Transport Committee on March 28th, 2018

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

I call the meeting to order.

Before we start the testimony, I need permission from the committee to try to get some testimony in before the vote in spite of the fact the bells are ringing. Do I have unanimous consent from the committee to hear the witnesses?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, that's good. Thank you very much. We'll go on.

This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study of automated and connected vehicles in Canada.

With us today are Jeremy McCalla, Global UAV Technologies Limited; Bern Grush, from Grush Niles Strategic; and Mark Aruja, Chairman of the Board, Unmanned Systems Canada.

I understand, Mr. Grush, that you have a short video you would like to show us at the end of your testimony with the others today. It's in English only, but you have brought the transcript, which the interpreters have.

Do we have unanimous consent to allow Mr. Grush to show us the video after the testimony of the other gentlemen? Is that all right?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. McCalla, would you like to begin?

[Jeremy McCalla, Manager, Business Development and Operations, Global UAV Technologies Ltd.]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have five minutes, please.

[Jeremy McCalla]

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you today.

I am proud to stand here before this committee and discuss some aspects of the unmanned aerial systems industry in Canada.

My name is Jeremy McCalla. I have been involved in almost every aspect of the unmanned aerial systems industry, from UAV piloting to owning my own business, over the past several years.

Currently I work with Global UAV Technologies, a vertically integrated, publicly listed unmanned aerial systems company in Canada. Our company owns and operates service companies specializing in unmanned airborne geophysical surveying and photogrammetry, a Canadian UAV manufacturer, and a regulatory consulting business. All of our current operations are under the existing regulatory framework of Transport Canada, and we are currently working very hard towards a compliant unmanned aerial system and full compliant operator status for our survey companies.

Most of our survey work takes place in remote areas, away from aerodromes, towns, and even public roads. A lot of times we fly unmanned aerial vehicles at low altitudes, sometimes only 10 metres above the treetops. This type of airborne geophysical surveying is performed mainly by piloted aircraft today.

Flying manned aircraft for geophysical surveying is extremely hazardous and dangerous, even for the most experienced pilots, given the monotonous nature of the flying and the low altitude. In fact, according to the International Airborne Geophysics Safety Association, between the year 2000 and the year 2017 there were between five and 15 deaths per year for survey operations.

Currently visual line of sight operations for unmanned aerial systems are permitted in Canada with special flight operations certificates. Although this system is sometimes slow and can be convoluted, it works, and it gives us an environment that allows us to be economically successful. However, to enable growth in the unmanned aerial systems industry, move manned aviation away from dangerous jobs, and enable Canada to lead other countries on the global stage, routine operations beyond the visual line of sight are required, especially in remote areas.

The business prospects, both nationally and internationally, could far be enhanced by a more aggressive time frame on opening up beyond visual line of sight operations and solidifying visual line of sight operations into a regulated, as opposed to a case-by-case, environment. Furthermore, allowing for an alternative unmanned aerial system solution to dangerous manned aviation jobs such as airborne geophysical surveying could save lives.

The ability for Canadian companies to access capital, plan for the future, and invest in research and development could also be enhanced by a more aggressive time frame for opening up beyond visual line of sight operations and solidifying visual line of sight operations into a regulated environment.

Currently, without a clear path forward, companies and investors are sitting idle or looking toward expansion plans in other countries where regulations appear to be moving in a direction favourable to the unmanned aerial systems industry.

We understand that aviation is, and always will be, heavily regulated, and we understand and agree that the flying public and people we fly over need assurances of safety. We also feel that given past resources, Transport Canada has done a good job handling the enormous growth of the unmanned aerial systems industry in Canada.

With budget 2017 allocating more money for Transport Canada, dedicated groups such as Unmanned Systems Canada, and a hard-working unmanned aerial systems sector, Canada still has an unbelievable opportunity to become recognized around the world as having one of the most progressive approaches towards regulating unmanned aerial systems, something that is not only good for Canada but also good for Canadian businesses, research institutions, and students.

We believe that the beyond visual line of sight proof of concept recently released by Transport Canada and some of the proposed changes to visual line of sight operations are a positive step in the right direction. However, there is room for improvement.

What we ask is that industry stakeholders be more involved in the process of developing routine beyond visual line of sight operations and developing a regulated environment for visual line of sight operations that works for everyone, ensures safety, and allows for economic growth.

We also ask for more transparency from Transport Canada in how they are developing their regulations and a timeline for regulations that can be adhered to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Would you like to go on, Mr. McCalla? Oh, it's the next gentleman over there. I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Mark.

[Mark Aruja, Chairman of the Board, Unmanned Systems Canada]

Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today once again on behalf of Unmanned Systems Canada, the national association that represents the unmanned vehicle systems community and our 500 members.

I bring to you today insights gained from over a decade of unmanned aerial systems experience with policy and regulatory development, an integral component of the autonomous vehicles discussion.

Whether airborne or on the ground, these mobile devices are part of a much larger enterprise connected through communication networks to data processing systems and analytical tools. This integrated ecosystem is already demonstrating significant improvements in our productivity, safety, and security, and we've only just begun.

My talk today connects hockey and farming.

As public policy-makers, you need to firmly grasp, as Gretzky said, where the puck is going to be. I'm going to start with where the puck is today, using agriculture as an example, and then share experience with where the puck has been, and end with a few recommendations and requests.

Two major technological trends are driving a change that is transforming our society. These are human sensing being replaced by machine sensing and human decision-making being replaced by data analytics and deep learning. What will that future look like?

Effective public policy will allow us to shape the expected benefits to society, create opportunities, and balance those with an understanding of the risks. That's how we get to where the puck is going to be.

Where is the puck today?

The advent of precision agriculture is truly revolutionary, opening up great possibilities. Starting this spring, every day UAVs will be flying automated missions to image fields for precision such that individual corn plants can be distinguished and characterized. The imagery is combined with many other data sources. It is processed and analyzed, with decisions made often within hours. These decisions on matters such as pesticide applications or seeding are fed digitally into autonomous tractors or other UAVs, which precisely apply that prescription. Farming is becoming evidence-based. Decisions that used to be applied to a field are now applied by the square metre.

Where has the puck been?

In 2006, we first engaged Transport Canada to develop UAS regulations, regulations for unmanned aircraft systems. By 2010, we had implemented a jointly developed road map with a crawl-walk-run strategy. Those efforts guided investment and innovation. In a decade, the UAS industry grew from 80 companies to over 1,000. However, as talented and dedicated as the staff at Transport Canada are, they were not resourced for the task until a decade later, in the budget of 2017.

The result was that in July of last year the first draft regulations for drone operations were published in the Canada Gazette, part I, reflecting a view of the puck being in our skates—obsolete on arrival. As I briefed you in 2016, the economic demand today is to survey that farm on a scale of thousands of acres at a time, not hundreds, meaning that we must be able to operate beyond visual line of sight, which is not yet permitted.

We have two critical concerns. When we had a road map to define manageable goals, we demonstrated success. Let's get back to doing what works. Today we have no road map from Transport Canada to guide the urgent work that we need to jointly undertake. We are steadily losing our global competitiveness, falling behind Europe, the United States, and Australia, to name a few.

Second, Transport Canada needs a formalized risk assessment process. Industry has a vested interest in managing safety risk and has worked for the last two years to develop that capability. Our needs are mutual, and this shortcoming will implicate automated road vehicles as well.

How can we get the puck out of our skates?

We commend the Advisory Council on Economic Growth report as a framework for shaping national policies to spur market development and accelerate the adoption of autonomous systems and new business processes. We also commend the recommendation in the Senate committee's report “Driving Change” to develop a pan-government policy-making framework. There is no government department that isn't implicated by the changes that are under way.

Our advice to the autonomous vehicles industry and government is to set policy to describe the future. Develop best practices and then incrementally validate them through testing. Then, when you're really confident, make regulations. Expect this process to take a long time—but if you do it the other way around, it will take a lot longer.

Ensure that Transport Canada is resourced now to undertake the challenge of autonomous systems. As a footnote, do not separate autonomous cars from UAVs and the other elements in this common ecosystem.

Finally, we have two specific requests for this committee. We ask that you request Transport Canada to develop a road map enabling the UAS industry to move forward without further delay, and second, that they work with industry to develop a formalized risk management process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Mr. Grush, would you like to present your video now?

[Bern Grush, Strategist, Autonomous Transit, Grush Niles Strategic]

I want to open with a few words.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to comment regarding impacts of vehicle automation on cities and public transportation systems. My name is Bern Grush. My background encompasses human factors, human attention, artificial intelligence, and systems design engineering out of the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo.

I'm a founder of Grush Nile Strategic, a think tank focused on finding ways to deploy automated vehicles to promote environmental sustainability, social equity, and urban livability with regard to human transport.

[Video presentation]

I would like to make two additional observations about vehicle automation specifically for moving people. First, the future of automobility will include two markets, market one for selling and buying personal or family-owned vehicles and market two for selling and buying rides hired only for the duration of a single trip.

Today market two includes all forms of for-hire vehicles, such as taxis, ride hailing, and car share, and includes all forms of transit. This is critical, because these two markets give us two distinct worlds for urban planning. AVs will sustain the 125-year-old competition between public and private modes. Both markets will be very large and will continue to challenge planners to accommodate large numbers of personal vehicles while concurrently seeking ways to harness massive fleets of shared vehicles to benefit urban populations.

Planners, concerned with efficiency and environment, are biased toward fleets of shared vehicles, but the revealed preference of the majority of travellers is biased toward private automobile ownership. Current assertions that this will change significantly are based on wishful thinking and are without reliable evidence. A shift to shared-vehicle mode will occur only if we take strategic and proactive policy decisions.

I recommend three things: that government begin an immediate migration to regulations that require AVs to be zero-emission vehicles, impose distance-based road user fees, and implement demand-based parking fees in all public, commercial, and employee spaces.

My second point is that during their early decades, AVs will not achieve full SAE level 5 automation. Market one personal vehicles will retain user controls, allowing them to be driven anywhere. These vehicles will increase average trip distance and frequency. They will increase sprawl by reducing the discomfort of driving in congestion.

This will encourage more families to acquire these vehicles, further worsening congestion. These vehicles will continue to demand an average of four parking spots each, since they will still be parked a majority of the time and will still tend to remain near their owners.

At the same time that this is happening, market two driverless for-hire vehicles will be geofenced—i.e., constrained to carefully mapped roads. These will be robotic taxi and shuttle systems that will appeal first to travellers who are already using taxis, ride-hailing, or using transit. Such fleets will recruit heavily from existing public systems, disrupting transit just as ride-hailing disrupted our taxis. Without government oversight, this will threaten social equity.

I recommend incentives for today's commercial ride providers to encourage rides from and to transit hubs, to increase average vehicle occupancy, and to add transport for disabled travellers and for people from transit deserts, all in a way that accelerates the process of reducing the number of urban trips in personal vehicles in order to prepare ourselves for the AV robotaxis that are coming.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, gentlemen, very much. I appreciate your patience.

We are going to suspend and go off for the vote. We will immediately come back down. Please be prepared for some questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being patient.

We will go to Mr. Jeneroux as the first questioner.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you for waiting for the votes, and thank you for your presentations.

I do want to get your thoughts, particularly Mr. Aruja's, on where artificial intelligence is going in relation to agriculture, because we're seeing it in a lot of rural and remote areas in my province of Alberta with farm tractors and whatnot.

What aspect would rural broadband play into that? I know it's a concern for many small businesses in the area. I wonder if you have any comments on that.

[Mark Aruja]

Rural broadband is a major issue for agriculture. It's also a major issue for the mining sector and others that are trying to move data so that it's processed in a timely fashion. For agriculture it's really important, because although mining might be able to process the data later, agriculture has a real turnaround time criticality.

Rural broadband strategy, I think, is part of this. It also has to do partly with spectrum management and things like the auctioning in due course of 5G spectrum with new generation networks. Moving the data so that these artificial intelligence processors can use it is critical.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

We had some witnesses here earlier this week with regard to where the technology is now and where we are going. Mr. Grush, I believe you said in your presentation that it was about 2035 or 2040 when the threshold would be crossed and fully automated vehicles would start to take over from self-driven vehicles. Correct me if I don't have the dates right.

Is there concern with regard to that incident in Arizona that perhaps it's moving too quickly, or do you have thoughts that we're not moving quickly enough on the regulation side? I'd love to have your feedback.

[Bern Grush]

That's a good question, and the answer is quite involved.

Very briefly, that accident had aspects of technology failure. There was no reason to hit a pedestrian. The technology is beyond running over pedestrians. There was something turned off or something not working. We're not sure what that was and we can't speculate yet until the NTSB sorts that out.

We're not moving quickly enough to anticipate the changes in society, which is what my work is about. I won't say that we should move more quickly with testing in Canada, for example. I do think we should be thinking more about deployment as opposed to just testing, because we're a little bit lopsided in Canada. I'm from Ontario, and Ontario has testing programs, but that testing is about the technology itself. Clearly the technology is not ready; I'm not saying it is.

Also, the safety regulations that were in play in Arizona were very clearly insufficient. There are errors being made technically and errors were made in the regulatory area. I don't think we're making those regulatory errors here yet, but I also think we need to be pushing into further layers of anticipation about the social and infrastructural changes and not just the technology itself. The technology itself is a tiny part of a whole picture.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

What are some of those infrastructure changes? What would you suggest? It doesn't necessarily fall on the federal government to do a lot of that, but the municipal and provincial governments, I'm sure, would be interested.

[Bern Grush]

When I say “infrastructure”, just as you include broadband in the infrastructure for UAVs, I'm including our transit fleets in the infrastructure for transportation.

Our habit for the past 100 or more years, for the most part, has been for government to acquire and operate transit systems, all the way from rail to buses. That “acquire and operate” methodology is very slow. The technology of the new mobility is moving very quickly. I'm suggesting that from that perspective, we need to move from the “acquire and operate” to a “specify and regulate” mode.

We have to use the technologies that are there now. We can't make those decisions quickly enough. Governance of transportation is far harder than some entrepreneurs inventing some new LIDAR or something like that.

Government can't keep up with the technology, but government has to keep the fundamental values of transit, which have to do with congestion management, moving large numbers of people to their jobs, and social equity. All of those elements of transit need to be preserved, and that's what's under threat if we just wait until these systems push transit aside. That's my greatest fear.

I hope that's a sufficient answer for you.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Maybe you can answer some of the other questions. I won't expect a response now, but what about in terms of actual physical infrastructure—lines on the road, stop signs, red lights, green lights, and that sort of thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll go to Mr. Badawey now.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Those are great points, great questions, Matt.

Sometimes I think we get caught up in the minutiae of the technology. Quite frankly, the technology isn't our priority. It's not our area. That's industry's priority. Let them drive that process—no pun intended. I think what's up for us to be concentrating on is being ready for that technology to hit us.

Mr. Grush, you're bang on with respect to the culture, with being prepared with the proper infrastructure, the proper integration of methods of transportation—whether road, air, rail, water—and integrating all methods of transportation that may be automated.

As well—and sometimes we don't think too deeply into this—there's the integration of the distribution logistics side of it when it comes to data management, information, and things like that. It goes a lot further than just the obvious.

My question is to all three of you. In your professional opinions, how would you recommend we start layering that dialogue in terms of what I alluded to, the other aspects, versus the actual technology of the vehicles themselves?

[Bern Grush]

The first thing we need to do is ask what the purpose is. Again, I'm focusing back on transit. Why do we have transit? What are our goals and reasons for it? It's not about how we go about it and how we did it before and how we can tune it, but why do we have it in the first place? If we don't understand why we have it, we're not going to be able to defend it in the face of the technology changes that are coming. That's the very first layer.

If we are clear, for example, on whether we agree or not that it's about social equity, whether we agree or not that it's about moving a large mass of people through a dense space.... If we agree that we're going to densify cities—and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't—then we need to ask how we're going to keep transit in that environment.

A very specific example is that it is absolutely certain that the robotic shuttles and taxis and so forth will threaten our municipal bus systems. There are a couple of thousand cities in Canada, and only a couple of hundred of them have transit systems. Many of those are threatened by these robot taxis and so forth now. What happens is that in those five or six larger cities that have subways, for example, these technologies are going to take away buses first, and that will take away some of the funnel into your light rail and urban rail systems. Those would then be the second systems under threat. How do we keep all of those people on those rail systems in spite of the convenience of coming out of their doors, getting into robotic taxis, and taking those taxis all the way to work, all 20 or 30 kilometres? I think that's the huge threat. How do we preserve our rail systems?

We're still investing in rail now in many cities. How do we think about preserving that value in spite of these robotic taxis?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Grush—and Mark, I'll go to you in a second—I think it's critical, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we establish that strategy, that plan, before we go to the next step, because we don't want to be going forward and then coming back. It's essential to know exactly how it's going to integrate, and then move forward with infrastructure adjustments, distribution logistics, integration, and things like that.