531 What I wanted to get to though was a couple of things. Let us assume then that a national ‑‑working through the protocols and guidelines sufficiently to move forward ‑‑ a national alerting system comes in place. You expressed concern, as I said earlier in your paragraph 18 of your written intervention, about the subverting, integrating ‑‑

3532 MR. REGAN: Um‑hmm.

3533 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: ‑‑ of your service. And I think you suggest there be a COL in that regard, but I didn't see any articulation of that. First question, what would be the solution to coordinate as opposed to cause a problem between the national alert and your system? Why would then national alerting system necessarily undermine the Alberta system?

3534 MR. REGAN: Well, I guess it all depends on how it is structured. I think one thing you need to avoid, again, is a duplication of message. If people are getting messages from different sources, unless those messages are virtually, well literally the same, there could be cause for confusion.

3535 COMMISSION PENNEFATHER: I imagine that as in ‑‑ I am sorry to interrupt you ‑‑ but I imagine that when you are issuing through your system an emergency alert you are receiving that message from an authorized user.

3536 MR. REGAN: Correct.

3537 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And from our conversation with the emergency management organizations I would assume that also a national alert perhaps affecting Alberta would come from perhaps even the same authorized user or certainly an authorized user. Wouldn't that be the point at which coordination would occur, because they would be responsible for the accuracy of those messages?

3538 MR. REGAN: Yes and, again, I guess it depends on the kind or the nature of the delivery system that your, you know, that you would be importing, if you like, into Alberta to augment or supplement the system that is there now. And if that was the case, that would be less onerous I think.

3539 But again, I raises questions about, you know, duplication of service. I mean, I am not sure where the value is in adding layers, if you like, of essentially the same thing. I think integration ‑‑ if integration were possible, that is the optimum I suppose.

3540 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Because you do support the applications in principle?

3541 MR. REGAN: Absolutely.

3542 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So I am pursuing the discussion on the assumption you think a national alerting system is necessary ‑‑

3543 MR. REGAN: Absolutely.

3544 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: ‑‑ and it would not eliminate Alberta?

3545 MR. REGAN: Absolutely.

3546 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: All right. You were quite clear that you think it should be mandatory to broadcasters and offered us a method to ‑‑ a proposal in terms of ‑‑

3547 MR. REGAN: It is a sneaky method, but..

3548 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: With your experience to ‑‑ considering a voluntary model ‑‑ with your knowledge do you have an understanding of the costs and what would be required for broadcasters to upgrade their networks or their stations to undertake a national alerting system and, from your experience, can you give us some sense of that?

3549 MR. REGAN: I will defer to my colleague Chris Rodts on that.

3550 MR. RODTS: Only yesterday have I seen the first draft of the CANALERT document and to this point, no, we have not done that. What we can tell you is that we can take part of the Alberta model and perhaps expand onto it even on a national level if at all possible.

3551 MR. REGAN: Sixty million dollars would go a long way to doing that.

3552 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Looks like a good number. Again, from your experience, one of the issues we have raised in our discussions is misuse of the system.

3553 MR. REGAN: Um‑hmm.

3554 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And what do you have in place? How do assure that there is no abuse or misuse of the system?

3555 MR. REGAN: And again, I will ask Chris to comment on this. But there are, again, there are strict criteria for when a system is activated and how it is activated and strict protocols in place as to who gets to activate the system and Chris can say more on that.

3556 MR. RODTS: Last Friday I had a meeting with the Solicitor General in Edmonton and they had hired some new people to activate the amber alarm system and it was brought very clearly that these people needed to go to extensive training before even an activation can take place. There is also follow‑up, the government will call in the people that are responsible and train them as things progress, as there is more available.

3557 MR. REGAN: And there are also ‑‑ the system is activated through essentially a coded process, keypad code process that not everyone had access to. If you like, it is a restricted code process.

3558 MR. RODTS: To keep the technology talk to a low, basically our system can be activated with a telephone, a touchtone telephone system. There is no need for computer involvement. It can be done, but the alert can be activated in 362 communities in Alberta and it can be defined ‑‑ that is what makes it unique, each receiver has a unique address and a message can be sent to a specific unit.

3559 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So I can understand then you would want to assure that there would be coordination and public education about alerts coming through your system and alerts coming through a national system should it go forward.

3560 MR. RODTS: Correctly, yes.

3561 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And do you have some specific suggestions? I think you even put it in terms of a COL and therefore we would have a COL to the broadcaster saying you must participate but you must participate, I guess, in a certain manner whereby you would integrate with local services?

3562 MR. REGAN: Well, yes I think there is two ways of approaching the participation factor. As I say, I think public safety is a government obligation and I think the federal government has the opportunity, if you like, and the authority to mandate delivery of public alerting broadcasts by media. I recognize, certainly honour the Commission's own jurisdiction, I think with respect to conditions of license what I suggested was that you ask the, at renewal or application level, the applicant whether they would accept the condition of license to broadcast public alerting messages. But I think the simpler solution is to have the federal government mandate it.

3563 You know, seat belts are mandatory, you don't have the option because they are mandatory because they save lives. Even in Alberta they have adopted a mandatory seatbelt legislation because it saves lives and it saves costs. Health insurance is mandatory because it saves lives and it saves costs.

3564 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I think what I was also referring to was, in you paragraph 31 of your written intervention, you say the approved applicant in this process must adhere to a COL that that precludes any subrogating or compromising of Alberta's or any other existing alerting system.

3565 MR. REGAN: Right.

3566 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Did you have something ‑‑ a COL makes us look for words.

3567 MR. REGAN: Yes, and ‑‑

3568 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: What did you have in mind?

3569 MR. REGAN: ‑‑ you know, honestly I probably don't and really that particular paragraph stems from our concern about what ‑‑ only because we're in this precarious situation that we are in in terms of ongoing operational viability, because we are listener supported. We, you know, as a former CBC employee I have great respect for the public broadcaster and I believe that they should be publicly funded, but we don't have that luxury. And so we get real nervous when we see developments on the horizon that could significantly and detrimentally affect our viability. So I don't know, to be honest, you know I don't know that it is necessarily fair to ask by condition of license for protection for CKUA.

3570 There are better ways of doing it and I have been before this Commission and I will be here in two weeks arguing another way of doing that so that we don't need those kinds of protections, you know. There are better ways of doing it. But I think it is important to recognize the validity of Alberta's EPWS and the validity of CKUA's role within that system and I guess that is what I would want to have protected.

3571 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Fair enough, I think that is a straightforward response from that point of view. But I think behind is a sense of ‑‑ trying to understand, since you are experienced in this business, what you see would be necessary in reality, in real life to avoid that kind of interference or subjugating or altering any existing or future alert system, and one of them would be a national alert system if, as you say, you support in principle the existence of such a system.

3572 MR. REGAN: Um‑hmm.

3573 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So do you have any suggestions, besides the Commission getting involved, about how that could happen?

3574 MR. REGAN: In terms of protecting the integrity of Alberta's system?

3575 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes, that is right. Well, that is what you are saying that should be ‑‑

3576 MR. REGAN: Yes.

3577 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: ‑‑ go ahead if ‑‑ leaving aside your very clear point about CKUA and the contract, what are practical means in your view to have that happen?

3578 MR. REGAN: Well, I think we have heard, you know, interveners here this week suggest that there should be a multiplicity of options in terms of how systems are ‑‑ which system is applied where or which technology is applied where. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I think ‑‑ I think the mandatory delivery of the message is critical, how the message is delivered and the process perhaps is you could have multiplicity.

3579 To get back to your question, however, I think one ‑‑ for example, if CBC were licensed or were granted the approval to provide a national alerting system in Canada, they have I don't know how many radio transmitters in Alberta and their message would come into the head end of the cable outlets and BDUs and all of that. Well, as I say, now you have two systems of alerting, if you like. You have a provincially regulated or mandated system and now you have a national system. It doesn't make sense to have two systems.

3580 So it would seem likelier or at least conceivable that the provincial jurisdiction would defer to the national jurisdiction or the provider of the national system to absorb or assume the responsibility on a provincial scale as well. And the integrity of public alerting is intact, but CKUA's situation is not.

3581 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

3582 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Commissioner del Val.

3583 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. You offered to elaborate on why you believe that the EAS technology is inferior to the one used by Alberta. I was afraid to ask, but a very good friend of mine, one thing he taught me was he said you can drown in 20 feet of water as well as you can drown in 10, so why don't you tell me more?

3584 MR. RODTS: The EPWS receiver is ‑‑

3585 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you put your microphone..

3586 MR. RODTS: Sorry about that. The EPWS receiver we use is manufactured by a company called MTS Communication Products. They also manufacture AES equipment. And in the form of an email I asked what the difference was. And basically is that the American standard it uses non‑standard bit rate tones and other non‑standard conventions to make the data difficult to decode and has no error detection or correction built in, which is some of the arguments we have heard over the past couple of days.

3587 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Do you think there is any ‑‑ how big of a benefit is it for Canada to use the same system as the States?

3588 MR. RODTS: I don't believe there is any benefits for Canada to have a different system than the United States, unless perhaps we are talking about a global or North American alert or disaster.

3589 COMMISSIONER del VAL: I am sorry, did I ask the question correctly? I meant to ask what benefit is there for us to have the same system? Did I ask that? I did?

3590 MR. REGAN: Sorry, Commissioner del Val, meaning the EAS system, utilizing that?

3591 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Yes, to have it for all of North America, Canada and the States.

3592 MR. RODTS: No, I don't believe it is really necessary, no.

3593 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Okay, thank you. Then I just want to go to the closing of your argument, and you said CKUA believes that without knowing these things the Commission is unfairly compromised in trying to make an appropriately informed decision. Do you think that ultimately we should be the one to be making this decision?

3594 MR. REGAN: With respect to..?

3595 COMMISSIONER del VAL: With respect to the implementation of a national alert system, whether BDUs should be mandated to carry it, whether programmers should be mandated to participate in the system. Should that be the CRTC's decision?

3596 MR. REGAN: With all due respect, I don't think so. I really, as I said earlier, public safety is a government obligation, it is a broadcast community's responsibility and I think really it is the government that should be making these determinations. And even if it was to say to the industry and the regulators for the industry you must now do this and get together and make it happen, I think at that point then we can, you know, we can start putting out heads together.

3597 But, you know, I started by saying that I was shagrinned at ‑‑ we are not talking here about profit, loss, margins. We are talking about public safety, we are talking about people's lives. And again, I am not trying to over dramatize this but, you know, to say well we might participate if ‑‑ we will participate if it is our system, you know, I don't ‑‑ we have to do better than that. As an industry we have, as I say, a responsibility. And I think the CANALERT guidelines are a great forward step. I think the work that is being done at the working group is all good. But there is some urgency, which we have heard here this week.

3598 But I ‑‑ I am sorry, a long answer to a short question, but I think it is the government's responsibility to push this forward, absolutely.

3599 COMMISSIONER del VAL: What do you think of the request that section 7(d) of the BDU regs be amended? What do you think of..?

3600 MR. REGAN: I agree completely and I would support CBC's wording on that, on the proposed change of wording for 7(d). And I think that is something that the Commission is in a position to deal with expeditiously and I think should to create, if you like, cultivate the environment for a system when it is ready.

3601 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Do you think taking that step is premature in light of all of the issues that you have pointed out as being unsettled?

3602 MR. REGAN: I don't think so only because, and this may sound contradictory, but I don't think it is because I don't think that it has any significant or glaring impact on the way the industry operates if it is changed. It creates an opening, if you like, or an avenue for good things to happen when the other pieces of the puzzle are in place. But it has no other detrimental affect that I can think of in the interim.

3603 COMMISSIONER del VAL: But what about the issue of liability that is not close to settling? Do you think that should have an impact and..?

3604 MR. REGAN: The ‑‑ I am sorry..?

3605 COMMISSIONER del VAL: The issue of if the broadcasters were forced to broadcast a signal that they have no control over and yet the issue of liabilities as between even the BDU and the broadcaster is not settled, do you think that should be an obstacle? Do you think that ‑‑

3606 MR. REGAN: The liability issue is real. But again, I think government has an obligation with respect to public safety and I think they have an obligation to assume certain liabilities. As one of our colleagues here earlier said, if there is negligence on the part of the broadcaster with respect to participating or delivering the message, we carry liability insurance for those reasons, for lots of other things, but I think the message itself is the responsibility of the local authority, government authority or government agent whoever they might be.

3607 COMMISSIONER del VAL: So do you think we should wait until that issue of liability, say between the authorized issuer and the ultimate displayer of the message, do you think we should wait until at least that part is settled before making a 7(d) amendment?

3608 MR. REGAN: You will forgive me if I have misunderstood the wording on 7(d), but it didn't strike me as being obligatory, sorry, didn't strike me as requiring mandatory carriage. My understanding of it, and I could be wrong, was that it provided or cleared the way rather to remove legalities that now preclude delivery of those messages.

3609 COMMISSIONER del VAL: It is not so much mandatory, but the broadcaster would no longer have a say as to whether that alert signal can be ‑‑

3610 MR. REGAN: Modified.

3611 COMMISSIONER del VAL: ‑‑ can alter, yes, their program.

3612 MR. REGAN: Well again, I think at a certain point I think we have to trust the people who are trained in emergency management to do their jobs correctly and to be honest, again with great respect to my friends at CanWest and CTV and CHUM, I don't know that it is the media's place or that it is appropriate for us to start rejigging a message with respect to public alerting, that doesn't make any sense to me. I think that is when you get into liability issues when you start playing with the message.

3613 But I think if you have emergency management people who are trained in the appropriate delivery of those messages and if you have, again, criteria established and the correct protocols, I think at a certain point you would have to trust that the message coming through is the right message. And again, we have controls in place to preclude just anybody walking in off the street and sending up an emergency message.

3614 COMMISSIONER del VAL: But perhaps if the CanWests of the world want to rejig that message and thereby take on the liability should it be our attitude that well by all means then you can be responsible?

3615 MR. REGAN: That is a tough question. I don't know what would be an appropriate response. I suppose if CanWest, you know, wanted to assume that liability. But I think, again, I think consistency in the message is very very important if you are going to cultivate an understanding of what emergency alerting is. And that is why our preference is to have the message be consistent in appearance and in terms of its context and in terms of where it comes from.

3616 COMMISSIONER del VAL: Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to give us your perspective, it has been very helpful. Those are my questions, thank you, Mr. Chair.

3617 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner del Val. I have ‑‑ well a lot of questions are coming in my mind. When I am reading your paragraph number 8 of your written submission I see that you have been very successful in involving over 150 Alberta broadcasters in the EPWS, and AMBER alert service. And if I am looking at the diagram that you have provided us with at the end of your oral presentation, I see that CKUA is the issuer of the message ‑‑ you are getting the message from the field, in the terrain, but you are the issuer and it goes not only to your CKUA network, but it also goes to all the other broadcasters.

3618 Am I ‑‑ here talking only radio broadcasters, but also cable and television broadcasters?

3619 MR. RODTS: Yes, we included cable companies and television stations.

3620 THE CHAIRPERSON: And television stations. Now, we have been ‑‑ and it is your own message that goes on air, a message that you have received, that you have put in form that is sent and that is the one that is broadcast over those 150 broadcast ‑‑ if need be or it will be to a very ‑‑

3621 MR. REGAN: Localized.

3622 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ localized ‑‑ "granular" ‑‑

3623 MR. REGAN: Yes.

3624 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ as Videotron called the area ‑‑ say Medicine Hat for ‑‑

3625 MR. REGAN: Yes.

3626 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ for one purpose.

3627 MR. REGAN: Yes.

3628 THE CHAIRPERSON: Then they ‑‑ how have you circumvened section 7(d) of the distribution regulations in order to have your message through all the..? Have you negotiated with each and every broadcaster and service provider so that they have freed you up of any..?

3629 MR. REGAN: Yes, well we haven't personally, but the Alberta Government has basically acquired voluntary participation from the broadcasters in Alberta, the ones that are on the list and really it is the vast majority. I can't think of any that haven't participated unless they're outside of the region, the coverage area of EPWS, which would be very very few.

3630 THE CHAIRPERSON: And it is the Government of Alberta that has undertook to negotiate with each and every interested party?

3631 MR. REGAN: Yes, they have invited them to participate and they have invited them in and the media in Alberta have been very willing in spite of the, you know, occasional recalcitrance or occasional reluctance. For the most part they have been willing to at least give it a shot in trying to make this system work.

3632 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now there is a delegation of authority to CKUA. Have you sought a network license?

3633 MR. REGAN: No, sir.

3634 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, sir.

3635 MR. REGAN: Should we?

3636 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am leaving it to our experts at the table, but from ‑‑

3637 MR. REGAN: We are Alberta.

3638 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are Alberta. Do I understand that say Shaw Communications is also a participant in your service?

3639 MR. REGAN: That is correct.

3640 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is correct. So is Shaw putting a message on all the signals that they are carrying on..?

3641 MR. REGAN: On all of their channels?

3642 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on all of their channels?

3643 MR. REGAN: I don't know the answer to that.

3644 MR. RODTS: I don't know for sure, because there are so many cable head ends. And usually once we activate an emergency alert silent test or a real test it is the Alberta Government that calls all the authorities, making sure that they have received this signal as verification.

3645 THE CHAIRPERSON: Obviously, I don't know if you.. In the area where you live have you ever seen ‑‑ say you were watching A&E and they ran an alert. Have you seen ‑‑ is it a crawl, is it a fixed image, what..?

3646 MR. REGAN: It is full screen fixed image ‑‑

3647 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is full screen fixed image.

3648 MR. REGAN: ‑‑ and audio transmission.

3649 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is it?

3650 MR. REGAN: Correct.

3651 THE CHAIRPERSON: And will it go on all the channels or on a very limited number?

3652 MR. REGAN. I honestly don't know the answer to that. The people from Shaw could probably tell you. Honestly, I have never seen it or been in a position to see it when an activation has occurred.

3653 MR. RODTS: If I may interrupt. As a fact, on all the local television stations in Edmonton the warning does appear, yes.

3654 THE CHAIRPERSON: And what do you call local in that instance, all the 100 channels that they are offering or all those who are over‑the‑air television?

3655 MR. RODTS: Over‑the‑air television and available on cable as well.

3656 MR. REGAN: So yes, so it does go to the over‑the‑air people who are..

3657 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

3658 MR. REGAN: So if I am a Shaw subscriber it will show up on all of the locally available channels, television channels. Whether it goes ‑‑

3659 MR. RODTS: I think ‑‑

3660 MR. REGAN: I am sorry, Chris, I was going to say whether it goes to A&E and CNN I am not sure.

3661 MR. RODTS: We maintain the network as well. We have heard stories yesterday of people purchasing equipment and it being left in a corner and not working. All the receivers, the EPWS receivers, are owned by the government but we carry all the engineering, all the support, we are available 24/7, 365 days a year.

3662 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, well those were my questions and I know that the legal counsel may have a few others.

3663 MR. McCALLUM: Just a couple, if I may. When you receive a message from EPWS you do not alter it, you pass it unaltered?

3664 MR. REGAN: That is correct.

3665 MR. McCALLUM: And so in addressing the liability issues you address it through like, for example, your own insurance?

3666 MR. REGAN: We have liability insurance to deal with negligence, yes, with respect to our EPWS position. Our contract with the government also provides some indemnity with respect to the content of the message itself.

3667 MR. McCALLUM: So you don't consider yourself responsible for the content of the EPWS message that you receive?

3668 MR. REGAN: No, sir. It originates with a government authority and we carry it unaltered.

3669 MR. McCALLUM: And on a cable system the channels are force tuned to one channel?

3670 MR. REGAN: It is not a channel. Chris perhaps can explain this a little better than I, but it is basically the emergency public warning logo, if you like, appears on the channel. So it is not rerouted anywhere if I am correct, Chris?

3671 MR. RODTS: No, only the logo will show indicating that there is an alarm. There will also be very loud tones, bursts of noise, then the message.

3672 MR. McCALLUM: Sorry, if I am watching a TV channel, the local Edmonton channel, what will appear on the screen? It will be an icon or..?

3673 MR. REGAN: Yes, it is the ‑‑

3674 MR. McCALLUM: So the programming continues?

3675 MR. REGAN: No, the programming disappears. The icon and the message is inserted, if you like, into that program, it takes over that program.

3676 MR. McCALLUM: It takes over the program?

3677 MR. REGAN: Yes.

3678 MR. McCALLUM: So as a viewer you no longer see the program?

3679 MR. REGAN: Correct.

3680 MR. McCALLUM: Is that a method also of addressing the liability for broadcasters that vis à vis the broadcaster, their signal is no longer distributed and since viewers are not watching it any liability that they might have otherwise had is attenuated by the fact that something else is superimposed?

3681 MR. REGAN: I am not a lawyer, but I suppose it could be argued. As I say, they have voluntarily participated in the program and the message that comes to them is unaltered, it originates with government‑designated authorities and delivered via equipment provided through the Alberta Government and a signal generated, if you like, by CKUA. Is that fair to say?

3682 MR. RODTS: Yes. And also in place is a letter between the broadcaster and the Alberta Government ‑‑

3683 MR. McCALLUM: I see.

3684 MR. RODTS: ‑‑ as a contract or..

3685 MR. McCALLUM: Yes, good I was going to ask sort of a clean‑up question if there are any other measures taken or put in place to address the liability issues. So that letter is another measure?

3686 MR. RODTS: Exactly.

3687 MR. McCALLUM: Anything else to address the liability issues?

3688 MR. REGAN: Not that I am aware of.

3689 MR. McCALLUM: Could you just explain, there seems to have been an increase in the number of authorized users in the Alberta system going from some 400 or so in 2003 to around 1,000 now. Can you explain why the increase?

3690 MR. RODTS: We have 362 municipalities in the province of Alberta and per municipality there is two employees who can access the code. So basically, we have 700 people that have access authorized through the EPWS system and we have about 80 people that have access to the AMBER system.

3691 MR. REGAN: There has also been ‑‑ I think it may be a reflection of the expansion of the EPWS from original two jurisdictions, Edmonton and Calgary, to 10 jurisdictions, if you like, or regional areas around the provide. So the number of participants has expanded since 2002, so that may account for some of that expansion.

3692 MR. McCALLUM: Do provincial government authorities also have access to the system as well as municipal authorities?

3693 MR. REGAN: Yes.

3694 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3695 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Regan. Thank you.

3696 MR. REGAN: Thank you very much.

3697 THE CHAIRPERSON: And we will take a 10 minute break and we will continue with the intervention period.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1815 / Suspension à 1815

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1826 / Reprise à 1826

3698 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please. À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

3699 For those who are applicants, before you leave the room I want you to know that we expect you to be here tomorrow for the reply, and the Commission will have questions for the three of you. So even if you don't have any formal reply we will expect that you will be in the room and be ready to reply to the Commission's questions.

3700 I am asking the Secretary to introduce the next intervenor.

3701 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3702 I would now invite the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness to come forward if they are here.

3703 The next appearing intervenor would be Deborah Kerr‑Guitard.

3704 I would then invite Mr. Marc Denis Everell for Environment Canada to come forward.

3705 Gentlemen, you will have 10 minutes for your presentation.

3706 Thank you.

INTERVENTION

3707 MR. EVERELL: Thank you.

3708 Bon après midi. Ça me fait plaisir, également, de présenter mes collègues autour de la table, David Grimes, et puis Basil van Havre, notre aviseur légal, c'est‑à‑dire Julie Rancourt, et également, Nicole Bois.

3709 Monsieur le Président, Members of the Commission, as the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Meteorological Service of Canada, I am very pleased to be here today representing Environment Canada.

3710 Thank you for giving our department the opportunity to highlight our support for a critical enhancement to public safety in Canada through the establishment of an all‑hazard, all‑channel public alerting emergency broadcast system.

3711 I would like to take the next few minutes to explain to the Commission why we believe so strongly in the essential role that the broadcast media must play in alerting Canadians to significant hazards that pose a significant risk to life and property.

3712 Les catastrophes naturelles sont de plus en plus présentes dans le quotidien des Canadiennes et des Canadiens. En fait, la grande majorité de ces catastrophes, soit plus de 85 pour cent sont la conséquence de phénomènes hydrométéorologiques, et le Canada n'est pas à l'abri des conséquences de ces phénomènes naturels.

3713 Aujourd'hui, le monde passe à l'action. Partout, les états se mobilisent pour lutter contre ces risques naturels et protéger leurs citoyens et leurs infrastructures.

3714 Pas plus tard qu'en mars dernier, les présidents Bush et Fox, ainsi que le premier ministre Harper, se sont engagés à travailler ensemble pour réduire au minimum les dures réalités reliées aux catastrophes naturelles et environnementales que confrontent les sociétés nord‑américaines.

3715 A critical element of an effective emergency management system is timely and effective communication. An effective early warning system is obviously not just about improving science and technology to predict such natural hazards, something we do very well at Environment Canada, but is equally about having the lead time notification to take the appropriate action that saves lives. So it is to this last point that the proposal now before you plays such an essential role.

3716 Canadians have spoken. Our surveys and others have confirmed that Canadians prefer to obtain weather information via the broadcast media. They rely on the media and they expect to be warned by the media.

3717 These all‑hazard, all‑channel alert proposals that you have in front of you will fill a significant gap in today's world of technological automation to ensure that Canadians can be warned of imminent natural or environmental risks that impact on their safety.

3718 Au Canada, comme vous le savez, c'est notre ministère à qui il incombe de produire les prévisions météorologiques et d'émettre des avertissements de phénomènes météorologiques ou environnementaux menaçants. Il le fait par le biais de diverses sources.

3719 Notamment, à travers les médias, Environnement Canada émet chaque année environ 15 000 messages d'avertissement, dont beaucoup portent sur des événements qui doivent survenir dans la ou les journées qui suivent, comme les bordées de neige qu'on connaît bien, ou pour des dangers imminents comme des tornades et des orages violents.

3720 En fait, ce sont ces derniers avertissements plus immédiats qui nous préoccupent le plus aujourd'hui sur le plan de la sécurité publique.

3721 À l'heure actuelle, nous utilisons de nombreux canaux pour diffuser nos informations : les médias, notre réseau Radio Météo, le courriel, le fax, et bien sûr, notre site web.

3722 Bien que nous réussissons à rejoindre de plus en plus des citoyens et citoyennes d'année en année, nous ne pouvons compter uniquement sur nos propres systèmes pour rejoindre la population en cas de situation d'urgence imminente, the short fuse items.

3723 I would like to illustrate a case study for the Commission as an example of the current situation in Canada.

3724 On Friday, July 14, 2000, in the early evening, a very strong tornado hit a campground near Pine Lake, Alberta. It injured over 100 people and tragically caused the death of 12.

3725 Our forecast for this event was quite accurate with warnings issued about half an hour before the event.

3726 Surveys conducted amongst the survivors indicate that there was virtually no awareness of the imminent danger. Many campers, in this case, were listening to the radio or watching TV. Nobody interviewed recalled hearing a warning of imminent danger on the broadcast media. Even with five minutes warning people could have been evacuated to safer locations.

3727 This is very important to remember. This is a very important situation that took place and these situations are not unique. They take place from time to time, maybe not with such drastic consequences.

3728 I think this case and many others illustrate clearly that broadcasters can and must play a role in disseminating short‑term emergency weather warnings to Canadians. Maybe on average only a few lives are lost every year due to severe weather and environmental events, but it is the risk to life and the much higher consequences of those events happening in a high density area that we have to plan and act for.

3729 Environment Canada has been supporting the development of an all‑hazard, all‑channel public alerting system since the early 1990s. We have been part of steering committees on the matter along with Industry Canada and Public Safety Canada.

3730 Environment Canada has been working with public and private sector partners to develop and test systems. The summary lessons learned from over a decade of talking and experimenting are, first, that such a system is critically needed and second that its implementation must be mandatory.

3731 In over a decade of effort on improving public alerting, where the participation of broadcasters has been voluntary, Canadians have often not received the warning messages, as in the case of Pine Lake. Therefore, if participation in an emergency alerting system is left to the discretion of broadcasters, we are not confident that it will succeed.

3732 Whatever system or systems are selected, their use, in our opinion, must be mandated for use by the broadcast industry.

3733 Some intervenors from the broadcast industry have said here at the hearing that if asked they will just do it and implement a system. Where were these people in the last decades? You know, I didn't see them, we didn't see them, many of them.

3734 Our experience over the past 13 years with public alerting is that the broadcasters are unable or unwilling to commit to the costs associated in an increasing competitive market. We have not been successful in this period in impressing upon forecasters the role that they serve in serving the public, even for emergency situations.

3735 In short, we do not have faith that the broadcasters will, even if encouraged by the CRTC or government at large, be willing to incur the expense needed to implement the system. I mean certainly if they would act fairly proactively this would be very counter to our recent experience.

3736 Vous le savez, le Canada accuse un retard par rapport aux autres pays qui ont déjà mis en place ce genre de système. Après le tsunami de 2004 et les ouragans de 2005, nous devrions avoir tirés les leçons qui s'imposent et être prêts à agir pour diminuer la vulnérabilité des Canadiens.

3737 Il y a maintenant, comme vous le savez, des décennies que les États‑Unis ont mis en place un système obligatoire de diffusion publique de messages d'alerte qui interrompent les émissions de télévision et de radio en cours pour diffuser des messages d'urgence. Si leur système n'est pas, aujourd'hui, tout à fait à jour, il demeure que le nécessité de ce système n'est pas mis en doute.

3738 En France, le gouvernement, de concert avec les médias et les autres groupes intéressés, a également conclu une entente sur un système d'alerte obligatoire.

3739 Public education has been mentioned several times during this hearing. EC, Environment Canada, has been actively engaged in this field as the citizens need to know what to do with the information they will get. We want to ensure you of our continuous engagement in this activity as well.

3740 Commissioners, I am not here to tell you which of the current applications before you you should select. Our department will support any alerting system that will increase our reach to Canadians in their homes, workplace, cars and boats. That is why we find merit in all three licence applications.

3741 These proposals will not, however, be the final answer. A range of new methods and systems of alerting citizens through their personal computers, cell phones, even wristwatches, will need to be looked into. The initiative led by our colleagues at Industry Canada like CANALERT could lead toward such innovative solutions.

3742 In conclusion, Commissioners, we should not wait for a catastrophe to happen and then respond to questions as to why we did not have such a system in place. After 13 years of discussion at the government level, as Industry Canada hosted steering committees as early as 1993, it is time to actually do something about it. Canadians are counting on us to ensure their safety.

3743 Merci beaucoup. Il me fera plaisir maintenant de répondre à vos questions avec l'équipe qui est avec moi.

3744 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Everell.

3745 Avant de passer la parole à madame Pennefather, à Pine Lake en 2004...

3746 M. EVERELL : En 2000.

3747 LE PRÉSIDENT : En 2000, pardon... oui, 2000, le système du gouvernement de l'Alberta ne fonctionnait pas à ce moment‑là, il n'était pas encore en opération?

3748 M. EVERELL : Non, ce système‑là, il était partiellement en opération...

3749 LE PRÉSIDENT : Partiellement en opération.

3750 M. EVERELL : ...mais peut‑être pas pour cette zone‑là.

3751 LE PRÉSIDENT : Mais il ne l'était pas pour cette zone‑là. Donc, c'est une des raisons pour lesquelles, évidemment, l'alerte n'a jamais été déclenchée, parce que ce système‑là, normalement, aurait dû fonctionner.

3752 M. EVERELL : Exactement, il aurait dû fonctionner, oui.

3753 LE PRÉSIDENT : Mais, évidemment, il n'était pas en place.

3754 M. EVERELL : En Alberta, ils ont ce système‑là, mais dans d'autres parties du pays, comme vous le savez, ça n'existe pas.

3755 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui, puis c'est la seule région du pays où il y a un système qui est fonctionnel.

3756 Madame Pennefather.

3757 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

3758 Merci pour vos commentaires cet après‑midi et pour les commentaires par écrit.

3759 J'aurais une clarification en commençant. Je pense que vous dites aujourd'hui :

"I am not here to tell you which of the current applications before you to select, be it one or many." (As read)

3760 Et dans la lettre, on dit :

"For this reason, EC supports the CRTC providing licence to the three applicants." (As read)

3761 Est‑ce que vous pouvez nous clarifier, juste pour être clair, sur où se trouve Environnement Canada en ce moment?

3762 M. EVERELL : Bien, Environnement Canada, on n'est pas un expert dans tous les détails techniques là qui sont impliqués dans ces propositions‑là.

3763 Également, il faut reconnaître que la réglementation dans ce domaine‑là est relativement complexe à suivre. J'ai essayé de suivre vos débats, vos discussions, et puis je dois vous avouer que c'est assez complexe.

3764 À ce stage‑ci, je pense qu'Environnement Canada vous laisse à vous, les experts, le choix, à savoir qu'est‑ce qu'il faut faire dans ce domaine‑là.

3765 Nous, ce qu'on a de besoin, c'est d'avoir un système qui va être en place, qui va être disponible pour travailler avec nous et nous permettre de, finalement, acheminer nos messages urgents aux Canadiens, ce qu'on peut faire assez difficilement actuellement, surtout dans certaines parties du pays. Dans d'autres parties, ça va assez bien.

3766 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER : Peut‑être je peux mettre de l'emphase sur les mots "one or many."

3767 Sur le côté de votre expertise en terme de vos besoins pour alerter le plus grand nombre de Canadiens possible, est‑ce que plusieurs systèmes sont mieux qu'un système? Est‑ce que ça ne risque pas une confusion? À titre d'exemple, en ce moment, l'exemple que vous nous donnez, même s'il y a deux ou trois systèmes, des fois, personne entend l'alerte.

3768 MR. EVERELL: The bottom line is that we are ready to work with the systems that are available and we will find ways to work with the available system.

3769 We are doing that right now to a certain extent with what is available and as things develop we will find a way ‑‑ we will develop with the provider appropriate protocols to work with them. We have some right now in place that work very well. We will continue in that vein.

3770 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Which protocols are you referring to when you say they work well?

3771 MR. GRIMES: We have been quite active with the CANALERT working group in that, as recognized, Environment Canada does issue a lot of warnings.

3772 With respect to your previous question, it is clear that Canadians use multiple ways of being informed about these dangers and therefore we are actually, as in the CANALERT system, trying to use a multichannel approach recognizing that not all Canadians are watching television at the same time or listening to radio at the same time. So we have been quite active over the last 13 years working with a number of agencies to promote this kind of multichannel use.

3773 With respect to confusion, I think this needs to be worked out with the broadcast industry to sort of simplify how these messages go out. We will work with whoever is out there, whatever system is there. If Alberta is independent from a system in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it is in the interest of Environment Canada to ensure those messages reach all Canadians no matter where that particular danger.

3774 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: At the starting point then, in terms of your authority and your expertise ‑‑ we have mentioned several times in the course of the last couple of days the CANALERT guidelines and more particularly the definition of "authorized user".

3775 As you know, it may come to us to include such definitions in perhaps changes to regulations if we should decide to proceed in that manner. In your view, is the definition of "authorized user" in the draft guidelines coming out of CANALERT an appropriate definition of "authorized user"?

3776 MR. GRIMES: We had provided input to that directly and we are satisfied with the way it is framed.

3777 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So you would agree with a definition of "authorized user" that limits access to the system or systems to only those individuals and agencies with a mandate to monitor and inform the public with respect to threat to life.

3778 In your experience as well ‑‑ you have heard the discussion ‑‑ what level of emergency would trigger the alert system that we are discussing here?

3779 MR. EVERELL: Well, in the case of meteorological phenomena, we would say that tornado warnings and as well severe thunder storm warnings should trigger the system. In fact, we have tried to identify how many such warnings this could mean let's say for the region of southern Ontario. I mean these are only estimates but for the Windsor area it could mean something like 75 warnings during the extended summer season. For the Toronto area it could mean maybe around 30 warnings that would trigger the system.

3780 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So anything largely over that then, in your view, might constitute an overuse of the system or is there any way for us to decide that?

3781 MR. EVERELL: Well, I think we can still obviously be very open with the various players to understand if other circumstances also could be considered.

3782 For instance, we were discussing within our meteorological community, if you look at the Toronto area, for instance, maybe freezing rain, you know, that happens at 10 o'clock in the morning and that is going to last for a few hours, and we know that pretty well for a fact or a good prediction. Could there be a need to warn Canadians in that area at that time? I think those are sort of questions that we have in our mind.

3783 But I think with respect to what I said about tornados and severe weather or severe storms, we are quite definite about that. This is accepted also by the broadcasting community.

3784 MR. GRIMES: Just as a supplementary, where you have a significant change of event that threatens life or the security of citizens, then that would be when you would use this warning. So in a context of providing information where you forecast a rainstorm in Toronto, to use as an example, and suddenly to be recognized in very short notice that that would be a freezing rain event that could have a significant consequence on the security of the citizens in that area, then we would use that kind of event.

3785 So it is, in the judgment of the authorized organization, a feeling that there is a threat to the safety of Canadians that one would use that.

3786 MR. EVERELL: If I may add another element.

3787 Within our sort of department also there is a group that deals with environmental emergencies, like things that could develop in terms of toxic clouds or fumes following an explosion or the like. Well, it could be that in that case there would need to be an alert to Canadians in a certain area provided, particularly about where the cloud could direct itself rapidly depending on the wind conditions.

3788 So I think obviously there needs to be perhaps a bit more discussion to refine these aspects, but I think with respect to meteorology it is a little more, I would say, organized at this point.

3789 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: This brings me to your point about voluntary versus mandatory. You seem to make a very strong case. Would you want to elaborate on that, particularly ‑‑ we don't need to discuss it at length, and I take your point that you are the experts and you have also made the point about public education. You are there to do what you have to do.

3790 Assuming though that the definition of "emergency" and the various levels that we can see in various guidelines, be it the CAB's guidelines for private radio or the guidelines currently on the table for CANALERT, indicate the importance of consistency and accuracy, I'm wondering why, if you could just elaborate a little more on your concern ‑‑ broadcasters and distributors, cable distributors, satellite distributors ‑‑ we need to require mandatory and not voluntary considering the importance of the broadcast media in this area and their own comments that they would be willing to step up to the plate. Why do you see the necessity for mandatory?

3791 MR. EVERELL: I think I answered a little bit your question in my presentation, but maybe I will ask my colleague David Grimes to supplement it.

3792 MR. GRIMES: What we have noted over the course of the last decade in the broadcast industry is this move towards automated systems. The Pine Lake example was that it happened after six o'clock on a Friday and the local radio station that was there basically had no one in there to relay a message. We say it's mandatory because we want to make sure the message goes out and we want to make sure it goes out directly and timely because minutes saves lives, especially when you are talking about a tornado.

3793 So in that context, the faster you get that message out ‑‑ so if under the existing system, a voluntary approach, where it has to be relayed by someone working in the studio, you lose time and sometimes, and it is recognized that in some locations, there isn't anyone to relay that message and so that message just doesn't get relayed.

3794 So our concern on mandatory is that we need a system that is national, we need a system that is uniform, we need a system that everyone participates in. The applications that have been presented here are a move in that direction and they will work within the CANALERT guidelines where we have been working on developing those protocols.

3795 Thank you.

3796 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.

3797 You have heard my colleagues also ask several intervenors about which kind of alert would be most effective in your view, the pop‑up, the full screen, the crawl. Do you have any comment on that?

3798 MR. EVERELL: Maybe, Basil, please.

3799 MR. van HAVRE: We have done some research on the design of the alerts and the full screen is an effective way as it is used at the moment on the Penmark channel.

3800 The crawler on one part of the screen seems also to be effective. It is being used in several jurisdictions.

3801 So as long as the lettering is in a large enough size, and we probably could circulate some of the research we have done on that, and if there is a good enough contrast and the issuing urgency is clearly identified ‑‑ for example, in the case of tornado warnings, the crawler should start by: Environment Canada has issued a warning for ‑‑ that's the important part for us.

3802 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: What is your comment on service for Canadians who are visually impaired or hearing impaired? Do you consider the applications or the proposals in front of us are adequate in that regard?

3803 MR. van HAVRE: I'm trying to recall from memory. We have done some surveys with the visually impaired and the hearing impaired in the past. The way internally we were addressing the concern was through a combination of various methods.

3804 As you know, we issue the warning by several different tools that we control, one being by the radio, another one being the Web site. That is the way we have been dealing with that.

3805 In the case of the proposal here, I remember that there is a 1‑800 number service. We do the same. We have a telephone service and we do provide the alert on the telephone service ourselves. That seems to be similar with the approach we have taken.

3806 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you. Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

3807 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commission counsel.

3808 MR. McCALLUM: Just to follow up on a couple of small points.

3809 Commissioner Pennefather asked you about the definition of "authorized user" referring to the one that is in CANALERT, which refers to:

"A public authority refers to federal, provincial, territorial or municipal government, department or agency that is appointed or authorized under its respective legislative laws or bylaws as the responsible entity in charge of public safety in the concerned jurisdiction." (As read)

3810 Environment Canada would qualify as an authorized user under that definition.

3811 MR. GRIMES: There are probably two contexts. One is the context of precedence and practice.

3812 In the case of Environment Canada, the actual enabling legislation does not state that the Minister is authorized for issuing warnings specifically but in the context it does say it is responsible for matters of meteorology and in the matters of meteorology that would be ‑‑ warnings are in the matter of meteorology and the minister therefore uses that as his authority for issuing warnings. So in that context we would qualify.

3813 MR. McCALLUM: So your interpretation is that Environment Canada would qualify as an authorized user.

3814 MR. GRIMES: Yes.

3815 MR. EVERELL: Yes.

3816 MR. McCALLUM: Is Environment Canada involved at all with the EPWS system in Alberta?

3817 MR. van HAVRE: Yes, we are a participant in this process and we are one of the issuing agencies authorized to use the system. I don't think we have used it since it was created.

3818 MR. McCALLUM: In the previous group, which was CKUA, we asked them about measures to address liability. They said that various indemnity agreements have been put into place, including agreements between I guess the Alberta government and broadcasters. I wondered if an indemnity agreement has been put in place between Environment Canada and Alberta broadcasters for the use of the system in Alberta.

3819 MS RANCOURT: The Crown is self‑insured. It is not necessary for the Crown to enter into indemnity agreements or those type of arrangements.

3820 There is nothing unique in this situation as to how the law would apply. If Environment Canada is found to be negligent in the alerts it issues, Environment Canada will assume responsibility.

3821 MS McCALLUM: Would that answer also apply at the federal level then if the Commission were to go ahead with one or other of these applications?

3822 MS RANCOURT: I'm sorry; I'm not clear as to your answer.

3823 MR. McCALLUM: What I'm trying to understand is, would your answer also apply at the federal level, in other words, no need for letters of indemnity to broadcasters, because the Crown is self‑insured?

3824 MS RANCOURT: Well, that's correct, as between ‑‑ if you are talking about agreements between the Crown and third parties, the Crown and broadcasters, the answer is the same. The Crown is self‑insured, the Crown is under ‑‑ there is no requirement for the Crown to enter into indemnity agreements.

3825 MR. McCALLUM: But I think from the perspective of the broadcasters in Alberta they wanted and, I understand from the answer from CKUA, they obtained a comfort letter from the provincial Crown offering to indemnify them in case they, CKUA, passed an inappropriate alert.

3826 So one of my questions was: had Environment Canada given a similar letter, comfort letter, to broadcasters in Alberta?

3827 MR. EVERELL: The answer that I have today is that we have not done so. Nothing has been done.

3828 MR. McCALLUM: So if I ask the same question at the federal level, would the answer also be probably not?

3829 MR. van HAVRE: Not to our knowledge.

3830 MR. McCALLUM: In other words, you would not have any intention to do so.

3831 Let me requalify the question.

3832 You would not have any intention to do so absent legislative change.

3833 MR. van HAVRE: Maybe it's useful to talk ‑‑ we deal with the media for warnings in other circumstances. In the other circumstances where we exchange warnings with them, on our behalf they rebroadcast a warning not an alert. Let's say we are talking here about a severe winter storm coming in two days. We have not entered into an arrangement where we alleviate from liability.

3834 MR. McCALLUM: So nothing is in place right now.

3835 MR. van HAVRE: Right.

3836 MR. McCALLUM: You also spoke about I guess some study that was done dealing with the different types of alerts, the pop‑up box, the crawl, the full screen. In the context of doing that study, were there any comments? Did anybody make any comments as to whether the full screen option helps to deal with or attenuate or address liability of broadcasters?

3837 MR. van HAVRE: No. The study was more in terms of the capacity of the public to understand the message and the inconvenience of having the rest of the visual of the program taken away from them.

3838 MR. McCALLUM: So liability issues were not addressed in that context whatsoever.

3839 MR. van HAVRE: That's correct.

3840 MR. McCALLUM: Thank you.

3841 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3842 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Everell. Thank you to your colleagues.

3843 We will go to the next intervenor.

3844 Madame la Secrétaire, s'il vous plaît.

3845 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, Monsieur le Président.

3846 J'inviterais maintenant monsieur Vincent Géracitano d'Avis de recherche.tv à venir à l'avant.

3847 Monsieur Géracitano, vous avez 10 minutes pour faire votre présentation.

3848 M. GÉRACITANO : Merci.

INTERVENTION

3849 M. GÉRACITANO : Monsieur le Président, mesdames et monsieur les conseillers, membres du personnel.

3850 Bon, en effet, je suis Vincent Géracitano, président et actionnaire majoritaire des entreprises titulaires des licences de services spécialisés numériques Avis de recherche et All Points Bulletin.

3851 Comme vous le savez, Avis de recherche et All Points Bulletin sont des services dont la programmation a pour but d'offrir aux organismes chargés d'appliquer la loi au Canada un outil médiatique pour obtenir de l'information des citoyens.

3852 En complément, ces deux services diffusent également des émissions de prévention sur tous les aspects de la sécurité publique.

3853 À mon avis, ces deux services remplissent une mission d'intérêt public national qui devrait être reconnue comme telle. J'ai, d'ailleurs, déjà déposé au Conseil une demande à cet effet qui sera discutée et débattue au moment approprié.

3854 Le but de mon intervention aujourd'hui est double.

3855 D'une part, je veux accorder mon appui total au principe de créer un service d'alerte tous‑canaux. Je suis convaincu qu'un tel service servirait lui aussi l'intérêt public national et que sa mise en oeuvre serait utile et bénéfique pour l'ensemble des citoyens canadiens.

3856 Je demande, donc, au Conseil d'approuver la création d'un tel service et de répondre positivement à la demande qu'il juge le mieux apte à assurer sa mise en oeuvre et son succès parmi celles qui lui sont présentées.

3857 D'autre part, je veux insister sur le fait qu'il est essentiel que le Conseil rende la distribution d'un service d'alerte tous‑canaux obligatoire pour toutes les grandes entreprises canadiennes de distribution terrestre et par satellite s'il veut que ce service remplisse efficacement sa mission d'intérêt public national.

3858 Je peux témoigner d'expérience que ce n'est pas parce qu'un service de programmation sert l'intérêt public national qu'il trouvera facilement preneur auprès des distributeurs canadiens.

3859 Depuis son entrée en ondes en octobre 2004, Avis de recherche a contribué à l'arrestation de nombreux suspects, à la découverte rapide de personnes disparues, à mettre un terme à certaines pratiques frauduleuses et à retracer des criminels en fuite.

3860 En dépit de ses succès manifestes et de la réussite de quelques campagnes de prévention qu'il a diffusé, Avis de recherche n'est distribué aujourd'hui que par une seule entreprise de distribution, Vidéotron, alors que All Points Bulletin est toujours à la recherche d'un distributeur.

3861 Pourtant, nous n'avons pas ménagé nos efforts pour être distribués. Nos services ont reçu l'appui enthousiaste du ministre de la Sécurité publique du Québec, de tous les principaux corps de police municipaux, provinciaux et fédéraux du pays.

3862 Nous recevons presque quotidiennement des témoignages d'appréciation et de gratitude de la part des organismes chargés d'appliquer la loi.

3863 Cela démontre éloquemment, à notre avis, que le Conseil doit accorder une distribution obligatoire au service numérique de base des principaux distributeurs à tous les services de programmation dont il juge qu'ils servent l'intérêt public national, car, à défaut, ces services ne seront pas en mesure de remplir leur mission et de survivre dans un univers où leur distribution est laissée exclusivement au bon vouloir des distributeurs.

3864 Le Conseil devrait aussi réglementer les tarifs mensuels de gros de ces services, car, autrement, les distributeurs, au mieux, ne paieront pas pour distribuer ces services. Au pire, ils demanderont à être payés pour distribuer de tels services, ce qui est le cas actuellement pour Avis de recherche.

3865 Quand aux recettes de commandite et de publicité, elles sont très difficiles à obtenir pour des services qui n'offrent aucun contenu de divertissement, sans compter que les annonceurs potentiels sont extraordinairement réticents à s'associer à un service qui parle de crimes réels, même si ce service sert l'intérêt public national et contribue à créer une société canadienne plus sécuritaire et plus respectueuse des lois.

3866 Une telle situation ne peut durer, car elle ne rend pas justice aux services de programmation spécialisée dont la mission principale est de servir l'intérêt public national. En fait, elle compromet leur existence ou leur survie.

3867 Je vous remercie de votre attention et je suis, évidemment, disposé à répondre à vos questions.

3868 LE PRÉSIDENT : Je vous remercie, Monsieur Géracitano.

3869 Évidemment, je comprends très bien votre intervention, mais je ne suis pas sûr qu'on est dans le bon forum pour en discuter.

3870 Cependant, vous avez quand même souligné un certain nombre de choses qui sont pertinentes à l'audience présente, et qui est la distribution obligatoire d'un service d'alerte multi‑canale ou d'alerte météorologique.

3871 Vous avez entendu les demandes, vous avez pris connaissance des demandes qui ont été déposées, mais vous avez surtout entendu les diverses interventions qui ont comparu devant nous aujourd'hui. Il s'est présenté quand même plusieurs modèles de diffusion, et je sais que vous avez une expérience avec Avis de recherche.

3872 Malheureusement, je ne peux pas dire que je suis un téléspectateur fréquent d'Avis de recherche, mais j'y ai quand même posé mes yeux. Vous travaillez surtout avec des images fixes.

3873 M. GÉRACITANO : Oui, ainsi que des vidéos, dépendant de qu'est‑ce que...

3874 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui.

3875 M. GÉRACITANO : ...les services de police nous fournissent.

3876 LE PRÉSIDENT : C'est ça. Mais en tout cas, ce que j'avais vu, c'était avec des images fixes.

3877 On nous a parlé, aujourd'hui, de systèmes d'imagerie comme la bande défilante, une image fixe et/ou une bulle d'information qui nous réfère à un autre endroit.

3878 Avec votre expérience, est‑ce que vous pouvez nous faire des commentaires sur ces modes d'imagerie?

3879 M. GÉRACITANO : Le commentaires que je pourrais faire, et c'est, d'ailleurs, une suggestion que j'ai apporté à CANALERT, c'est possiblement de référer, que ça soit une bulle ou que ça soit un son ou que ça soit une bande défilante, de référer à un autre canal qui est déjà là pour la sécurité publique.

3880 Alors, potentiellement, ils pourraient être référés au canal All Points Bulletin dans le Canada anglais s'il y a une urgence. Alors, les auditeurs qui sont intéressés à suivre ou de savoir un peu plus sur l'alerte peuvent être référés à un autre canal.

3881 LE PRÉSIDENT : Et ça, ça signifie que All Points Bulletin... mais évidemment, il est distribué de manière obligatoire vers l'ensemble des ADR du pays?

3882 M. GÉRACITANO : Ça, c'est un autre débat, effectivement.

3883 LE PRÉSIDENT : Parce que si je suis dans une région où on me dit d'aller regarder All Points Bulletin, mais All Points Bulletin n'est pas distribué, ça limite, évidemment, beaucoup le système.

3884 M. GÉRACITANO : Qu'est‑ce qu'il faut noter, c'est que ce n'est pas uniquement All Points Bulletin. Qu'est‑ce qu'on doit mettre de l'avant, c'est vraiment l'intérêt public.

3885 Il n'y a pas seulement All Points Bulletin ou Avis de recherche. Il y a des canaux communautaires. Alors, si on ne peut pas dévoiler tout le message au complet avec une bulle ou avec un genre de message... un crawler, on peut facilement les référer à un autre canal qui a également les intérêts du public, que ça soit un canal communautaire, dont ce canal‑là pourrait prendre, avec les services spécialisés pourrait prendre et céder son temps d'antenne aux autorités.

3886 LE PRÉSIDENT : Vous avez parlé, d'ailleurs, dans votre document du fait qu'une des difficultés inhérentes à votre service, c'est effectivement le problème de la redevance mensuelle pour un service. Or, une des propositions qui est devant nous impliquerait une redevance des abonnés de câble.

3887 Avez‑vous des observations à nous faire sur...

3888 M. GÉRACITANO : Évidemment, je ne peux pas... je ne veux pas sélectionner une des applications contre l'autre. Qu'est‑ce qui est essentiel, c'est que les coûts restent minimes. C'est ça qui est essentiel.

3889 LE PRÉSIDENT : Et c'est quoi des coûts minimes pour vous?

3890 M. GÉRACITANO : Évidemment, dépendamment de la technologie qui est utilisée. Je ne connais pas les intervenants. Je ne connais pas les besoins physiques en termes de matériel, en termes d'équipement. Des coûts... tout est relatif. Ça peut être cinq cents par abonné, comme ça pourrait être vingt‑cinq cents, dépendamment de la façon qu'ils peuvent justifier leurs coûts.

3891 LE PRÉSIDENT : Je présume que les gens de Pelmorex aimeraient mieux vingt‑cinq cents que...

‑‑‑ Rires / Laughter

3892 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...que le tarif qu'ils nous ont proposé, mais... d'accord.

3893 Vous nous avez dit... il y a quelques instants, vous avez dit que vous avez été consulté par CANALERT.

3894 M. GÉRACITANO : J'ai rencontré certaines personnes de CANALERT, et dans une rencontre d'un après‑midi, j'avais posé la suggestion de possiblement référer les alertes à un canal qui est déjà là, que ça soit un nouveau canal comme All Points Bulletin ou un canal existant.

3895 LE PRÉSIDENT : Une des questions qu'on a discuté, aujourd'hui, par beaucoup avec les intervenants, puis avec les requérants hier, c'était la notion des usagers autorisés.

3896 Avez‑vous eu des discussions avec CANALERT sur cette question‑là? Parce que vous avez sensiblement le même problème, on vous fourni des informations que vous diffusez à Avis de recherche, mais elles ne vous sont pas nécessairement soumis par n'importe qui dans la population générale. Elles vous viennent de sources autorisées, je présume?

3897 M. GÉRACITANO : Exactement. Si on prend l'exemple d'Avis de recherche, pour ceux qui ne sont pas familiers avec Avis de recherche, on diffuse les images des services de police, que ça soit photos ou vidéos, et également des photos de personnes qui sont portées disparues. Très souvent, c'est des enfants. Et à l'occasion, on reçoit des demandes d'afficher une photo d'une fille qui est portée disparue. La mère communique avec nous.

3898 Pour nous, il est essentiel que les messages qu'on diffuse proviennent uniquement des services de police pour questions de sécurité.

3899 Dans le cas d'un système all alert, c'est vraiment les autorités qui ont les compétences de diffuser ces messages. Ce n'est pas n'importe qui qui doit utiliser ce service.

3900 Que ça soit une application ou que ça soit l'autre, moi, je les vois comme des outils pour les intervenants, pour les autorités, que ça soit CANALERT ou que ça soit un autre organisme, une autre agence qui a la responsabilité d'émettre ces alerts.

3901 D'ailleurs, je veux vraiment stresser le fait que pour que le service pour un canal... an All Alert Channel, an ACA, soit vraiment fonctionnel, c'est vraiment la gestion des messages, c'est vraiment la gestion de l'information qui est diffusée.

3902 Les technologies qui nous sont présentées aujourd'hui sont bonnes aujourd'hui, mais demain, peut‑être qu'elles seront désuètes, il va y avoir une autre technologie un peu plus avancée. Alors, c'est un peu difficile de choisir une aujourd'hui et dire on oublie ceux qui vont nous être présentés demain.

3903 Mais qu'est‑ce qui est vraiment essentiel, c'est la gestion de l'information, et je ne sais pas si, avec tout le respect au CRTC, je ne sais pas si ça relève du CRTC de s'assurer que la gestion de l'information... d'après moi, il faudrait vraiment, avec les bonnes autorités gouvernementales, mettre en place un système ou une agence qui va s'occuper... pan‑canadien, du Pacifique à l'Atlantique, une façon de gérer toute l'information qui est diffusée dans les messages.

3904 Comme j'ai donné l'exemple d'Avis de recherche, la mère de famille, oui, ça fait de la peine que sa fille ait disparu, mais nous, il faut vraiment que le message nous provient des corps de police, et en temps et lieu, je peux vous montrer plusieurs courriels qu'on reçoit ou plusieurs appels qu'on reçoit de mères de famille qui demandent qu'on affiche les photos.

3905 Il faut vraiment que ça soit des autorités, et pour des raisons vraiment de... on a parlé tout à l'heure de liability. C'est vraiment une question de qui est responsable. Il faut s'assurer que l'information qui est diffusée est exacte, qu'elle est, comme on dit en anglais, qu'elle est timely. Il ne faut que ça soit de l'information qui est désuète. Alors, il faut vraiment que les personnes... qu'il y ait un système de gestion qui est mis en place pour gérer cette information.

3906 LE PRÉSIDENT : Vous avez... d'ailleurs, vous venez juste d'en faire allusion. C'est la responsabilité de qui? Et vous posez vous‑même la question, est‑ce que c'est la responsabilité du CRTC? Et vous avez remarqué qu'on s'est posé nous‑mêmes la question.

3907 Donc, comme vous êtes un intervenant qui est expérimenté par l'expérience d'Avis de recherche, croyez‑vous que le CRTC est une autorité habilité à déterminer qui sont les usagers autorisés?

3908 M. GÉRACITANO : Vous me pardonnerez, mais je crois, avec tout le respect, que le CRTC, oui, vous êtes habilité d'ordonner que le canal ou que le message d'ACA soit vraiment mandatory, qu'il est vraiment obligatoire pour obliger les radiodiffuseurs ou les télédiffuseurs de diffuser le message, qui est un message de toute alerte.

3909 Par contre, le contenu du message, avec tout le respect du CRTC, il y a des autorités, il y a des agences gouvernementales, que ça soit des services de police, que ça soit des services de pompier ou que ça soit même possiblement CANALERT, je n'ai pas de ces connaissances.

3910 Mais alors, oui, il faut faire une distinction entre la technologie pour s'assurer que le message soit parvenu aux auditeurs à travers le pays et une autre autorité qui est plus apte à décider quel message est d'importance et quel message est de moindre importance.

3911 On a parlé tout à l'heure de la toilette de quelqu'un qui a fait un back‑up. Qui décide quel message diffusé?

3912 Ça, c'est la question, et ça serait bien important, une fois que vous mettez le système en place, que les agences gouvernementales, le département ‑‑ je ne pourrais pas vous dire quel département gouvernemental ‑‑ dans ces situations‑là doivent mettre un genre de protocole en place pour avoir un genre de guideline pour s'assure que ces informations sont vraiment pertinentes et sont des matières d'urgence, que ce sont des matières qu'il faut vraiment alerter la population.

3913 Et également, si je peux rajouter, il faut vraiment s'assurer que l'information qu'on diffuse est pertinente et qu'elle est timely.

3914 On a parlé tout à l'heure... je ne sais pas si c'était ceux de CTV qui ont fait des commentaires. Je vous donne un petit exemple. Si on diffuse une alerte, une alerte nationale qui provient d'Ottawa, parce que c'est un service national, et que les personnes locales savent que cette alerte est maintenant désuète, le problème n'est plus là, est‑ce qu'on continue toujours à diffuser cette alerte?

3915 Alors, c'est vraiment... il faut être sûr que les personnes qui ont l'autorité de diffuser ces messages‑là ont l'information à la dernière minute, et ils peuvent retirer une alerte très, très rapidement.

3916 Nous, de notre côté, si je peux simplement rajouter ‑‑ je crois l'avoir mentionné ‑‑ c'est que sur notre chaîne, les services de police uniquement ont le droit de diffuser des messages.

3917 LE PRÉSIDENT : Je vous remercie de votre présentation. Je vous remercie de votre patience pour avoir passé tout ce temps‑là avec nous.

3918 Ceci va conclure la Phase III de l'audience publique.

3919 Madame la Secrétaire va nous faire une petite annonce.

3920 LA SECRÉTAIRE : C'est ça, Monsieur le Président.

3921 Juste pour indiquer, pour les fins du dossier, que les intervenants qui devaient comparaître mais qui ne se sont pas présentés à l'audience, leur intervention va demeurer au dossier comme des interventions sans comparution.

3922 Merci, Monsieur le Président, et ça complète la Phase III du processus.

3923 LE PRÉSIDENT : Nous reprendrons demain matin à 9 h 00 avec la Phase IV et la réplique des quatre demandeurs. Le premier requérant sera Bell ExpressVu.

3924 So we will resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning for the rebuttal period, Phase IV. The first to appear will be Bell ExpressVu.

3925 We are expecting all the applicants to be here, even if you choose not to make any comments. The Commission asks questions to each and every one of the applicants.

3926 Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

‑‑‑ Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1922, to resume

on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 0900 / L'audience

est ajournée à 1922, pour reprendre le mercredi

3 mai 2006 à 0900

REPORTERS

_____________________ _____________________

Lynda Johansson Sue Villeneuve

_____________________ _____________________

Monique Mahoney Madeleine Matte