Evidence of meeting #44 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I assume your technology can do that. For example, they could talk to a central server or something that would then relay the information to the GPS units or the traffic lights to make traffic move more smoothly and get messages out to first responders.
Have you done any kind of estimate on the time savings on the road that this could lead to?
12:50 p.m.
Director of Product Management, QNX Software Systems Limited
We haven't specifically, but I can point you to some studies that have taken a look at that. For instance, for efficiencies, there was a program in Chicago where they predicted a 20% efficiency gain.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
If you could get that evidence on the record through the clerk, I think that would be really helpful, to be honest.
12:50 p.m.
Director of Product Management, QNX Software Systems Limited
Okay, I'd be happy to do that.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Courville, thank you for being with us today. Welcome.
Just now, I heard you talk at length and passionately about vehicles. It may not be a passion that we share, but we certainly share the passion for technology.
What I was particularly intrigued about in your opening remarks was the fact that you would like to see the very definition of infrastructure expanded. I have to say that I agree with you. When we talk about infrastructure, the first images that come to mind are bridges, roads, railway stations and airports.
How would you like the definition of infrastructure to be expanded?
12:50 p.m.
Director of Product Management, QNX Software Systems Limited
As I said, I'm passionate about the definition of infrastructure and the potential of infrastructure.
In terms of how I would view it, again it's a lot about connectivity. At its basic level it's about connectivity. Can we have traffic lights talk to vehicles? Can we have first responder vehicles talk to an infrastructure? I'm just using the words “talk to” because I'm not going to get into cellular technologies and all that. It's not important at this level. It's really about whether I can get reliable and smart communication.
The opportunity there is to sponsor and get involved in joint initiatives within Canada, obviously, but also in collaboration with other countries, to enable standardization from a communications perspective. If we can define a standard for vehicles to talk to vehicles or for vehicles to talk to infrastructure, if you can enable that fundamental technology, then all of a sudden we can apply artificial intelligence. We can apply better use of the infrastructure that we have and the vehicles that we have on the road, and the benefits you are going to see are going to follow.
From my perspective, at this stage of where we're at in the disruption, it is very much communications and standards as it pertain to communications, because the automakers are collaborating. Automakers used to be pretty much in silos and not talking to each other. Because the nature of the car is completely changing, you see this collaboration. They are also open to it, which is great.
February 9th, 2017 / 12:50 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
If I understand correctly, with my new connected vehicle—I’m talking about the next one, not the one I have right now—for example, if I were alone on the road at two o'clock in the morning, I might not have to wait at the red traffic light. The traffic light could detect that I am alone and turn green. However, is there not a notion in the definition of infrastructure, even the connected infrastructure we are talking about, that should be linked to the community? In my mind, when we talk about infrastructure, we are not talking about personal benefits, but about collective benefits.
In terms of those cars, that’s probably the most compelling example you've given me so far. However, since you started talking about it, I couldn't help remembering when I came to Ottawa two weeks ago and I narrowly avoided a pile-up because of the so-called “black ice”. All the vehicles were going at full speed and everything was fine, until the first car, which I had never seen, triggered the pile-up. The best drivers, either the luckiest or who had the best braking systems, were able to avoid it.
However, in such a situation, can vehicles exchange information, analyze road conditions and determine possible ways to avoid problems? On that day, all the cars were waltzing from one side to the other.
12:55 p.m.
Director of Product Management, QNX Software Systems Limited
Yes. The short answer is yes, absolutely, vehicles are going to have so many censors. At one of the talks that I did recently where I was invited to speak, I used the example of potholes. Vehicles hit potholes. What if we could gather that information and send it back to a smart infrastructure? It would know which potholes are being hit, how severe they are, and how often they're being hit, and all of a sudden it would direct those resources to those areas that need attention.
To your point, yes, if there's black ice and if there are adverse weather conditions, the vehicle should be able to communicate back to the infrastructure and, again, warn other vehicles. You might get a warning in your car, for instance, as well as a warning throughout the community that there's black ice on such-and-such a road at such-and-such a location. Potentially, the vehicle would warn you and ask you if you'd like to take an alternate route.
It's the same thing when we look at first responder scenarios. I'm glad there wasn't an accident that you were involved in, but imagine if there were a situation and the vehicles were connected and you had cameras in the vehicles, which you will see and you're starting to see today. Imagine if in that first responder situation there were vehicles in the area and you could securely and safety tie into the cameras in the vehicles, so that you could have “eyes on scene” from the vehicles. When I say vehicles, I mean buses, cars, and any mode of transportation where all of a sudden they could get earlier access to information, which again would enable them to provide better service in an emergency situation. There are all these scenarios that come into play.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
You really talk about it as if it’s science fiction technology that will be accessible in a few years, as I understand it.
Here’s my question. In order to have those additional tools, some of which may be an advantage in emergencies, whereas others may not—I’m thinking of the example of potholes again—are we not equipping ourselves with infrastructure that will cost so much that its benefits will not measure up to the investment? In short, in your opinion, is the investment worth it?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Product Management, QNX Software Systems Limited
For me, the ultimate benefit is safety. There are a number of benefits that come along with that from a community perspective. As I mentioned, in Canada, I think roughly 2,000 people have died in traffic accidents. Fatalities in the U.S are at about 33,000. Globally, it's over a million.
Ninety per cent of those accidents are caused by human error. That's 90%, and imagine from an infrastructure perspective and a transportation perspective that we can make vehicles safer and make transportation safer. I know we can bring that number down. Think of ABS brakes, for instance, as a very simple example. Connectivity will enable that. Smart vehicles will enable that.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think this is a very exciting conversation. Parking the politics, parking all that, we have a huge opportunity here as a committee to really be visionary and, although we are not in the business like you, to have you included with us to try to bring that agenda forward. I appreciate the comments you're making and the passion you're bringing to the conversation.
It sort of stems from the conversation we were having earlier—and I'll use a layered effect—about municipalities, areas of the country planning strategically for the future. Within those, they have community improvement and growth plans that they have put in place, and that obviously attaches itself to infrastructure—roads, water, bridges, and stuff like that, which are traditional—but it's becoming a new norm. That new norm is now demanding municipalities to take on new infrastructure: fibre, more transit, more integrated transportation, and the list goes on, including what you're talking about.
What I'm going to get at is, what's next? This is ultimately going to be my question, just to give you a heads-up. How do we ultimately move this agenda forward? We have a national transportation strategy that was just announced by the minister in October. We have an infrastructure strategy and a smart cities strategy that we're launching now. We have infrastructure investments being made, and the last thing we want to do is spend millions, if not billions of dollars on infrastructure that we're going to have to go back to five or 10 years down the road to replace, update, or change. It's like paving a road and finding out five months later that you have to redo the water and sewer line underneath it.
How do we eliminate doing that? How do we ultimately put a strategy in place that really drives the other strategies and keeps everything up to date and moving forward with smart cities, integrating the ideas that you're coming forward with at the table with everything else that's happening around us?
1 p.m.
Director of Product Management, QNX Software Systems Limited
That's a great question and a huge topic. It's not an easy answer. I'll come back a bit to what I was saying earlier. If we can define some specific goals—for instance, in terms of smart cities, even defining the elements of a smart city.... I'd like to share with the group that the way we and other companies are approaching this is very evolutionary, for a lot of commercial as well as public reasons.
If we think of autonomous cars, we can't rush into this. When people ask me when we are going to see the first fully autonomous car, I say at least 15 years from now, because if we don't do it right, we will risk people's lives and lose public confidence. It just won't be the system that we need, and it will delay it even further.
To your point, I think if we can get very crisp on the definitions of what we're trying to accomplish, and work collaboratively with other countries.... I think there are some standards that are starting to be agreed to—I mentioned DSRC earlier. A lot of it is about standardization, to standardize the communications and define the use cases. I think the key there is to take a look at the companies that can help, because it's going to take collaboration and partnership. Look at the companies that can help, understanding that each company has its own commercial agenda. I think it's really about thinking differently, which I think is what you're saying, and looking further out.
As I said, I'm comforted by the fact that we are approaching it in a very evolutionary fashion, so I welcome the opportunity to take a look at some of the projects that are under way, and maybe what we can do is refine them and direct some of those investments to some of the things that we're talking about today and that you'll be looking forward to.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Courville. If you can, stay around for a few more minutes. Our time is up, but you can see that the committee has lots of interest.
1 p.m.
Director of Product Management, QNX Software Systems Limited
So do I, and I apologize if I rambled on.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That's okay. We're all very excited about the future.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.