Transport Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll call the meeting to order.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. We also have two witnesses joining us by video conference: Mr. Binns and Mr. Wolf.

We have, as I said, a number of presenters today. We normally go ten minutes. If any or all of you can cut that down to seven minutes to leave some time for questioning, it would be beneficial. I won't cut you off at seven minutes. I just ask you to try to be brief and to the point in giving us information that's valuable. I will be cutting your presentation off at ten minutes, so whatever you want to get in there, try to get it in.

Sometimes there are glitches in technology, so I'm going to ask that Mr. Binns and Mr. Wolf lead off the presentations, starting with you, Mr. Binns.

[George Binns, Equipment Engineer, Paladin Consulting]

I'm doing this in cooperation with Mr. Fuller. Is he present?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, Mr. Fuller is here. I wasn't aware of that.

Mr. Fuller, do you want to lead off, then?

[Garry Fuller, President, GF Rail Consulting]

Very good.

In your opening document, you spoke of lightweight, aerodynamic, intelligent types of vehicles, and the efficiency of existing transportation networks. We feel—it's our belief—that the present-day technology really lies with off-the-shelf European-design equipment.

For this discussion, we do not define existing transportation networks as subways, high-speed rail, or long-haul VIA or Amtrak types of operation.

We believe that the biggest benefits lie in the ability to move people from outlying points across areas directly into larger cities, either through high-speed rail, subways, or long-haul. This can be accomplished by utilizing European-designed DMUs.

In the United States, New Jersey Transit is considered to be one of the larger transit operators. In 2008, prior to the recession, because of the fact that they had a lot of diesel- operated transit equipment, the impact on their budget, if the cost of diesel fuel rose 1¢ per gallon, was $360,000 U.S. Also back in 2008, prior to the recession, the study they did stated that if gasoline went from $3.25 a gallon, or 85¢ per litre, to $3.50 a gallon, or 92¢ per litre, this is the point at which people would stop driving automobiles and ride the transit equipment.

This is from their board meeting documentation issued in March of 2011.

You can see that now, four years later, we're talking about the cost of gasoline as being $1.23 a litre, and in some cases in the United States over $5 a gallon. Your Calgary mayor last week put out a document that stated he would need $8 billion for the future transportation needs of the city of Calgary.

In operations, if you're moving in this direction, what we'd like to see you do is choose a European style of design rather than a Canadian or United States design. The reason for this is that the type of equipment they manufacture has a lighter-weight design, and therefore, because of this lighter weight, it has a better fuel economy. It also has lower maintenance costs. The reason for the lower maintenance costs is that they don't require what we would term and classify as the “bells and whistles”. They do require some, but far less than in the United States or Canada.

They are more technically advanced because they have concentrated on moving people via trains and via DMU-type operations. DMUs are not new to them. I first rode one from Marseille to Aix-en-Provence in the 1980s. It was a very slow but very efficient type of operation.

Because of the fact that their designs have been progressing along the lines of rail transit rather than airline transit, they have a lot longer longevity with them. They have a greater off-the-shelf availability. One of the things you see in North America, when you go to a request for a proposal for a design of new-style type of equipment, is the length of time it takes for the equipment to be engineered to meet the standards in North America. Consequently, what you also will see, or should see, is lower origination costs. As well, because this equipment is simple in design, you get a greater variety of design.

That's how we see where you're at in 2012.

In the second part of your statement, you're asking what the obstacles are that are incorporated with this.

The greatest obstacle that we see is what we call “mixed right-of-way”. You have to separate the freight from the passenger. The minute you attempt to separate the passenger and the freight, this is where everything starts to break down. This is where the rules come into consideration. This is where regulations come into consideration. Because of that, you can understand that there's a need to find methodologies for how to compensate for this.

George.

[George Binns]

Another barrier is that here in the United States we have introduced a series of strength or safety standards, referred to as Part 238. Most of this equipment is built to an international UIC standard, which is substantially less than the U.S. standards, but in order to build to U.S. standards it requires considerable engineering redesign of the equipment in order to bring it on board in the U.S.

I'll throw in another thought here. Currently there's a lot of activity regarding crash energy management. It substantially changes the design of the equipment. The U.S. is putting thresholds up there that are some of the highest in the world, and that creates another barrier to the introduction of these already standard designs from both Asia and the U.S.

[Garry Fuller]

Your final question is what the Government of Canada can do to enable advances. We believe that the biggest thing you can do is to institute regulations and allow for what we call temporal separation. Temporal separation was first tried in the United States under what we called the River LINE. I do believe you all have a copy of a document I sent to you earlier entitled “The River LINE”.

The River LINE is a service that was originated in 2004 on the east coast, from Trenton to Camden, New Jersey. They made an agreement with the freight operator to operate the passenger service, the DMUs—not what we would term the Colorado DMU but the European-style DMU—during the day, and then the freight service operates at night. It's quite a transition from what you see elsewhere, where you have the freight and passenger services going hammerhead together and all that.

Their ridership is excellent. They show profitability. They have the same types of DMUs that are used in Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Greece, Slovakia, Germany, and Switzerland. The reason for that—and they're building them to do that—is because of the timing. They operate during the day; the freight operates only at night.

One of the things you can see in Canada, which I believe you'll probably see in the future, is what has taken place over the last 15 years in the United States, and that is the short-line operation. In the United States, the major freights, as they've consolidated, have gone to selling off a lot of their territory for freights to use as short lines. One of the things I would suggest is that if Canada moves in the same direction of having a lot of short lines, you allow regulation that when the short line is sold, it is patterned after what we call the River LINE. It will then give you the opportunity to do that.

[George Binns]

I can add that in the mid-1990s, Amtrak performed a series of demonstrations of European technology that included the X2000, the ICE Train, and the Talgo equipment, which really opened up the doors and started our whole process in the States. They were very successful, very well received. They actually included revenue demonstrations for periods of time. It sort of proved and took down barriers, but again, this is all equipment built to UIC standards.

One of the ways of protecting equipment is with the conversations you've heard recently about installing PTC. That inherently protects the equipment from collisions when you can't temporarily separate. I think that's the true approach to be taken with the introduction of these offshore standards.

[Garry Fuller]

Finally, the last thing is maintenance procedures. Because of regulations, if you do implement the European-style DMU, please do not incorporate massive maintenance instructions, rules and regulations, that therefore then will force you to build them to North American types of standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wolf, we'll turn it over to you now for ten minutes or less.

[Jason Wolf, Vice-President, North America, Better Place]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here.

The innovation and technology for transportation that I want to speak about is the revolution that's taking place on the electric vehicle side, with light-duty vehicles. We're seeing this around the world. Large numbers of models by all different types of auto manufacturers are coming into the market, but we're seeing one big obstacle to mass adoption. We've been with hybrid vehicles for 15 or 20 years, and we're only at about 2% to 3% of each market around the world.

The inherent effectiveness of electric vehicles allows us to move much more rapidly. Of course, it's not something that's going to happen overnight, but in the next 5 to 10 years we can see a mass adoption of 100% electric transportation. The only two barriers are their high cost and their range. We believe the secret to solving both the upfront cost and the range of an electric vehicle is the separation of the battery from the vehicle.

When you look at an electric car and the fuelling infrastructure that surrounds it, and you include a removable battery in that infrastructure, suddenly you get a cost per kilometre that is cheaper than gasoline, you get an unlimited range because of the ability to swap out that battery in less time than it takes to fuel a car, and you get the financial benefit of removing the equivalent of eight years' worth of petrol from the upfront cost. So you get the upfront cost benefit by removing the battery, you get the ongoing mile cost broken down, so it makes sense on an ongoing mile basis, and you get the ability to refuel in less time than it takes to fuel a petrol car.

So how do you put all those pieces together? There are a number of business models out there and companies are working in coalitions with car companies, battery companies, the electric-fuelling infrastructure, and mainstream utilities to put together these systems. It's kind of a chicken and egg situation. Once you put these systems together, where you have the cars, the batteries, and the fuel, which is the electricity, and in Canada it is generated mostly from renewable sources, you can make a huge leap towards a more affordable transportation system. You can have an unlimited and no-compromise system in the light-duty vehicle sector.

I think this is possible. This is a technology that exists today—it is not the technology of the future. We are a company that was founded five years ago. We built two country-wide networks and raised over $800 million in private money. This money was funnelled to countries where the price of petrol is $2 a litre versus $1.40, as I understand it is in Canada. There is a lot of private money that will run after this type of solution and enable this mass adoption, but of course it's going to go where you find the highest level of competition and the highest price of gasoline.

That brings me to my last comment about recommendations. I wanted to leave some time for questions because I know this is a very revolutionary thought. There have been a few years of proof-of-concept countries where you can drive anywhere in the country and you're not paying more for driving on electric. Needless to say, in this type of forum people understand the economic, environmental, and geopolitical implications of moving from a fossil fuel to a locally generated renewable electricity.

The reason that our company, Better Place, has chosen these countries is that they have the biggest return for our private shareholders—$800 million, as I mentioned, of private money from HSBC, Morgan Stanley, and other major financial institutions.

My recommendation to the Canadian government is to look at why the capital flows will go the same as the U.S., why they will flow to countries where there's a higher price on carbon. Even without resetting taxes or carbon prices, there might be ways to offset some of the initial investments that go into these infrastructures, because at the margin, even at $1.40 per litre, this business model is still profitable. The question is, at what decade will the private investors decide to focus their attention on countries that have half the price of gasoline to compete with?

Those are my comments, and I wanted to leave some time for questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf.

We'll now move on to Bombardier Inc., Mr. Pyun.

[Pierre Seïn Pyun, Vice-President, Government Affairs, Bombardier Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

It's a pleasure to be here to discuss rail transportation technologies with you.

Thank you for inviting Bombardier. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning to share our perspectives and views on rail technologies and innovation. I will make a few introductory comments before passing the torch to my colleague, Mr. Paul Larouche.

I'll give you an overview of Bombardier Transportation. As you know, we have two large business units, aerospace and transportation. I guess rail transportation here in Canada may be the lesser known side of our operations, despite the fact that we are the number one rail equipment manufacturer in the world.

Bombardier Transportation has 62 production and engineering sites in 25 countries and a workforce of 36,200 employees. We have customers and services in more than 60 countries. We are the only global rail manufacturer with a strong important presence here in Canada, with a workforce of more than 3,000 highly qualified employees. We have two manufacturing sites, one in La Pocatière, in the province of Quebec, and one in Thunder Bay, in the province of Ontario. We have major engineering sites in Saint-Bruno and also in Kingston. We also have a service centre, serving customers across North America in Mississauga. Our headquarters for Bombardier Transportation North America, which also includes facilities in the United States and Mexico, is located in Saint-Bruno, in Quebec.

I want to underline that the company overall, rail transit and aerospace inclusive, is currently going through a very intense period of research and development, probably unprecedented in our history for its intensity and scale. Over the last five years we have invested more than $2.7 billion in our Canadian operations, including plants, property equipment, tooling, intangible assets, and R and D as well. For instance, on the rail side, we have nearly doubled our workforce in Kingston in the last few years, and we have established a new engineering centre in Saint-Bruno, Quebec.

I will now turn things over to my colleague Mr. Larouche.

[Paul Larouche, Director, Marketing and Product Planning, Bombardier Transportation North America, Bombardier Inc.]

Thank you, Pierre.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Before I get into my prepared remarks, I can't help but point out, in support of Messrs. Binns and Fuller, a beautiful example of temporal separation right here in Ottawa. If you just go up the street to Bayview Station, you can take a ride on the OC Transpo O-Train, which has been operating for many years now. They are Bombardier-built DMUs—diesel multiple-unit trains—that were built to UIC standards. They run on an active freight railroad and they use temporal separation, and they actually also cross the Canadian Pacific railroad, I believe.

We are here today to discuss innovation, a top priority for Bombardier, a company that would never have existed had it not been for innovative ideas. This innovative thinking changed the face of traditional transportation. Thanks to the genius of Joseph-Armand Bombardier, a rural Canadian business grew into a world leader in the aerospace and rail industries.

Up against global competition, today's businesses are under mounting pressure to deliver value-added products and services. It is clear, then, that we can never stop innovating if we are to continue providing customers with cutting-edge products. Our customers represent the world's major hubs, and more and more they must contend with significant social and environmental concerns, such as climate change, urbanization, population growth, resource shortages, rising energy costs and road congestion. That is why we focus our innovation and research and development activities on creating the technologies for tomorrow's mobility solutions today.

In recent years, many innovations in a variety of fields have been brought forward in passenger rail vehicles.

First of all, to increase passenger safety, we've developed predictable crash energy management concepts that reduce the impact forces on passengers in case of collision.

I have to mention that one of our best customers, GO Transit, has gone forward and procured some commuter cars that include crash energy management, even though this technology isn't required by any regulations in Canada. As previous speakers mentioned, we're seeing this take on more importance in the U.S. GO Transit will be the first with a Bombardier crash energy management commuter car.

Second, to reduce energy consumption, we've introduced in our vehicle designs regenerative braking systems. They save electrical energy otherwise wasted as heat during braking and feed the power back to the network grids. As Mr. Wolf referred to, if the line is not receptive to this energy we're trying to pump back, we have energy storage devices either on board the vehicle or on the wayside so that it can be re-used for the next acceleration cycle of the vehicle.

Third, we've developed improvements to enhance the performance of the trains we build. Among other things, the introduction of the latest technology power modules has allowed lighter trains with the same power levels.

Finally, to improve the passenger experience and help bring more riders to economical and efficient rail transit, we've introduced visual electronic communications and entertainment systems so that passengers have access to accurate and pleasant information. We've also developed highly efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems that are now able to adjust to changing environmental conditions and, more importantly, to passenger load. We just heat or air condition enough for the actual passenger load.

All of these innovations are part of Bombardier's strategy to develop its ECO4 technology portfolio, which is geared towards making rail transportation more cost-effective, efficient and ecological, while optimizing its energy use. As a result, we are conducting research in four main areas.

First of all, by introducing smart systems into our vehicles and rail infrastructure, we are working to build integrated networks that operate more efficiently thanks to the ongoing exchange of information. One way Bombardier is doing that is by building its expertise on the development of train control and management systems. For example, our ORBIFLO product gives operators access to the real-time exchange of information on adherence to timetables and energy consumption.

Also part of that repertoire are systems such as EBI Drive, which constantly advises train operators on how to optimize energy efficiency, similar to how a driver's spouse would assist if the driver were speeding.

Second, we are working on manufacturing trains using lightweight materials. Doing so allows us to offer customers a competitive edge by helping them reduce their energy consumption. Using expertise gained at our plant in La Pocatière, Quebec, we are constantly enhancing how we manufacture lightweight body structures through the use of high-tech laser welding and composite materials. Those were the types of materials we were able to show you when you visited, Mr. Aubin.

On top of that, we are aiming to introduce new bogies—in other words, the wheels beneath the cars—that are much more lightweight, such as the FLEXX Eco, which results in a 30% reduction in total bogie mass and unsprung mass.

Third, the introduction of state-of-the-art infrastructure is necessary to take transportation a step forward. In that regard, Bombardier is continuing the development and introduction of its game-changing primove wireless power supply system. It will allow light rail vehicles, streetcars, and even electric buses and cars to get power through magnetic induction, without the need for unsightly overhead wires. It's just like your toothbrush recharges without any actual electrical connection.

Finally, through the introduction of inventive train concepts, Bombardier will continue to lead the pack. Incremental high-speed rail travel in North America can be achieved in the very near future with design concepts based on service-proven technology available from Bombardier and other car builders.

Our ALP-46A electric locomotive can be coupled to our high-capacity, multi-level coaches to achieve acceleration to 200 kilometres per hour, the speed needed today for intercity travel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm going to have to cut you off there, Mr. Larouche, but I'm sure you can add that in during questioning.

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the engineers of Quebec, for 10 minutes or less, please.

[Etienne Couture, President, Réseau des ingénieurs du Québec]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee and distinguished guests, thank you for hearing from the Réseau des ingénieurs du Québec this morning.

We see the committee's work today on innovative transportation technologies as a golden opportunity to set out a sustainable transportation strategy for the country.

Now more than ever, Canada must come to terms with a global economy requiring that it take action to ensure its energy security and supply. The country's energy performance depends heavily on the transportation sector, so that is where we must start.

Who do we call on first when we need technical solutions to issues related to transportation and sustainable development? Engineers. So that is why the Réseau des ingénieurs du Québec is developing tools to support engineers as they endeavour to address challenges, particularly as regards energy.

The Réseau des ingénieurs du Québec has a vested interest in these issues, given its mission to value, serve and promote its 60,000 engineers working in every specialty throughout Quebec.

In 2009, the Réseau des ingénieurs du Québec released a major study on sustainable energy development in Quebec. As a result, we worked with the Quebec government on a plan of action to develop and use electric vehicles.

Today, we are recommending two approaches, given that they use existing transportation networks and are likely to enhance our industrial base and trade potential. The two approaches are electric vehicles, and the use of second generation biofuel in traditional vehicles and hybrid vehicles.

These approaches would benefit Canadian society, especially because of the prevailing economic, political and environmental landscape around the world. Here are three key pieces of information.

Canada imports a tremendous amount of oil. In June 2012, Statistics Canada observed that nearly 40% of Canadian refinery needs were met through imports. Quebec alone imports almost $15 billion of crude oil a year. That jeopardizes Canada's economic security and transportation sustainability, given that global demand exceeds supply.

By supporting electric transportation while producing oil, Canada can safeguard its oil and gas reserves and continue to export a significant portion. This would allow Canada to improve not only its energy security, but also its trade balance.

The use of combustion engines is sustainable only in the short term, not in the long term. The resulting emissions are partly responsible for our greenhouse gas production and are harmful to people's health.

Lastly, Canada is rich in electric resources. For instance, according to Hydro-Québec, if we were to replace 25% of gasoline-powered cars with electric vehicles, the electricity consumed would correspond to just 2% of electricity sales in Quebec and greenhouse gas emissions would drop by 3.4 million tonnes. Bear in mind that a Chevrolet Volt does not consume any more electricity than a water heater.

The transition to electric vehicles is necessary and would lower Quebec's oil consumption for road vehicles by 60% within 20 years. Such targets have yet to be set for the entire country.

In 2010, we made 35 recommendations on sustainable mobility, some of which have already been included in the Government of Quebec's 2011-20 electric vehicle action plan. The first area that needs attention is the urban transportation of people and goods; this sector clearly offers the most potential for electric vehicle market penetration.

Priority should be given to three areas.

The first is the widespread use of personal electric and hybrid plug-in vehicles and the integration of a network of public and residential charging stations. Almost all the technology is available. Even though battery performance and cost remains a major challenge, product quality continues to improve. For instance, IREQ developed a new nanotitanate lithium battery exceeding a range of 150 km.

The second area is the replacement of institutional fleets servicing areas limited by electric and hybrid vehicles because battery range is not a concern.

The third area is the electrification of public transportation networks. City buses pose an interesting challenge. To avoid an increase in electric wires and the resulting inflexibility of routes, we recommend implementing electric bus networks where buses can recharge periodically at stations located at regular stops along the way. This option would not affect the route or take very long.

In terms of rail and intercity transportation, we believe that the concepts of suspended monorails and high-speed trains should be explored. According to some proponents, it would be possible to develop a suspended monorail with cars that would be powered by wheel motors reaching a speed of 250 km/h and that would be able to easily go over uneven terrain with a reduced footprint, and along existing highways. Although detailed engineering for the high-speed suspended monorail still needs to be done, it is worthwhile to conduct further feasibility studies, considering the model is adapted to the northern climate and it has many potential benefits.

Our second recommendation has to do with the use of biofuels. Electrification is the best option, but some specific transportation needs require other solutions. As a result, the Réseau des ingénieurs du Québec would like to see targeted measures for increasing the use of alternative fuels. We could actually integrate up to 10% of the second and third generation biofuels into petroleum fuels by 2020, promoting the use of biogas, compressed natural gas and propane in captive vehicle fleets.

We also suggest that the federal government, along with the provinces and municipalities, take action to support the objectives described earlier. The purpose of those incentives is to stimulate demand for the benefit of emerging industries. So we are talking about financial support for creating industrial clusters around innovative transportation technologies intended to raise the market shares of Canadian companies in the value chain of targeted industries, including that of electric vehicles.

Canadian expertise is particularly strong in the production of public transit vehicles, with Bombardier for example, and of vehicle components, such as batteries and wheel motors. This expertise has to be supported so that Canada has its own leading industry that can supply world markets. Quebec could easily be home to a Canadian research institute for electric vehicles that would be in charge of coordinating a network of excellence across the country.

We also recommend that budgets for public fleets and infrastructures be increased, as long as there is a transition towards clean technologies. The federal government has considerably increased its investment in public transit infrastructure across the country. However, this step forward would be even more profitable for the Canadian economy if the government took the opportunity to support projects promoting lower energy footprint technologies, and to encourage discounts for people who buy plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. That would complement provincial policies, the way it is done in the United States.

To date, Canada is the only G20 country whose federal government does not contribute to a program like that. We have to find a way to make sure that, with the auto industry going electric globally, Canadian industries that are part of the supply chain for those new vehicles can benefit.

To conclude, the transportation sector in Canada includes many economic operations that are an integral part of our society. But it uses up a whole lot of energy. So it is crucial to make improvements. Together, we have to make choices that will enable Canadians to move towards sustainable mobility.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move into questions.

I'll just remind the witnesses and our committee members that your questions and answers are to be within the seven minutes in the first round before we go to the five-minute round.

Ms. Chow, you have seven minutes.

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

This question is for Bombardier.

You were about to tell us what you recommend the federal government should do to increase train services, passenger train services, and especially electric train services in Canada. I'm totally jealous when I travel abroad. I've ridden on many Bombardier electric trains, but outside of Canada. What are some of the regulations we can change in order for that to happen here in Canada more often?

[Paul Larouche]

One of the things I was about to mention, another technology that we can make available.... As Mr. Wolf pointed out, electrification takes time. Electrification of transportation networks takes time. You can't do it overnight, so you have to have some kind of time-based plan, a plan to incrementally electrify your networks.

In Montreal, as well as in New Jersey, we've introduced a new dual mode locomotive, our ALP-45DP, which can operate as a fully electric locomotive in electric territory. Once you reach the limits of the electrification, you can seamlessly switch over to diesel power. The passenger doesn't even notice. You can be offering seamless service as you progressively electrify.

Rather than doing one gigantic project—the projects often get shot down because the price tag is too high—this technology allows you to go about it in a more incremental way and to progressively electrify.

Pierre, do you want to add anything?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

I guess the bottom line is that it's up to the government to decide whether they want to commit public funding—to investment in increasing speed, for instance, or making rail transportation cleaner.

I think you've heard that we have many options we can supply—not only us, but other manufacturers as well. We have experience all around the world, and we've seen many different types of technologies being used in Europe, in emerging countries, and in the United States. There are all these options. It's not a function of how advanced technologies are currently. They are very advanced and you have a wide range of available options.

We have some recommendations to make as well on ways to better support rail innovation in Canada. Would you be interested in hearing about these?

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

Yes.

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

These were going to be part of my concluding comments, so I'm going to refer to my notes.

First and foremost, from a stakeholder point of view—and it's not only us, but the government research institutions and universities—I think we need to sharpen our innovation reflex. We need to dedicate people, resources, and budgets to developing new ways to create, produce, and sustain passenger rail transportation solutions.

The second point I would make is to call for an integrated road map to develop rail technologies, but over the long term, so going beyond the term of one government.

Associated with that, there are some short-term actions that need to be taken. Again, I'm talking about stakeholders in general, including the private sector, but also research institutions, universities, and governments at different levels.

The last point I would make is on the use of government procurement to support domestic innovation and manufacturing capabilities.

On that front, compared to what we've seen in other jurisdictions, the company thinks that Canada may be lagging. Use considerable public infrastructure investment as a policy lever to promote innovation in Canada. That goes to the way projects can be spec'd, for instance, to encourage the use of the smart technologies, clean technologies, that we have been talking about. The added benefit, besides innovation, is also the lever to improve the sustainability of our large cities in Canada.

Maybe there is room to spec projects based on performance-based requirements instead of very strict design requirements, for instance. This is one view that we would put forward for the committee's consideration.

I said it was my last point, but I have a real last point to make, and that goes back to the road map comment I made. I think an integrated framework, if possible, would include U.S. partners as well. It would make a lot of sense. I think we want key technologies to be usable on a larger scale in North America. Models exist, and one that I would point out is in Europe, where the European Rail Research Advisory Council plays this role.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have 45 seconds, Ms. Chow.

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

Okay.

Mr. Wolf, in 45 seconds, do you want to talk a little more about the offset in terms of the infrastructure and the pricing, and how Israel managed to have such huge success in electric cars? Is it the stations or is it the investment? Perhaps you can describe that very quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have less than 10 seconds, but try.

[Jason Wolf]

It's a question of capital. I think it's a very simple question, because today, at least in the light-duty vehicles, there is an economic advantage to electric miles, electric kilometres versus gasoline.

The problem is, it's as you describe. It's not about charging infrastructure or the batteries or the cars or the energy; it's about putting a system together that can replace the old one. Look at what happened with mobile phones. It took about 20 years from the time mobile technology existed until the policy environment was right for massive deployment of mobile phones. It wasn't that the technology didn't exist; it's just that people didn't understand the paradigm going from a home land line to a mobile phone. With cars it's the same thing. We've had 80 years of refining oil, sending oil to gas stations, sending it to combustion engine cars. Now we've got a cheaper way to do it, but the business model and putting the technologies together didn't exist in one place.

To your point about Israel, Israel didn't provide anything financial. It had a price on petrol of $2 a litre, which is a benefit for a private company. Then private companies, we and our partners—Renault, the utility, the service providers around insurance and finance—came together and put the entire network on private dollar, 100% private dollar, across the entire country. So anybody can drive today from any point to any point in Israel with the same convenience as they do with gasoline, with less cost to the consumer. It becomes a no-brainer, and I think that type of model—