Transport Committee on March 1st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion to adjourn the debate is inadmissible.

Go ahead, Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I refuse to accept the arrogant and condescending attitude of the parliamentary secretary today. At some stage, enough is enough.

It is not just a local project. And since when are local projects not important? A number of mayors are in favour of this project that affects a large region, Quebec's metropolis. I find that very condescending. I too want to get this on the record.

The ministers from Quebec have been working on this issue. The fact that he did not get an application and his minister does not talk to him is another story. One thing is for certain: this is an extremely important issue. It is not a public relations stunt. This is a very important issue for the people in west Montreal, for the greater Montreal area. We all too often hear that we are waiting for the government to get on board before we do. As politicians and representatives of the public, our role is to improve the quality of people's lives.

I am not going to accept that this morning. I can understand the part about funding and all that. But there is no need to be condescending and to dismiss this motion as if it were a piece of junk. It is very important for greater Montreal from both an economic and social vantage point.

When you are the mayor of a municipality, you represent a group of people. Those people came from all over Montreal's West Island, and they spoke to this issue with one voice. Actually, that would complement the train between the downtown core and the Montreal airport.

I would just like my colleague the parliamentary secretary, whom I actually quite like, to take a deep breath and drop his arrogance this morning. His attitude must be related to the fact that it is snowing again.

The issue is important. It is a priority. The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges can go on the news with that; any method is a good way to raise awareness. But let's not dismiss this quality issue just because of the approach.

I think we should vote, Mr. Chair. I would like a recorded vote on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Morin, the floor is yours.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I am personally in favour of my colleague's motion.

The train goes through three towns in my constituency. So I can assure you that this train is not a local project. At our round table with 13 mayors—one mayor was absent—three NDP members, two Liberal members and one Conservative senator were there. I wish local projects could mobilize so many people. Many of us talked about this project, which has a huge impact on the life of West Islanders, especially in Lachine where the train goes over the highway between the West Island and the downtown core. It also goes through the Saint-Pierre interchange and the Turcot interchange, creating a great deal of traffic from Lachine to the West Island.

In order to avoid traffic, motorists pass through my municipality. A great deal of cars go through, and the roads are deteriorating. That will lead to additional expenses for my municipality, because the infrastructure will have to be redone.

I hear the parliamentary secretary talk about the committee's real work in terms of motions. I am sorry, but I think that my job as a member of Parliament is to come forward with important projects that will serve many hundreds of people.

At the moment, the Train de l'Ouest does 18 trips per day, nine going downtown and nine back to the West Island. We are asking for 60 or so departures each way. We want to see numbers. The Quebec government has already announced this project and it is going to invest $400 million in it. That was the request made to the Government of Canada.

I think it is important to consider all the economic, environmental and social benefits of this project. So, in order to guarantee Montreal's economic competitiveness, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities asks the Government of Canada to commit to funding the Train de l'Ouest. In any case, when we build a road, we never ask ourselves how much it will cost. If we need a road somewhere, we build it without thinking about the costs. We are talking about public transportation for hundreds and hundreds of people.

I urge the government to listen to us. My colleague the Conservative Senator Larry Smith mentioned this during his campaign to become a member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He said that, if he were elected, the Train de l'Ouest would be a reality. I feel that we should consider what our colleague opposite is saying.

I don't understand why none of the Conservative members seem to want to talk about the project. They have been trying to prevent us from talking about it. I will leave it at that, since we have witnesses to hear from. But I feel that this project is really important for Montreal's West Island. I urge the committee to consider granting this funding. It is an opportunity to create jobs. Some families spend hours in their cars instead of contributing to the economy. So it is important to give this some thought.

I am definitely going to support my colleague's motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand the request for this train is very popular, according to Mr. Poilievre and my colleagues here, Monsieur Nicholls and Madame Morin.

If Mr. Poilievre was correct in saying that no application has been received yet from the Quebec government, then I can understand there's a slight hesitancy to saying yes or no to this project, but I think Jamie Nicholls' motion makes a lot of sense. I looked at the various reports on this issue. The public report seems to say that the Quebec government has requested federal government funding. They say that publicly. Perhaps the application hasn't gone in. I have no reason to doubt that fact.

I can understand why debating this issue is a problem right now, so I'll move that the motion be deferred until the Quebec government has submitted an application for infrastructure funding. A deferral of a motion, I am sure, is in order.

At that time I'm sure my colleagues will bring in lots of information and supporting documentation about the economic viability of this project, with lots of details for us, so that Mr. Poilievre can give serious consideration to this train west from Montreal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

A motion has been put forward to defer this to a later date. The details are basically in the transcript, so I won't repeat all of that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Can the mover not just do that, without a vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No. The mover can, but it's a motion on the floor.

(Motion agreed to)

Now we'll move on to committee business and welcome our guests.

Joining us today from the Department of Industry are Mitch Davies, associate assistant deputy minister, science and innovation; Gerard Peets, acting director general, marketplace framework policy branch, strategic policy sector; and Mona Frendo, director, policy coordination and regulatory affairs, strategic policy sector.

We have everybody up here.

From the Department of Transport we have Kristine Burr, assistant deputy minister, policy, policy group; Marc Fortin, regional director general, Atlantic region; Jutta Paczulla, director, innovation policy; and Marc Prévost, director; transportation development centre.

You've all been here before. We anticipate your introductory remarks, and then we'll move to the committee for questions.

I don't know whether you've made a decision as to who will start.

Mr. Davies, go ahead, please.

[Mitch Davies, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Innovation Sector, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We're pleased to be here today from Industry Canada to provide information on innovative transportation technologies to the transport committee and to answer your questions.

At the outset I will provide a bit of background in terms of science and technology innovation policy and the Government of Canada's work in this regard. I refer you to the federal science and technology strategy launched in 2007, which provides a multi-year framework of support for science and technology and innovation in Canada.

This strategy reinforces business research and development. Of course commercialization and innovation are vital to maintaining Canada's global competitive advantage and our high standards of living going forward, and we stress the importance of this.

As you know, the Government of Canada and federal policy play an important role in fostering an economic climate that encourages business innovation. Significant programs provide direct and indirect funding incentives to business to support research and development and commercialization.

The conundrum, which has been pointed out by many commentators, most recently was referenced in the budget of 2010. It is that notwithstanding a high level of overall federal support for business innovation as a percentage of our economy, we continue to have an overall flat level of research and development investment on the part of the private sector in the country. This will pose a long-term challenge to our competitiveness if this trend does not change and we don't see improvement.

This led the government to put in place a review panel, chaired by Tom Jenkins, which released its report, “Innovation Canada: A Call to Action”, last fall. I have copies here. It provides a series of general recommendations in the area of innovation on how federal programming instruments, policies, and organizations could be reformed to enhance their support for increased business innovation in the country.

That's it overall, in terms of background. At the moment the government is considering the recommendations of the Jenkins panel in view of future policy development.

In the material we received from the committee, you asked a number of specific questions. We'll try to address them up front and then take questions on them.

You first asked what federal horizontal initiatives exist to facilitate research and development and commercialization of transportation technologies.

On the part of the Industry Canada portfolio, I would point you to three initiatives that provide research and development support to the transportation industry in a direct fashion.

The first is the strategic aerospace and defence initiative. It supports private sector industrial research in pre-competitive development projects in aerospace, defence, and space industries through a repayable contribution. Since the program was launched, over $750 million has been invested in aerospace technology development.

The second is Automotive Partnership Canada, which is a five-year, $145 million initiative. It supports collaborative research and development activities that benefit the Canadian automotive industry through partnerships among industry and academia and the National Research Council. The guiding principle of the program is that projects are to be funded and driven by industry needs and that there be active industrial participation, collaboration, financing, and support for these projects.

The third is the automotive innovation fund, which supports the development and implementation of innovative, fuel-efficient technologies and processes through large-scale research and development projects in the automotive sector. This program was provided with $250 million over five years through to the next fiscal year.

You also received testimony from the National Research Council, I believe, in terms of its own specific programming. I won't repeat that here, but through institutes that they operate and through the industrial research assistance program for small and medium-sized enterprises, there's support that definitely is relevant in terms of innovation in the transportation industry.

I'd also reference the support through granting councils, particularly the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, which provides support in many ways to direct researchers and also, importantly, to research networks.

In this connection, you may have heard of AUTO21, which is a network of centres of excellence. It has been in place for some time. It supports large-scale academically led research in the automotive sector and involves 200 researchers and 200 industry, government, and institutional partners across the country. It's also a program that was launched after the S and T strategy was put in place, the business-led network of centres of excellence.

Through a competitive process, a network was established called the Green Aviation Research and Development Network, GARDN, which received $12.9 million to promote aerospace technologies that have a specific role in reducing emissions, reducing noise, and increasing the efficiency of aerospace technologies.

Over a five-year period the industry portfolio, through a variety of instruments, has invested close to a billion dollars in research and development in support of transportation industry innovation.

I've also referenced a number of other initiatives of a general nature that are important in respect of transportation industry innovation. The first is the collaborative research and development program, which is a program delivered through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. It provides support for academics to work with industries on specific projects, supplying a 50% grant to the academic to work with the industry partner, with a requirement that it be leveraged with private sector funds to increase collaboration with the academic sector.

The second initiative, a responsibility of the Department of Finance and delivered through Canada Revenue Agency, is the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, which is generally available to all industries. The program provides overall support for innovation. In the last year for which we have information, there was $3.5 billion in support to innovation across all industries.

The last is SADI, delivered by the National Research Council.

You had asked how we measure results, how we determine whether we're making progress. I would point you to policies on evaluation of the Treasury Board, which we follow. These require that all of our programs be evaluated over a five-year period. The three that I mentioned as specific to our department in our portfolio will undergo such evaluations.

For SADI, there's an evaluation that has just recently concluded, and that information will be made public within the month. That will be available to members, if they're interested to see what its findings were.

The Automotive Partnership Canada program is more or less midway through its funding cycle. Many projects are coming together and being launched. Once there's sufficient activity that you can actually undertake an evaluation and have some substance to look at, there will be an evaluation undertaken as to whether the program is fulfilling its objectives.

There will be an evaluation of the automotive innovation fund of Industry Canada undertaken in the near future to determine how it's achieving its objectives.

Lastly, there was a question about how intellectual property is managed through these programs. In general, the orientation of the programs working with commercial partners is to vest the intellectual property with the commercial proponent, so that the party that's going to undertake the commercialization activity has the ownership over the intellectual property that's developed, often with the support of public funds.

As to the granting council initiatives, depending on which program the support is provided for, often it's a question of university policies that would apply to the researchers in particular. Those policies may have provisions that vest intellectual property with the researchers themselves or with the university. Whether IP is vested with the proponent or the researcher depends on which institution you look at.

There are more commercially oriented programs out of NSERC that vest IP ownership with the proponent directly, such as their small-sized grants called “Engage” and “Interaction”, which try to start the interaction between researchers and private sector parties.

I will turn to my colleague Gerard Peets, who will give you a description of the intellectual property framework that protects innovation in the country. Then I'll turn to my colleagues from Transport Canada.

Merci.

[Gerard Peets, Acting Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thank you.

One of the questions posed in the invitation to attend today was how intellectual property, or IP, is protected in Canada, and how it stacks up to other jurisdictions.

Intellectual property in Canada is primarily set out in four key federal statutes, and they are the Patent Act; the Copyright Act, amendments to which are included in Bill C-11, which is currently being examined by legislative committee; the Trade-marks Act; and the Industrial Design Act.

As a department, Industry Canada has both a policy and an administrative role in support of these frameworks. The department is responsible for providing policy advice to the Minister of Industry on these acts. It also houses the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, which is responsible for the administration and processing of the greater part of intellectual property in Canada.

Of the various pieces of intellectual property legislation, the most pertinent to emerging transportation technology is the Patent Act. The core purpose of the Patent Act is to promote innovation and investment in Canada and foster competition, especially in new areas of technology. It does this by conferring an exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing an invention. This protection is available for any invention that is new, useful, and non-obvious.

Companies make use of patents to secure and protect a market space in which to exploit their inventions. These patents can also be used to gain revenues from licensing and sales, and, increasingly, to attract financing.

You have a chart that shows how our patent regime compares internationally with some of our key trading partners and in particular how we line up against the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Australia. As the chart shows, each of these peer jurisdictions has the same 20-year term of protection for patents. They all allow for the patenting of business methods. They all have some form of “early working” exception to allow others to use a patent prior to its expiry under certain circumstances, and they all allow for expedited reviews before the granting of a patent.

One area where the frameworks differ is that of computer software, which is not, generally speaking, patentable in Canada or the EU.

I would add that there are certainly indications that companies are making use of patents in Canada in some areas of emerging transportation technology. For example, according to data provided by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Canada ranks fourth in the world in patent filings in the area of fuel cells, behind Japan, the United States, and Germany.

To sum up, from an intellectual property perspective Canada's regime is competitive internationally and is being used by companies that are engaging in emerging technology development in the transportation sector.

Those are my remarks. I will turn to my colleagues from Transport Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Burr.

[Kristine Burr, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Policy Group, Department of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for inviting us to appear today.

You've already introduced my colleagues. I would just note that Marc Fortin, who is our director general for the Atlantic region, until three weeks ago was our director general of transportation technology and innovation. He's wearing two hats today.

I will also note Jutta Paczulla and Marc Prévost, who are also very active on the innovation front.

I was very pleased to learn that this committee is seeking to study the issue of innovative transportation technologies. This issue warrants a substantive dialogue—one that takes a long-term view of the challenges and opportunities.

In this period of fiscal restraint, we need to, more than ever, focus on achieving efficiencies—for example, how can we “get even wiser” and do more with existing transportation infrastructure and equipment. Applying innovative transportation technologies is part of the solution.

We have prepared a deck that you may find helpful as additional background and context for your further study. We will leave copies with the clerk.

I would like to focus today on the economic and policy context of transportation innovation and share with you Transport Canada's work to promote innovation as part of a competitiveness agenda for Canada's transportation sector.

Let me start with the economic context. At Transport Canada we've been asking ourselves if the transportation sector is well positioned to face new challenges, such as the emergence of integrated supply chains, the rise of the BRIC economies, shifts in demographic composition, increased concerns around safety and security, environmental impacts as a result of economic growth or climate change, energy price volatility, and the current global financial environment.

Canada's future prosperity depends on how effectively we're able to respond to these global pressures. That's why having a modern and competitive transportation system, one that meets the challenges posed but that also takes advantage of opportunities offered by these pressures, is vital.

Innovative approaches are not new to the sector, and we'd like to highlight today one area where Transport Canada has been putting a lot of emphasis over the last decade, which is in promoting intelligent transportation systems, commonly known as ITS.

ITS involves the application of “smart” technologies, such as communications, sensors, computing, and management strategies. When applied to transportation, these technologies offer the opportunity to improve operational efficiency, safety, security and environmental responsibility.

Through federal as well as provincial and municipal programs, the basic foundations of ITS have been implemented across Canada. Most major cities today have traffic management systems and traveller information systems.

There are also a number of cutting-edge ITS applications in use in Canada. ITS is used to track and monitor commercial fleets and driver credentials to enhance the secure and efficient movement of intermodal freight and supply chains, to expedite clearance of cargo at border crossings, and for vessel navigation on the St. Lawrence Seaway.

ITS is used to automatically weigh and classify commercial vehicles at highway speeds along their routes, reducing trip times and the need for long-haul trucks to repeatedly stop at highway inspection stations, and ITS is used today to monitor and report actual road weather conditions to help improve winter driving safety and support winter road maintenance operations. These technologies can even monitor and control the amount of road salt applied on highways.

But innovative solutions can take many different forms. Some examples are: innovative governance, notably the privatization and commercialization of transportation infrastructure and services; innovative financing, such as through public-private partnerships; innovative regulations, including management or performance-based regulations that have enabled more proactive risk and inspection techniques for increased safety and security; and innovative partnerships such as the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor that brings together all of the key transportation, labour and logistics providers across our supply chains to help improve performance.

Another example is Transport Canada’s collaboration with the major railways (CN, CP and VIA) through the Rail Research Advisory Board.

This initiative is a direct response to recommendations from the Railway Safety Act review to strengthen both government and industry contributions to technological advancement in rail safety. This work has not only improved joint planning and maximized resources, but has also leveraged the expertise of new partners, including the National Research Council and Canadian universities.

In fact, one of this initiative's objectives is to encourage the development of the next generation of university graduates and researchers and, hopefully attract them to careers in the transportation sector.

Notwithstanding past success and ongoing industry efforts towards continuous improvement, a stronger public and private sector focus is needed on the role innovation will play in getting us to the transportation system of tomorrow.

In the past, productivity in Canada's transportation sector has often outpaced economy-wide gains. However, this positive gap has been declining in recent years, with productivity gains in the sector having either reached a plateau or decreased. At the same time, competitive pressures are mounting. This raises a number of questions: can the Canadian industry do more? Are the various transportation modes keeping pace? If not, what more can be done to encourage a new generation of best and better practices?

Over the course of the last year, Transport Canada has engaged in a series of consultations with shippers, transport operators, industry associations, universities and research institutions, and other levels of government. Our purpose was to identify the barriers to innovation and to determine what our role should be to foster sector innovation.

Our discussions have clearly pointed to the fact that both the degree and the nature of the barriers to innovation are frequently mode-specific and can vary by firm type. However, the findings of this work also highlighted a number of cross-cutting or horizontal themes: there are few formal opportunities for industry and academia to engage; the sector frequently faces difficulty in qualifying for and accessing broader research and technology programs, such as economic development programs at the federal and provincial levels; the sector's focus is often on short-term return on investments, and this focus can be a barrier to R and D and technology deployment.

I would just note that this shouldn't be surprising, because we're talking about a sector in which the modes are incredibly capital intensive. They're focused on investing in the immediate requirements to keep the industry moving, but this tends to have a negative impact on R and D for the future.

A final cross-cutting theme has to do with regulation. A lack of regulatory certainty and the fact that regulations can lag behind business practices and not always keep pace with new technologies can negatively influence private sector innovation.

Through this work Transport Canada has also identified its role as one of knowledge broker and facilitator in terms of both helping to address barriers and to identify opportunities. To this end we've identified four areas where we could strategically focus our efforts in future.

The first is encouraging greater uptake of advanced technologies that enable our operators to integrate and optimize the transportation system. This includes focusing on the efficiency and security of supply chains in border crossings as well as looking at ways to use technology to address congestion problems at ports. It also includes developing a policy vision for the next generation of ITS technologies, particularly as they relate to wireless communications and connectivity.

The second is to target modest research and knowledge investments in strategic areas that address unique Canadian requirements or challenges. Examples include research on what we call cold climate transportation, adaptation to climate change impacts, and longer-term research in support of Transport Canada's safety and security objectives.

The third area is promoting information flows and a deeper sector-specific understanding of innovation performance through data, analysis, and measurement.

Last is to ensure that our policies and regulations do not pose barriers to innovation and thus meet the future needs of the transportation system and its users.

In conclusion, innovation and the application of new technologies are key to improving transportation competitiveness, driving the next generation of sector productivity gains, and addressing system challenges. A study on the part of the committee would greatly contribute to the department's and the sector's work to promote innovation in helping to build a transportation system that meets Canada's 21st century needs.

Thank you for your attention.

We are open to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Nicholls.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming today. I'm sorry you had to put up with our family squabble this morning.

From my past life as an urban planning student, I find the information you've presented this morning fascinating. I'm always excited about the possibilities of sensor technology combined with crowdsourcing in changing the way we do land use planning and the way that we move around our urban and rural areas. There's great potential for this.

My question is more specifically about the government's procurement of Canadian innovation or the idea of homegrown innovation.

The expert panel, the Jenkins panel, was mentioned. It led a review of federal support for R and D and submitted this report to the government in October 2011. In its recommendations, it stated that the federal government spends billions of dollars every year in procurement of technologies and facilities, but that Canada ranks low internationally when it comes to using that purchasing power to encourage Canadian innovation. It seems to me to be common sense that the government should encourage homegrown innovation as part of its own procurement process, so I'm wondering if you can give us a sense of how Canadian innovation is or isn't a main criterion in the procurement of new technologies and facilities in your departments.

[Mitch Davies]

I can start, Chair.

Thank you for the question.

In terms of the recommendation you referred to from the Jenkins report, the call to the government was to consider how it could elevate and integrate innovation more witin the procurement practices of all departments. I think consideration of that recommendation is under way. I would leave it to colleagues at Public Works and Government Services to respond and perhaps provide more specific information to the committee if you had an interest in the subject. I can speak only generally to it.

I think the area is important. It's a question of balancing and assessing the variety of requirements one has to consider when making a purchasing decision for any department under current policies. We have to balance being competitive in cost when buying the goods and services required for the Government of Canada at a price that's defensible to the taxpayer. That's a primary consideration.

A very important second one is the requirements we have under trade agreements regarding how we will undertake to procure goods and services. The third consideration is other mandates, such as support for sustainable development, support for aboriginal business, and so forth. There are a variety of requirements, so procurement requires us to balance a number of policy objectives.

I think the debate, rightly, is about whether innovation is an objective that should be more enshrined or encoded in government policy. Then the question would be how to put that into practice and balance the risk around it. You don't want to give licence, obviously, to government managers to take huge bets and risks with taxpayers' money on things that are not well vetted, or when it's not understood what those risks might be, when essentially most procurement is driven by just buying a good or service that's required as an input to some process in a department. I don't want to complicate things, but part of our job is to do that.

That's more or less the debate around it. Of course, it's up to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the President of the Treasury Board to articulate if there are changes in policy in this area in response to Jenkins. We'll await that determination.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you for that answer.

Could you give us maybe recommendations for how the government could do a better job of encouraging Canadian innovation? For example, should there be a Canadian content requirement in procurement? Should each department have its own review of how best to encourage Canadian innovation? Should there be a minister for innovation, as was recommended by the government's own expert panel, the Jenkins panel, in October?

[Mitch Davies]

Sorry to appear to be elusive, but I think I'd be more comfortable if advice or information on that were provided to the committee by the responsible officials in the area of procurement policy. It's best for me not to tread into their territory lest I get myself in some trouble.

Further, I think that if we were to provide advice, we would usually do this sort of thing with ministers considered in the debate, obviously, and government would make a decision as to what policies it might amend or change over time.

There are areas, though, where specific procurements are undertaken in terms of Canadian economic objectives or other objectives. I would point to the shipbuilding procurement under way, which was announced a number of months ago. It's a very significant project in economic terms, as well as in terms of Canadian expertise, innovation, and the development of the requirement to produce ships for the government's purpose. It's been directed in a fashion that's specific to industrial development.

There are cases where that's undertaken, but it's not the general rule.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I'd like you to expand on page 24 of your innovative transportation technologies document. The title is “ITS Contributions to Public Policy—Societal Benefits”. The third bullet point mentions transportation for livable, accessible communities. Could you expand upon how ITS helps things like active transit and land use planning and how it allows communities to choose alternative modes of transportation?

[Kristine Burr]

Mr. Chair, ITS is an integrative bundle of technologies, if you will. One of the really exciting things it permits is integration of information from many different sources.

Some of the applications that are actually bearing fruit right now are allowing us, through our gateway initiatives—particularly the Asia-Pacific gateway initiative—to integrate the transportation management systems of a number of the metropolitan and urban governments of the Lower Mainland of B.C. Over time, we will be working with the province and TransLink, the transportation entity that offers transportation services to commuters and others in B.C., so that a growing number of municipal governments will all integrate their transportation information systems.

There is already a traveller information system there, so individual travellers will be able to check—either through their cellphones, eventually, or through web-based technologies—whether a bus is coming or whether they should choose between one option or another. It will also facilitate the flow of trucks from Port Metro Vancouver through the Lower Mainland, hopefully reducing congestion and increasing mobility for both cars and freight operations.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for joining us. I have to tell you—and I am talking through the chair—that I am very pleased and happy to have you here. I hope that we will be able to invite you again. Actually, once we meet with the other witnesses from the private sector and universities, it will be important for you to come back. Your responsibilities are not limited to research and development. You talked at great length about regulations, smart regulations in particular. What you are doing and what you are telling us is really important.

Thank you for the document. It is extremely well done. I am somewhat familiar with the government machinery and I am able to recognize your professionalism and transparency in dealing with this issue.

I have two questions: one is for the representatives from the Department of Industry and the other is for the representatives from the Department of Transport.

In terms of the Department of Industry, I am very interested in the government's procurement policy. You talked about aerospace in particular and one major aspect is the commercialization of innovation, which will actually affect your average Joe and Josephine. It could be in terms of defence purchases, for example.

Since we no longer produce aircraft and we take care of maintenance, we have to think about the intellectual property of software or equipment. If we want to reclaim it later to be able to play a role in the industry, it is important to look at that. That is why I have always said that intellectual property is key to innovation.

I would like to talk about ITAR, those American regulations that pertain to Canada when it comes to military equipment. If we buy a plane from Lockheed Martin, for example, and if we want to take care of the maintenance for that equipment, we have to consider civilian licenses. Industry Canada will have a say in that.

Do you think ITAR or the arms regulations can create problems for us? One of the major problems Bell Helicopter has experienced is that the American government has a list of 25 countries, and people from those 25 countries cannot be near military equipment in Canada. We can often lose the contract because of that.

Mr. Peets could perhaps answer this question. Just in terms of intellectual property, should we reassess the situation and have an agreement, although there are already ad hoc negotiations with the U.S. government and the Secretary of State? Should we not have a more specific agreement? Taking over the equipment is sometimes seen as an obstacle to productivity.

[Mitch Davies]

That's quite a question.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I know. I've been working all night.