Transport Committee on March 8th, 2012

[Bruce Dudley]

Those are a lot of questions. I'll do my best to start at the front end—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have limited time.

[Bruce Dudley]

—and I have limited time.

There are a couple of things. One is to emphasize the importance of the economic potential. The IEA— the International Energy Agency—and the ETP, which is the technology forecast, are among the subjects of the discussion today. They expect a $4.5 trillion cumulative investment by 2050 just in hybrid vehicles. That excludes biofuels and other areas. Under a constrained-carbon scenario, that would almost double, so we're talking about a very large investment potential. It would include domestic investment, but it's also the global market, which means it's a very important agenda.

From a policy perspective, and I'll take from some of the questions that have been posed to us this morning, there is a traditional view relative to transportation that there may be regulations that act as barriers to innovation. I think I've heard that in some of the questions.

However, in the context of innovation, the multiple fuels and multiple vehicle technologies that have to merge, and the challenges of bringing those to market—you see low-carbon fuel standards, for instance, and some jurisdictions trying to force that investment—the challenge for policy-makers is to manage the barriers that regulations create, but it's also enabling regulation that will allow those commercialization opportunities to happen.

For example, we've heard through this process that Fleet Advantage has created that one of the challenges is charging connections or refuelling connections. Canada has been a global leader on standardization in the ICT sector; this is a problem or a challenge within fuels. You can't have each manufacturer having its own connector, because how would you possibly fuel these vehicles, if one assumes the fuel was available?

Government will ultimately play a role in those situations, with the advice of industry, so I think when you couple the issues of transportation and carbon emissions with the economic viability and the availability of fuels and technology platforms, enabling regulation and enabling policy will be key. That would be the advice: to remove barriers where you can, but to listen for where that enabling technology can not only help with domestic investment and implementation but also help to take those technology platforms to other markets globally.

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

My second question is more generally to everyone.

We notice that the concentration on production of SUVs in the 1990s was one of the major focuses of the Big Three in North America. I've read articles saying that most of the challenges involving safety on the road were owing to SUVs simply not handling as well as smaller cars in certain situations. Crashes are more prevalent because these lumbering box-frame vehicles end up getting into more accidents with smaller vehicles.

I'm somewhat remiss, because I'm hearing a lot of innovation related to road safety, which I fully support. I fully support trying to get toward that zero crash thing, but is it not maybe the fact that we were producing these big lumbering vehicles that is now driving innovation toward safety? Is it because of not making the right choices in production and not looking to fuel-sustainable vehicles in the long term?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have 20 seconds.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Larry A. Robertson]

The production choice is also driven by consumer wants. If they're not happy with the product, they will tell and they will not not buy. The issue of vehicle incompatibility on the road has been a challenge. You have transports on the road too, and bicycles. You have a wide spectrum.

The path forward is to make intelligent systems. They work together better out there.

Vehicles on their own all met requirements; what happens on the road is a whole different issue that I'm not going to talk to. The path forward right now is that we have technologies that are and will be safer and more fuel-efficient and that hopefully will work between vehicles and with the infrastructure. That is the path we plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Your answer scares me, Mr. Robertson.

I have a Jeep Cherokee and I'm proud of it, but that's another issue.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The situation is education also, but do we believe that at the end of the day, if we're raising the issues of weight, aerodynamics, intelligence such as the electronics, and a better education, these will have an impact on the overall outcome? The kind of vehicle is not necessarily the problem; it's the way you build it and the way you drive it.

[Dr. Peter Frise]

The biggest determinant of vehicle energy use is the driver's behaviour. The technological factors—the weight and the other systems on the vehicle—are secondary to the driver's behaviour.

The behaviour of drivers is also the greatest determinant of road safety. It's how people conduct themselves on the road—how fast they go, where they go, when they go, what kind of shape they're in when they start driving and continue to drive, and so on.

As you very correctly pointed out, Monsieur Coderre, that is an educational process. I think there's also a role for the law enforcement agencies. Graduated licences are a key factor. If you have young people in your home, they just can't drive anywhere they want, the way we used to when you and I learned to drive: once you had your piece of paper, you were on the go. It's just not that simple any more. I think that's a good thing.

The education and regulation and enforcement environment in Canada is improving towards mitigating the poor effects of poor driving practices. There is certainly a role for technology as well.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

My last question is for Dr. Frise and Mr. Dennis.

We have talked about regulations. At the end of the day, if you want to have a partnership, you need better standards, you need a way of working, and you need those regulations. When I was President of the Privy Council, we put forward smart regulation, and now it's getting there. It's not a partisan issue; I think we have to cut the red tape.

You have government money and you want to work with us, so how do you manage concretely, and with whom are you working? Do you have relationships with Transport Canada, with Industry Canada? You have all the issues of intellectual property too.

What kind of recommendations and best practices would you propose regarding those regulations?

[Dr. Peter Frise]

I can talk to how AUTO21 has functioned in the last ten years.

We have an independent board of directors. AUTO21 is essentially an arm's-length organization. Our board of directors is made up of senior automotive industry executives. The director of engineering and regulatory affairs for Chrysler Canada has been the chair of our board. The president of the Auto Parts Manufacturers' Association has been a chair of our board. At the present time, the chair of our board is the managing director of Toyota Canada. We're agnostic, if you like, in terms of which manufacturers we talk to, as long as they operate in Canada and create value in the Canadian economy.

I think that has been a good model for us. If I can take a lesson away from it, the key thing is to have really knowledgeable people governing the organization. I don't think this is necessarily something that can be done by remote control from here, to be candid.

I think that has been a key thing: our priorities are set by people who live this every day as part of their day job.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Maybe you should also include accountability, because it's about the consumers, the citizens. It's taxpayers' money.

[Dr. Peter Frise]

Yes.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

It's a new relationship. How do you get involved through that accountability process, then?

[David Dennis]

First I should frame it up. We're a fact-based organization dealing with fleets all over the world. We actually have a pretty great view into the operational performance of a variety of vehicles—makes, models, geography, utility, you name it. Our principle is always to approach every scenario with a fact-based conversation. That was really the impetus of our conversation as we brought these stakeholders together: if we're going to make recommendations, if we're going to work together, there's a variety of data at our disposal; let's anchor everything we recommend in a fact-based conversation that we can defend.

With the amount of data we have, there's a level of predictability—of certainty—that comes with that kind of knowledge, so I gravitate to our core competency: let's work with the facts.

To your point, the stakeholders are actually invested and are leading the way anyway. Let's get those who are investing in our infrastructure at the table, as well as the ones who are impeding our progress or participating in our progress. That's the epitome of accountability, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Poilievre, you may have the last comments.

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

This is for Larry Robertson. The heavy-duty Ram 2500 can run 255 miles on natural gas. Is that on one fill-up?

[Larry A. Robertson]

That is one fill-up, using an industry standard type of SAE driving procedure so that it's all comparable.

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

Can that same truck run 360-ish miles on gasoline?

[Larry A. Robertson]

No—

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

Okay.

[Larry A. Robertson]

I believe that is the combined range with gasoline—