Proposals

Various attempts had been made in the 20th and 21st centuries to establish a public alert system in Canada, by both departments of government and by television broadcasters.

Under the 1995 Federal Policy for Emergencies, Industry Canada led the effort for coordinating the provision of an emergency broadcasting service, based on the facilities and services of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Environment Canada and, as necessary, privately-owned networks and stations.^[6]

In 2001, Pelmorex, owners of The Weather Network and MétéoMédia, applied to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for an amendment to their licenses to encompass a mandatory "All Channel Alert" system, requiring all television providers to relay emergency messages on behalf of governments across all of their channels. The service would have used proprietary hardware developed by Pelmorex, and would have been funded primarily by a 13 cent increase in carriage fees for the two channels. However, its initial proposal was denied by the CRTC, citing the need for consultation with broadcasters, television providers, and other parties on how the system would be designed, along with its costs. There were also concerns over the means in which the system was to be implemented technologically, and that the system was not inclusive to the visually impaired because Pelmorex only specified use of a text crawl, without an audio component.^[7][8]

Establishment of such a system in a voluntary form was hampered by CRTC rules at the time, which required television providers to obtain consent from broadcasters before they could overlay emergency notifications onto their programming.^[7] In 2005, CRTC called for proposals regarding a national alerting system; Pelmorex and the CBC submitted proposals for a national system, while Bell ExpressVu submitted a proposal requesting the removal of the consent requirement. The CBC's proposal would have fed alerts via satellite to decoders installed at local CBC Radio transmitters. It would have allowed television providers to participate on a voluntary basis by installing decoders of their own, if the aforementioned consent requirement were removed. All three applicants promised to adopt the standardized alerting specifications that were developed by the government-backed CANALERT initiative.^[7]

While broadcasters and governments supported the proposals for a national alerting system, CTV, Canwest Global and CHUM Limited showed concerns surrounding the Pelmorex proposal, as it would be operated by a for-profit venture that would have the power to override their signals with third-party content, and be redundant to alerts already provided as a public service by some broadcasters. Shaw and Rogers argued that the Pelmorex system was less cost-efficient than the CBC's proposal. It was also disputed whether the CRTC could even order the mandatory distribution of the service, as the CRTC does not regulate alphanumeric content because it is not considered television programming.^[7]

In 2007, the CRTC removed the consent requirement to ease the adoption of voluntary alerting by broadcast distribution undertakings, but stated that it would reconsider the possibility of a mandatory alert system in the future.^[7][9]

Development

In 2009, the CRTC approved a proposal by Pelmorex to grant must-carry status to The Weather Network and MétéoMédia on digital television services. As part of the proposal, Pelmorex committed to developing a "national aggregator and distributor" (NAAD) of localized emergency alert messages compliant with the Common Alerting Protocol. Pelmorex established a governance council for the system, including representatives of the broadcasting industry, federal government, members of the Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management (SOREM), and the Canadian Association for Public Alerting and Notification, to oversee its operations.^[10][11][12]

The NAAD System was officially launched in 2010, becoming the technical infrastructure for the NPAS initiative.^[9]

In a 2011 renewal of the must-carry status, the CRTC praised Pelmorex's work, considering the NAAD system to be "an essential element of a national public alerting system," and expressed an expectation for all broadcasters to voluntarily participate in distributing its alerts. However, as a condition of the renewal, the CRTC ordered Pelmorex to reach agreements with all federal, provincial and territorial emergency management officials to allow them to transmit messages through the system, implement the capability of processing "broadcast intrusive alerts" through the system, and develop a public awareness campaign surrounding the alert system with a budget of at least $1 million per-year.^[10][11][12] In June of the same year, the province of Alberta launched a new alerting system of its own, Alberta Emergency Alert, which distributes alerts on radio and television, as well as online and via social networking services.^[13][14] This replaced the previous Emergency Public Warning System which had been used since 1992.

Environment Canada, the Canadian Council of Emergency Management Organizations, and the provinces of Manitoba and New Brunswick endorsed the potential use of the NAAD framework as a backend for a mandatory public alerting system.^[12][3] On 26 May 2013, SOREM published a "Common Look and Feel" specification for alerts. Developed with guidance from the broadcasting industry, it describes how and when alerts are to be distributed and presented to the public.^[3] As part of a license renewal in May 2013, CBC Radio agreed to implement an alerting system using NAAD by 31 December 2014.^[15]

On 27 February 2014, the CRTC issued a proposal to mandate participation in the national alert system by all television and radio broadcasters, and cable and satellite companies. The commission felt that owing to the importance of the endeavour, broadcasters had displayed an inconsistent level of commitment to implement it voluntarily.^[3] This mandate was passed by the CRTC later that year through regulatory amendments.^[9]

The Wireless Public Alerting System (WPAS) initiative was also launched that year as a three-year pilot project led by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, in collaboration with Defence Research Development Canada and Public Safety Canada, with the purpose to develop the use of LTE-based technology for emergency wireless public alerting.^[9]

Alert Ready

On 29 August 2014, the CRTC ruled that all Canadian broadcasters, including over-the-air television broadcasters, radio broadcasters, and broadcast distribution undertakings, must begin participating in the National Public Alerting System by 31 March 2015.^[9] Community, campus, and aboriginal broadcasters were given an extended deadline of 31 March 2016 to implement the system.^[10]

In 2015, through television and radio, Pelmorex launched a public awareness and education campaign about the new emergency alerting service. This campaign was branded Alert Ready (French: En Alerte), launching on 31 March 2015. Alert Ready is now the public-facing brand name for the NPAS initiative.^[9][16]

Bell Satellite TV, MTS, Shaw Direct, and Sogetel do not fully participate in the system, as some of their customers utilize legacy set-top boxes that cannot be updated to support the display of public alerts. They were granted a six-month extension for the implementation deadline by the CRTC in order to address these issues, under the condition that they inform customers that they cannot receive public alerts unless they update their hardware, and must present bi-weekly progress reports to the CRTC. CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais criticized the providers for their inability to properly implement the system, stating that the commission "will not hide our disappointment that certain television service providers are not ready, despite having been given more than enough time [to implement it.]"^[17][18]

In December 2015, the CRTC granted an indefinite extension of the exceptions and reporting guidelines to Bell, Shaw Direct, and MTS until they completely phase out hardware that is not compatible with the NPAS. The CRTC felt that the providers had made a good-faith effort in informing customers of their inability to receive public alerts and offering hardware replacements. Bell reported that some customers had declined their offering of a free set-top box replacement as they did not want to participate in receiving alerts. MTS discontinued its legacy "Classic TV" service due to its inability to display alerts, and urged its remaining subscribers to migrate to its current "Ultimate TV" (now Bell MTS Fibe TV) platform.^[19][20]

Provincial tests began to improve public awareness of the new system, such as in Manitoba,^[21] and Quebec. One of the tests in the province on May 19, 2015, simulating a tornado emergency in the Centre-du-Québec region, surprised many people tuned in to radio or TV in the region, leading some to believe that there was an actual tornado emergency.^[22]

Launch of mobile alerting

An example of a mobile Ontario AMBER Alert notice

On 6 April 2017, the CRTC required all wireless carriers in Canada to begin relaying public alerts over their LTE and post-LTE wireless networks by 6 April 2018, using Cell Broadcast-based standards by ATIS similar to the U.S. Wireless Emergency Alerts system, collaborating with the SOREM Common Look and Feel guidelines. The CRTC required at least half of devices offered by wireless carriers to support wireless public alerts (including at least one device available at no-charge on-contract, and one "accessible" device) by the implementation date. As of April 2019, all devices sold by wireless carriers must support wireless public alerts.^[23][24] The mandate does not apply to networks older than LTE; the CRTC chose to exclude older network technologies (such as 3G) from the mandate, citing wide deployment of LTE networks across the country, and that government funding has been used to support its deployment in underserved areas.^[24]

On 29 January 2018, the CRTC informed the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence of concerns surrounding the possibility of false positives (such as a false missile alert in Hawaii earlier that month), and ensuring that the industry meets its goal of at least 50% of devices being capable of receiving mobile alerts by that date.^[25][26][27]

Wireless alerting

In addition to television and radio, Alert Ready issues emergency alerts to cell phones and wireless devices that are compatible with the Wireless Public Alerting System (WPA). The WPA system uses a Canadian version of the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) standard adopted in the United States.^[31]

A separate "Wireless Immediately" flag is used to require Cell Broadcast distribution. Wireless alerts on devices specifically supporting Cell Broadcast alerts utilize the same attention signal sound and a specific vibration pattern mimicking this sound. The Common Look and Feel Guidance specifies that the phone's software must display these alerts with a capitalized, bilingual heading reading "EMERGENCY ALERT / ALERTE D'URGENCE", and a limit of 600 characters due to device limitations. Devices may not be configured to allow users to opt out of alerts: they are coded using the same priority level as U.S. presidential alerts—the only U.S. category which may not be disabled. If the device's software is primarily designed for the U.S. implementation of WEA, it will typically identify Canadian wireless emergency alerts as a presidential alert.^{[30][32][33][34]}

Mobile apps are available that distribute alerts as push notifications to mobile devices such as smartphones.^[35][36][13]

Public awareness testing

Public awareness tests are held twice per-year, in which a 30-second test message (60 seconds in provinces where bilingual messages are issued) is distributed to radio and television outlets, and a Cell Broadcast message is sent to wireless phones. One is held on a Wednesday in May during Public Safety Canada's Emergency Preparedness Week, and the second is held in November.^[37][38]

Initially, five tests were scheduled annually, in May and quarterly on the third Wednesday of every third month of the year. After the introduction of wireless alerts in May 2018, however, SOREM quietly ceased all quarterly tests, citing concerns that tests only directed to broadcast media could cause confusion to the public over the effectiveness and correct operation of the extended system. The CRTC supported this position, officially requiring wireless service providers to participate in two public-visible alerts per year, distributed on all platforms.^[39][40]

There is precedent for alert tests to be postponed or cancelled on a regional basis if there is an ongoing threat of an actual emergency in an area, such as for instance, Spring flooding in parts of Ontario and Quebec in May 2019.^[41] Contrarily in 2023, Alberta Emergency Alert opted out of the national schedule, moving its first test up from May to March 1, 2023, to coincide with the designated start of wildfire season,^[42] and opted out of the nationwide test in November, considering it unnecessary due to the large volume of alerts that had been issued in the province since March (due primarily to tornadoes and wildfires).^[43]

Alerts issued

The following is the total number of emergency alert messages issued by Canadian government authorities through Alert Ready.

Wireless alerting

The first public awareness test to include Cell Broadcast transmission occurred in Ontario and Quebec on May 7, 2018, with the remaining provinces following suit on May 9, in observance of Emergency Preparedness Week. In Quebec, a syntax error in the test message's XML file caused the wireless alert to fail, while users in Ontario reported mixed results.^[66] Testing in the remaining provinces and territories, excluding Nunavut, occurred May 9, 2018, again to mixed results, with people reporting having not gotten an alert despite their phones meeting the requirements. Though the test was reported to have worked in Nova Scotia and PEI, reports from Alberta, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and Labrador,^[67] and Saskatchewan saw people failing to get alerts (although the crown telecom SaskTel deemed it a success).^[68][69] Following the first test, Bell Mobility and Telus acknowledged issues preventing receipt of the messages.^[70]

In September 2018, Scott Shortliffe, chief consumer officer of the CRTC, acknowledged that the effectiveness of the system was being affected by technical problems, following a province-wide AMBER Alert in North Battleford, Saskatchewan where the wireless cell broadcast was delayed by several hours (as well as complaints by Manitoba residents over the cross-provincial extension of the alert),^[71] and mixed reports during tornadoes in the Ottawa-Gatineau region (including some users not receiving any message, and users in Quebec only receiving an English-language message).^[72] On October 3, 2018, CRTC Secretary General Claude Doucet issued a letter ordering service providers to participate in another visible all-channel alert test that was being scheduled in November (scheduled for November 28). SOREM also requested that the CRTC mandate biannual tests of wireless alerts rather than just annual.^[73][74][70]

Criticism emerged following an AMBER Alert in Ontario on May 14, 2018 for a child allegedly kidnapped in Thunder Bay, Ontario—the first to have included mobile alerts. Three different emergency messages were sent, the first contained only English text, but was resent merely a half hour later in order to add a French-language translation, followed by one more alert message stating that the AMBER Alert had been cancelled, and the child found safe. Criticism was directed primarily towards the intrusive presentation of the message, and that all AMBER Alerts are sent across the entire province rather than regionalized to only cover a vicinity around the city (the alert was received as far as Toronto, which is at least 1,400 kilometres (870 mi) away from Thunder Bay), and the fact that all wireless alerts are mandatory and cannot be disabled (unlike in the U.S., where AMBER Alerts are one of three categories of alerts users may opt out from, while "Presidential" level alerts are mandatory and may not be disabled). There were concerns that such excessive use could result in alarm fatigue and desensitization to actual local emergencies.^[75][33][76]

In a 2019 follow-up to his previous criticisms of the system, Gurney noted that several instances of AMBER Alerts issued during the early-morning hours in Ontario had prompted residents to call 9-1-1 to complain. He argued that such alerts were only of immediate relevance to recipients that were awake, attentive, and "out-and-about" (who could be targeted via radio and television rather than cell broadcast), but were being given the same intrusive presentation as alerts for imminent threats to public safety that affect a larger population. Gurney thus argued that in such a situation, those who were not awake could learn the details of the alert in the morning instead. He also acknowledged similar opinions presented by Philip Cross in an editorial for its sister publication, the Financial Post; Cross felt that AMBER Alerts on phones should be optional as in the U.S., comparing the disruption of sleep caused by late-night alerts to health effects associated with daylight saving time, and noting that the public would be "more likely to arrive at better solutions if we can discuss the issue sanely, rather than have all complaints dismissed as callous disregard for children's safety."^[77][78] In response to an Ontario AMBER Alert that concluded with the victim found murdered, a Maclean's columnist, Scott Gilmore, pronounced all critics of the system to be "horrible" and expressing entitlement for their refusal to participate in the civic duty of locating a missing child in imminent danger.^[79]

In October 2019, a 70-year old resident of Hamilton, Ontario was charged with mischief for disrupting emergency services, after repeatedly calling 9-1-1 to complain about an AMBER Alert broadcast.^[80]

On November 26, 2023, a notice of a boil-water advisory for Maple Creek, Saskatchewan was mistakenly issued as a broadcast alert for the entirety of the province.. The town's economic development officer Gillian LaBoucane stated that the error was caused by a preset in the SaskAlert platform which specified that drinking water-related alerts be issued as a critical, broadcast alert, but that officials were unaware that this would cause the alert to be issued province-wide.^[81]

False alarms

On January 12, 2020 at 7:24 a.m. ET, an emergency alert was issued for the entire province of Ontario, advising that an incident had been reported at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The alert stated that "there has been no abnormal release of radioactivity from the station", staff was responding to the situation, and that no immediate protective actions were required. Approximately 40 minutes later, Ontario Power Generation issued a statement on its Twitter account indicating that the alert had been sent in error. At around 9:10 a.m., a second emergency alert message was issued, containing a similar retraction. Solicitor General Sylvia Jones stated that the erroneous alert was the result of a mistake during a "routine training exercise" by Ontario's emergency operations centre.^[82][83]

In its aftermath, Dave Ryan and John Tory—the mayors of Pickering and Toronto, made calls for a full investigation into the incident. MPP and Ontario NDP energy and climate change critic Peter Tabuns also responded, stating that "confidence in the accuracy of the [alert] system is essential for public safety."^[82] U.S. media outlets drew comparisons between the incident and the 2018 Hawaii false missile alert (coincidentally, the Pickering incident occurred on the eve of the Hawaii incident's second anniversary).^[84]

On February 27, 2020, the results of a formal investigation were published. It found that the alert was triggered by a duty officer of Ontario's emergency operations centre at the beginning of his shift, who had accidentally remained logged into the live alert system when performing a regular internal test. It was considered common practice for officers to log into the live system first to ensure it is functioning before switching to a secondary, internal instance of the system designed specifically for testing purposes. The officer had realized his error, but the alert retracting the previous message was delayed due to an inability to receive clear instructions from Emergency Management Ontario supervisors on how to make an alert broadcast-intrusive, or whether the second alert should have been at all.^[85]

Testing errors

On May 12, 2021, Emergency Management BC accidentally re-issued a test alert that had been used for the biannual provincial test one week prior.^[86]

On March 1, 2023, an Alberta Emergency Alert test was accidentally issued a total of nine times, with seven issued at the originally scheduled time, and two more several minutes later. Officials initially stated that the duplicated alerts were the result of a technical glitch caused by the migration of AEA to the national infrastructure.^[87][88][89] On March 15, it was stated that the incident was a glitch caused by "old code".^[90]

Non-usage