Transport Committee on Feb. 7th, 2017

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in the first session of our 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is our study of infrastructure and smart communities.

We are glad to have the witnesses that we have before us today. We have Dr. Taiber, chief technology officer, International Transportation Innovation Center. From Google Canada, we have Colin McKay, head of public policy and government relations. We have Barrie Kirk, executive director, the Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence.

I look forward to hearing information from all of you. Who would like to start?

Mr. McKay.

[Colin McKay, Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.

A new set of technologies, including pervasive and ubiquitous connectivity, real-time sensors, precise location services, autonomous systems, and digital manufacturing are going to help transform life in our cities and our communities. We carry many of these technologies in our pocket or purse every day. The ready availability of sophisticated mobile computers, which we casually refer to as phones, means that we have unprecedented access to data about our individual behaviour and our interaction with our community, and an instantaneous ability to communicate with the services and infrastructure around us.

At Alphabet, which is the umbrella company that owns Google and a number of other companies you're familiar with, we recognize that these technologies will make cities more responsive, equitable, innovative, and livable. But that will only happen in collaboration with the communities themselves.

Let me give you a quick snapshot of how Google and our parent company, Alphabet, are working to improve, through technology, how we all live. There are obstacles to making sure that the integration of technology and cities truly offers opportunities for social and economic growth for all citizens. Many disadvantaged groups within cities lack cheap and easy access to the Internet. That's why we're working with governments in Toronto, New York, and across India to deliver Wi-Fi access to underserved communities.

But we recognize that Google alone cannot address the challenges facing our cities. We have to work with urban planners, social policy specialists, community activists, architects, and others if we're going to understand the complex dynamics of our cities. Dan Doctoroff, a former deputy mayor of New York City and the founder of Sidewalk Labs, an Alphabet company, has described the complexity of the challenge that faces communities and governments alike. He wrote:

Whatever we do, we know the world doesn’t need another plan that falls into the same trap as previous ones: treating the city as a high-tech island rather than a place that reflects the personality of its local population.... There are no magical fixes to tough urban problems. Anything we try will require lots of discussion, refinement, and adaptation. Responsible innovation at the city scale requires self-reflection and a willingness to make adjustments based on local feedback.

I assume you are all familiar with our Street View mapping vehicles. We have collected data that informs Google's detailed maps of almost every community in Canada. Using these mapping vehicles, we have worked with local groups to begin pilot projects to help collect information about air quality and pollution in cities across the United States. We've deployed environmental sensor networks to build detailed maps of air pollution. We've worked with the Environmental Defense Fund to build similar maps to identify the ebb and flow of methane leaks in some cities. Our shared goal with these groups is to help build useful and detailed maps of these pollutants and share them with citizens and government who can then work to address these environmental challenges.

In the United States, we launched Project Sunroof, which uses satellite imagery to help homeowners not only estimate the benefits of installing solar panels on their roofs, but connect them with nearby installers and estimates the cost of that installation.

More importantly for this committee, what ambitious goals should we set for a smart city? Let's remember that the conversation around urban development is shaped by century-old technologies: grids of streets and alleys, water and sewer infrastructure laid decades ago, and Internet service that still relies on telephone and cable access points. Commuters need data that gives them the most efficient and fastest routes to their destination. For a bicyclist, this means the safest route down streets with dedicated lanes. For a community organizer, this may mean detailed data about admission rates at health clinics, or a real-time database of volunteers responding to a crisis.

What investments do cities have to make in real-time monitoring? How do they develop services that help their citizens understand how traditional infrastructure is dealing with contemporary pressures, in the process making themselves more accountable but also surfacing data that can support an argument for different infrastructure investment decisions?

How does a city become more adaptable? How can data help cities become more flexible and inform infrastructure investments that encourage alternative transportation, efficient energy use, and other innovations? As I've suggested, the development of smart cities requires careful planning, a phase of integrated experimentation, and then collaborative implementation.

As we tackle city- and community-wide challenges the best strategy may actually be to identify specific districts where technology and community can work together to identify targeted strategies, specific data collection frameworks, and implement ongoing assessments. At Google we feel it's a data-driven approach that sets ambitious goals with demonstrable results in partnership with communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Kirk.

[Barrie Kirk, Executive Director, Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee for this invitation to be here.

Self-driving cars have tremendous benefits for Canada and for Canadians. Unfortunately, when I look around the world, and especially at the G7, we in Canada are dead last in getting ready for self-driving cars. We're way behind the other six countries. Let me just give you a quick thumbnail sketch here.

The first generation of self-driving cars is already with us. These are low speed, limited capability, but they're working now. A client of mine has a fleet of six fully automated driverless shuttle buses, electric, operating in Civaux in France. The second generation of self-driving cars will arrive in about 2020, as will drivers' taxi applications. These will not be the ultimate, but they will be fully self-driving cars. Through the 2020s we're going to see a gradual increase in capability and speed, and by 2030 our world will look very different from the way it does today.

One of the two biggest impacts will be safety. A joint study we published a year ago with the Conference Board of Canada predicts that with full deployment in the future we can prevent 80% of the present traffic collisions, deaths, and injuries, a huge improvement. Second, the arrival of driverless taxis in the 2020s will have a big impact on many aspects of our lives—on our cities, on parking, on policing, on health care. The auto sector is prepared for a massive disruption. Mary Barra, the CEO of General Motors, has said, and I agree with her, that the auto industry will change more in the next five to 10 years than it has in the last 50. This will be very disruptive. There will also be a big impact on infrastructure.

Anthony Foxx, the secretary of transportation in the Obama administration, wrote an article that was published about a year ago. He said that with a combination of autonomous and connected vehicle technologies we can increase the traffic-carrying capacity of our existing highway and road infrastructure by a factor of five. That's huge. To be honest, I don't believe Secretary Foxx, but if we can increase the traffic-carrying capacity of the roads and highways by a factor of two or two and a half, I wonder how much of the planned and future infrastructure build we really need. We'll need some of it to do repairs, but we need to plan infrastructure for the arrival of the AVs.

Also, it will have a big impact on transit, and hence on transit infrastructure. About a year ago, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, published a report, which is free and public, predicting from a European perspective that self-driving taxis could completely replace the need for traditional transit in small and medium-sized cities.

A year ago, I published a white paper for the federal government with 30 recommendations. I don't have time to go through all of that. Let me pick out two recommendations that are particularly relevant to your committee.

First, I made a recommendation that any application for funding for infrastructure for transit or transportation should come with an analysis of the impact of autonomous vehicles on the business case and the design. I've told the Ontario government the same thing.

Second, there's a lot of focus nowadays on smart cities and smart infrastructure. I'm recommending that part of the infrastructure spend be not just on asphalt and concrete but also on smart infrastructure. We can achieve a lot with that and it will be a lot cheaper—following on with what Secretary Foxx said—to increase the capacity of the highways with smart infrastructure rather than with more asphalt.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kirk.

Dr. Taiber.

[Joachim G. Taiber, Chief Technology Officer, International Transportation Innovation Center, Cerco Cable]

Dear Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'm very privileged to speak today to this committee. I will give you a quick overview of the ITIC perspective. I have prepared a couple of slides.

First of all, we can say that the transportation world is currently in a very revolutionizing phase. We have the prospect of having no accidents at all on the road in the long run. We have prospect of dominantly having zero-emission vehicles. We also have the technology in place to secure connected vehicles and automated vehicles to avoid damage, and we are currently improving our networks to always have services available to us.

What is important in my opinion, from a federal perspective, is to focus on two key areas. One area is connected and automated transportation, where the federal government has to give guidance on safety and security regulations, and to prepare the communication infrastructure to support connected and automated transportation systems.

On the other hand, we need to go into a major electrification process of the transportation systems, which, again, needs safety and security regulations, but also a major investment in charging infrastructure to support the transportation systems.

If we go to the view of how are our cities and urban environments are changing, it's safe to say that we are moving from what I call a cost-centric, urban-planning development approach to a people-centric, smart community approach. As we make this transition, we want to change the regulations and rules of how we organize traffic. This means trying to keep personal vehicles out of the urban cores. It means that we have to reorganize parking. We have to reorganize the way goods are being transported in the urban cores and within the urban cores. We have the opportunity to reorganize a multi-modal, zero-emission transportation system that works on demand.

If we look into the need, what I would recommend for the approach here in Canada is to consider the implementation of a nationwide network of transportation innovation testbeds. That means that in these testbeds, which you can implement in different locations across the country, you are organizing mixed test fleets that are automated. You're sharing use cases, data, and algorithms with different stakeholders that are participating, and you need to put a lot of thought into where these test beds should be.

It's not only a question of certifying the vehicles for automated driving. It's about certifying the whole urban ecosystem and organizing it to allow for automated connected driving and zero-emission driving.

Finally, I would recommend the development of a national transportation innovation program, which would address connectivity and automation, electrification, and on-demand mobility services. In terms of the test beds, you basically need closed and open test beds. Closed test beds are to validate the technology before it is put in a setting where you interact with people and other transportation participants.

I would also recommend, from the beginning, seeking interaction with other transportation innovation test beds in the world. In Europe, in the U.S.A., and in Asia, those centres are being developed. To seek communication with them will create export opportunities for Canada. It will also give you a benchmark opportunity to compete with the best centres in the world.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all very much for that information.

We are going to move immediately into questions from our members, starting with Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for being here with us today.

My first question is for you, Mr. Kirk.

You said that, when we compare ourselves to the other countries around the world, we are dead last when it comes to self-driving cars. Why are we last? What is the explanation?

[Barrie Kirk]

We are the latecomers, and I think there are two reasons for that. I don't want to get too much into politics. I'm an engineer. I don't know much about politics, but I feel up until now we've not had enough of a focus on innovation, and that shows up in the results.

I look at other governments and how they are supporting their high-tech industry in this area. Let's take the U.K. as an example. The U.K. is doing four things that we are not doing. First of all is funding. The U.K. has put in 100 million pounds into research, development, and testing of autonomous and connected vehicles.

The federal government has, in fact, got some money within Transport Canada for a virtual framework, but the federal government has not funded industry. The best we've done in Canada is Ontario, which has put in $3 million. If you compare $3 million to 100 million pounds, you can really see the bar chart.

Second, the U.K. government has been a real cheerleader. It has set itself up as a target to be the world's go-to place for AV testing.

Third, they have understood the need to break down the silos within different departments. They have created a special government institution called CCAV, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which operates across departments. One example of this is that they have taken the policy group from the British version of Transport Canada and they've taken the policy group from the Innovation, Science and Economic Development equivalent, and they've created a single policy group that spans two departments. You get a level of integration and synergy that we're not achieving.

It makes a big difference with those areas. Our technology industry is excellent. It's a cliché; it really is world class, but to be more effective, they need support from government the way that other governments are supporting their tech industries.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

In your view, what is the role of the state and of the federal government if we want to move ahead and become a world leader again? What should the government's role be specifically in terms of self-driving cars?

[Barrie Kirk]

I think we need a number of things. As I mentioned, a year ago I wrote and published a white paper. In it there are 30 recommendations as to what I feel the federal government should be doing. A lot of those transpose into provincial—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Let me stop you there.

Could you forward the white paper to the Clerk of the Committee so that we can have access to those 30 recommendations that seem very useful?

Please continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If you would submit it to the clerk, then it will be distributed to all of the members.

[Barrie Kirk]

Yes, I will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

Go on, Mr. Kirk.

[Barrie Kirk]

I am impressed with the level of expertise and enthusiasm from the technology industry. When I look five or 10 years ahead, not only will the auto sector be completely transformed, there's going to be a convergence between the auto and the tech sectors.

At the moment, an average car has about 4% to 5% of its value in technology. In the 2020s, say 10 years' time, an average car will have between 40% and 60% of its value in technology, and that creates a huge opportunity for Canada's tech companies to get into the auto sector. That includes companies in processing, in communications, sensors, and algorithms. The best example, of course, is BlackBerry QNX, but they need the support from government, as I mentioned earlier.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Let me clarify my question.

What should the state's role be in this system? Where should it invest? What support could it provide?

[Barrie Kirk]

It's a combination of roles, which certainly includes investment. It includes a much looser regulatory framework. It includes specialized institutions that will be created just to steer this forward. It would include being an active cheerleader for the space. It will certainly include working with the provinces. It's not one specific thing, but rather it's guiding and encouraging a revolution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Mr. Kirk, I have to cut you off there. Thank you very much, Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'd like to acknowledge we also have at the table Karen McCrimmon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, and Marc Miller, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure, who are joining us and observing today.

Mr. Iacono, the floor is yours.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be sharing my time with my colleague Gagan Sikand.

My thanks to the witnesses for being here today to share with us their expertise on smart cities.

Some countries, such as Australia and the United States, have put in place a smart cities strategy. In Australia, the federal government invited the states and local governments to agree on common goals for investments in infrastructure suited for smart cities.

My question is for the three witnesses.

What are the advantages of having a national smart cities strategy on in addition to specific plans for each city?

[Joachim G. Taiber]

Maybe I can try to answer some of your questions.

In the U.S., there was a program called the smart city challenge. This program was basically connected with a price. The price was $50 million from the U.S. DOT and $10 million from Vulcan Ventures, which is a fund from Microsoft co-founder, Paul Allen. Seventy-seven cities participated in this challenge. I was personally involved in some of these applications. One city won. Obviously, the value of this exercise was that 77 cities had to think through a smart city strategy and develop a master plan for these cities, which can then fertilize other cities. We have a large community of cities of different sizes that were going through this exercise.

My thought for Canada is to maybe consider not just doing one prize, and one city gets the prize, but maybe supporting a cluster of cities. Make funding available, but not just have one winner but many winners, so to speak.

In Germany, where I originally come from and where I'm still quite involved in the development, we have a situation where the department of transportation is deliberately selecting different cities in Germany to develop smart city test beds. They are particularly addressing automated driving, but they also picked highways to support automated driving. What they are trying to do is to incentivize the private sector to engage in these developments, but also to give guidance on the regulatory side. There's a lot of unanswered questions and liability.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I'm just going to give some time to Mr. McKay to respond to the same question.