Evidence of meeting #96 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 vehicle.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to dig a bit deeper into the weeds here, especially as we had the discussion earlier, and put a lens on both the manufacturers and the consumers.
I have two questions.
Take into consideration that we as a government are attempting to be an enabler. We're attempting to give the sector tools through our research and development programs, our innovations programs, and our science programs, and with that we're trying to facilitate between levels of government—whether they be federal, provincial, municipal, or the different ministries within both federal and provincial levels of government—and of course make proper investments in infrastructure so that we best prepare for this change in culture. The last point I want to make before I ask my questions is to say that the culture is not just about driving but also about the way product is delivered, and transit, and the list goes on.
Taking that all into consideration, it's twofold. First, what more can we do as a government to enable industry to bring the yardsticks down the field that much quicker, as was alluded to earlier from the previous delegates?
My second question is about the best interests of the consumer, because we recognize that there is going to be a great deal of advantage when it comes to revenue opportunities for manufacturers. They're going to be able to accrue new revenues versus one-time buying of the vehicle and moving on. There's not much accrual left in that process. Now with data collection, advertising, and things of that nature, there are going to be a lot of opportunities for those manufacturers to realize revenues.
My second question is about the consumer. Are there going to be opportunities for the consumer to take advantage of lower pricing or for the consumer to take advantage of that accrual of revenue opportunities for those different areas that the vehicle is now going to offer?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Before you answer, I want to make a suggestion. Mr. Aubin wants to get his question out. Mr. Aubin, do you want your two minutes?
Then you can answer both questions at the same time, so that everybody gets their two minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Aubin.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to ask Ms. Kargas a quick question, but the other witnesses can join in as well.
I understand from your presentation that all future autonomous vehicles will have to be electric; you've raised an important point here. I am fully aware that the fight against greenhouse gases is of great importance, but why reject all hydrogen technologies, for example, from the outset?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Electric Mobility Canada
The solutions for vehicle automatization include both electricity and hydrogen.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
Perhaps I can take a stab at that.
First off, with these technologies, it won't be next year or perhaps the next. It's going to be a slow introduction. We don't need to have ZEVs as the only ones—in fact, they probably all won't be ZEVs to begin with—but we certainly see electric vehicles as being a major component of the future under autonomous vehicles.
We're moving to a shared economy. We're moving to not just shared riding, but a shared economy in which people may not necessarily buy a vehicle, but they will get all the benefits of transportation they would otherwise get with a vehicle. That will offer a whole bunch of opportunities in terms of mobility and for people who are disabled, and there will be consumer benefits in that respect.
We talk about advertising and economic opportunity in terms of sales and things like that, but that's probably the least of our objectives. What we're concerned about is building a vehicle that's safe, that will be able to anticipate all road conditions, that will be connected to the infrastructure in a way that will facilitate the movement of vehicles and reduce congestion and emissions. It's all of those things.
We have to be careful here, because this is not plug-in technology. This technology has been integrated into the design and making of the vehicle from the ground up. That's because we have to anticipate every type of road condition and weather condition and the integration with the infrastructure itself, and that is a huge task. This is why we are moving forward with research partnerships with universities and institutes here in Canada on artificial intelligence and so forth.
This is part of the other economy that we will benefit from. Consumers themselves are going to get this benefit with perhaps not all the costs associated with ownership, and that's really the key thing here.
We'll be spending probably $100 billion on zero-emission vehicles, electric vehicles, so they will be very much a part of the future, but we have to make a distinction between connected vehicles and AVs. That's not driven by electric vehicles; it's driven by simply the autonomous side of it, the benefits that accrue in terms of reducing injuries and fatalities and mobility. ZEVs will be part of that in the future, but I can tell you that it will be a combination of those things while we go through the transition period, and that transition period will take some time.
These are very complicated issues, and our industry wants to go about it in a way that is managed and deliberate. That's why it's important to be working with Transport Canada and the provinces across the country to make sure we have consistent regulations that won't inhibit or impede the introduction of these technologies.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Nantais.
Witnesses, we have to suspend and go in for a vote. We'll be about 12 to 14 minutes. If the witnesses are prepared to wait....
Does the committee want to return after the votes so that we can get a few questions asked on the record? What's the desire of the committee? Do you want to come back after the vote for 15 minutes? That's about all we'll have.
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I call the meeting back to order.
Thank you to our witnesses for your patience.
Mr. Aubin, we're going to start with you.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witness for her clarification on hydrogen. This brings me to a question for you, Mr. Rathwell.
With this network of charging stations that would allow us to drive across the country, we are really talking about electric cars that can we plug in, and not a parallel network for hydrogen fuel cell cars. I would imagine that this network would be set up by the private sector. Is that the idea?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have a lot of questions. I'll do them as fast as I can. How much time are you giving me?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Oh, boy. Then I'll speak faster than normal.
Mr. Nantais, I have a few questions for you.
You talked about a rollout of AVs over time. In your opinion, do you believe that autonomous cars are going to operate more like taxis, or are people still going to be inclined to buy their own vehicles—and it's your intention that people buy their own vehicles—rather than have a sharing economy of vehicles? What's your objective?
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
I think the initial step will be commercial vehicles and taxi fleets. That way they have more control over the fleet. Generally I think it's safe to say that for those initial stages, those fleets will be self-insured by the companies that own those fleets. That's the way it will start out.
Part of the issue is on how you can gather up enough field experience with these technologies, build that back into your software, and build that back into your vehicles. When we say “manage”, that's part of what we're saying: ow do you do this in a safe and managed way?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I imagine that for commercial vehicles the answer will be yes, but for private vehicles, should autonomous vehicles be permitted to operate unoccupied? Should people be allowed to drive them without anybody in them? The reason I ask that is if everybody has an autonomous vehicle and they all go to work and send the cars home empty, we have an echo rush hour. I wonder what your thoughts are on that.
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
Well, first off, you'll have a stepped process in terms of automated driving systems. Usually we use the definitions under the international Society of Automotive Engineers. They have five definitions for technology, from essentially zero or one through to five. Level 5 is fully autonomous, meaning no driver. It's just a vehicle on its own. It's a stepped process from there. We're roughly at about level 3 right now in terms of automated driver-assist systems.
Ultimately we'll get there, but it's not going to be straight out the door at this point in time.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Graham, I have to try to get a few other questions here. We're going to throw out all the questions we can in our 15 minutes.
Mr. Badawey is next.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to go back to the first question that I asked earlier and get more of an in-depth answer on it. That was on how much more government can participate.
We spoke earlier about some of the opportunities when it comes to revenue. I know I got an in-depth answer on that. When you look at government as being an enabler, offering resources, working with different levels of government, with the different ministries, we have many programs that we've launched to date in the last two years. What more can we do?
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
My advice would be to continue what you're doing, but one thing we have to be sure to avoid is the introduction of impediments by lack of coordination, lack of consistency.
Between Canada and the United States, vehicles move back and forth across the border. There's really no border, because the vehicles are ubiquitous. We're a little behind NHTSA, the national highway transportation system, in the sense that they have a whole set of different policies as to what vehicle manufacturers should look at in terms of automated vehicle design and deployment. Those are the things that we should be moving forward with on our own and being consistent with.
We need to be consistent. We should not be allowing individual municipalities, for instance, to put in place their own requirements, because that will definitely slow down the advance of these technologies. It's consistency north-south, consistency east-west.
That's what's critical, and government has a role.