Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 11 - Evidence - February 8, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 8, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day, at 6:45 p.m., to continue its study on the regulatory and technical issues related to the deployment of connected and automated vehicles.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: This evening, the committee is continuing its study on the regulatory and technical issues related to the deployment of connected and automated vehicles.
[English]
Appearing before us today, we have officials from Transport Canada: Ms.Kim Benjamin, Director General for Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation; Catherine Higgens, Assistant Deputy Minister for Programs; Craig Hutton, Director General for Strategic Policy; and Ryan Klomp, Acting Senior Director for Environmental and Transportation Programs.
I remind honourable senators that the Minister of Transport asked the committee to do this study, so we are counting on strong support from the Department of Transport. They are also the first witnesses to appear before us, and, for this reason, I will give them a little bit more time, if you agree. Normally, we give them 10 minutes, but I think we can let them continue a few minutes more because of the importance of the subject.
[Translation]
Let me welcome the officials from Transport Canada and invite them to begin their presentation.
[English]
Catherine Higgens, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Programs Group, Transport Canada: Good evening. First, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify in support of your study on the regulatory and technical issues related to the deployment of connected and automated vehicles.
This work is very timely. Globally, transportation systems are being transformed by emerging and disruptive technologies. The speed at which innovations are coming to market continues to accelerate.
These technologies have the potential to deliver tangible benefits for Canadians. Real-time vehicle connectivity and automation can significantly reduce vehicle collisions, saving lives and reducing the risk of injury. They can help travellers, drivers and freight shippers make better decisions in real-time, enhancing the efficiency and environmental performance of the transportation system. They can make transportation more accessible for Canadians who can't drive because of a disability, giving them access to opportunities they did not have before.
These potential benefits are encouraging economies with significant automotive industries to develop their policies and modernize their regulatory frameworks to incorporate connected and automated vehicle technologies.
It may be useful to establish a shared vocabulary for the purposes of today's discussion. I will use the following definitions. Connectivity or connected vehicles use wired or wireless technology to allow vehicles, transportation infrastructure and road users to exchange information in real-time.
For example, connected vehicles can share their location, speed and direction of travel to alert drivers to a potential collision or to better coordinate movements to minimize congestion and emissions.
``Automation'' refers to the use of in-vehicle technologies, such as sensors, cameras, GPS and digital maps, to allow vehicles to navigate by taking over some or all driving functions. Connectivity and automation are not competing technologies. In fact, they are highly complementary. In the long-run, both elements are needed to achieve the transformational changes and benefits that the technologies can offer.
So what are the implications for the automotive sector and Canada's transportation system? Several trends are emerging, driven by connectivity and automation, and that will have significant implications for the future of Canada's automotive industry and for the transportation system.
First, with respect to manufacturing, nontraditional players are entering the automotive market. Higher value- added vehicle development is shifting away from final vehicle assembly and towards information communication technologies.
Second, there's a shift towards mobility as a service. Users of the transportation system increasingly expect seamless mobility that is driven by connectivity. This means, for example, ride-sharing companies like Uber are becoming global in scope and redefining how we perceive mobility.
Longer term, these trends and technologies will bring about changes in the mobility of goods and people, transportation accessibility and efficiency, as well as land use and employment.
The deployment of connected and automated vehicle technologies is an immense undertaking. The highest levels of automation still pose significant technical challenges. And there is much more to driving than just avoiding obstacles. Driving requires the ability to read traffic signs, to operate in inclement weather, to anticipate the actions of other road users, and to negotiate unpredictable situations like construction zones.
Full automation, which is a vehicle capable of driving door-to-door under any condition, may be a decade or more away. It's more likely that we will see incremental automation in our vehicles over the next several years; for example, cars that are capable of self-driving in highway conditions or in dedicated areas without continual human intervention.
This technology is challenging our conventional vehicle regulatory frameworks. Governments, industry and other stakeholders will need to work together to establish standards for assessing the performance of full automation.
We will need to answer questions such as these: How well does a system need to perform before it is deemed safe enough to drive without a human operator present? How should an automated vehicle operate if it encounters a situation where it is unable to navigate safely?
Moving forward, transportation will become increasingly embedded in Canada's critical digital infrastructure. Modern vehicles depend on electronic systems and contain numerous on-board communication networks ranging from infotainment systems to tire pressure monitoring systems. All software systems contain potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities that need to be addressed and this work is under way.
As vehicles become more sophisticated, they will generate and collect more data and we will need to address issues of data privacy and ownership moving forward.
To begin tackling some of these issues, the United States, Europe and Japan have invested significantly in connected and automated vehicle test beds and deployment initiatives. Some jurisdictions are also moving forward with regulatory action and providing deployment guidance to industry.
For example, the U.S. has published a proposed rule that will require all light-duty vehicles to contain vehicle-to- vehicle communication capabilities for safety following decades of pilot projects and investments in smart infrastructure.
The U.S. has also published a federal Automated Vehicle Policy to speed up the delivery of an initial regulatory framework and to provide best practices to guide manufacturers and other entities in the safe design, development, testing and deployment of automated vehicles.
If Canada is to keep pace, it will need to recruit highly trained people with new skills and also support the development of smart infrastructure and communications technologies. This will require collaboration between all levels of government in Canada, with industry, with academia and with the public.
Furthermore, given the integrated nature of the North American transportation sector and our economies, it will be important to ensure that Canada's transportation system is ready for the introduction of connected and automated vehicles in tandem with the U.S. Maintaining cross-boarder connected vehicle and automated vehicle interoperability is a priority.
Government leadership can help prevent the development of a patchwork of regional and local laws and practices that could hinder industry's deployment efforts.
In Canada no single level of government or department is responsible for all aspects of connectivity and automation in transportation. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Transport Canada and Public Safety Canada all have a role to play. Provincial, territorial and municipal governments own and operate the transportation infrastructure, including roads, traffic signals and transportation management centres. They are also advancing initiatives to support deployment and testing.
It is important that Canadian policy and regulatory approaches align and complement international standards. The G7 transport ministers have agreed to work jointly to support developments in the field of automated and connected driving with the objective of making a significant contribution towards increased road safety and improved mobility worldwide. This is why Canada is participating in the G7 transport ministers' working group.
Transport Canada also works with the United Nations World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, where we represent Canada's safety interests, often in collaboration with the United States.
Promoting innovation in the transportation sector is a key element of Minister Garneau's transportation 2030 strategy, which includes a commitment to ``support the safe and rapid deployment of connected and automated vehicles on our public roads to improve road safety; to reduce congestion; to increase mobility; and to protect the environment while supporting economic opportunities for Canadian businesses.''
Achieving this vision will require Canada to develop and maintain a profound understanding of the issues and impacts of disruptive technologies, to ensure that we're able to exploit opportunities proactively and to address the challenges and leverage the full potential of these technologies.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to participate in this important and timely study. My colleagues and I are pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Higgens. The first question comes from Senator Boisvenu from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Many thanks to our guests.
My first impression, as I read your report, is that it seems very general to me. It does not tell me, as a senator, about the place that Canada occupies in this matter. I don't know what your role is; I don't know who, in the federal government, is the driving force in managing this issue. As we discussed at the last meeting, this is a matter that impacts workers and households directly. In my view, moving to connected vehicles will bring about the same revolution as we had when we moved from horses to gasoline-powered vehicles.
Forgive me for saying this, but your brief disappoints me in that it is very general and gives me no information about Canada's perspective and place. What do we have to put in place? Are we interested in groups? Are we part of any groups? Do we know where we are going?
[English]
Ms. Higgens: Perhaps I can speak to how my department would see taking a role within its mandate to develop and deploy these disruptive and new technologies.
From within our perspective, we feel we can make an important contribution by focusing on the new technologies and establishing a progressive and flexible regulatory approach that can foster the innovation needed to bring these technologies to market while maintaining the safety and security of the Canadian public. This is a leadership role that Transport Canada would focus on very closely.
In addition to that, our department would, within its mandate, really work to integrate efforts to test, pilot and deploy the new technologies in real-world Canadian settings. This is an area in which we can work closely with the provinces and territories to gain the benefit of that deployment expertise and experience. I think that would be critical to Canada's ability to take advantage of these technologies and opportunities.
This will be important in terms of domestic and international cooperation, where we can work with our colleagues and partners to develop testing protocols, regulatory rules, data sharing and smart infrastructure parameters that can then set the context in which industry brings forward technologies. This is also a critical role.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Let me ask you a more specific question. You are in contact with the provinces, for example, in terms of modernizing the road network. Are you in contact with the motor vehicle manufacturers to find out how many vehicles they intend to sell? My impression is that we are watching from the sidelines instead of being in the game. In six months, in one year or in two years, we will be seeing what is coming. If, in five years, we have 50,000 electric cars instead of 3,000 or 4,000, do you have any strategies in mind so that self-driving cars and gasoline-powered cars can operate together? My impression is that Canada is very passive on this issue. Am I right?
[English]
Ms. Higgens: I think that other countries, like the U.S., notably, Japan and Europe, have moved ahead with some aspects of their regulatory framework, and I may ask Kim to speak to that particular element in a moment. I would say we are in the early stages of understanding how this technology can be brought forward in a Canadian context and how we can take advantage of our strengths and niches in this technology space.
For example, we have a company, BlackBerry QNX, that has established a 50percent market share in the operating systems of vehicles in the automotive industry. It is a technology that is a platform for connected and automated vehicles. They have actually created an innovation centre in Ottawa where they have invested $100 million and created 650 jobs to build and consolidate its position going forward in the automotive industry with these technologies.
That is an example. We are in contact with them and we speak with them frequently to understand their plans going forward and what their needs are from government in terms of setting standards, frameworks and policies.
I would also mention that we have invested with the provinces and the universities in British Columbia and Alberta to set out a test bed so that we can begin to test some connected vehicle technologies in the real world. This is a very exciting initiative that we have under way. It will build our knowledge of connective technologies, for example, communication between the infrastructure and the vehicle in terms of information for safety, traffic signals and so on in the real world. This is a demonstration that is going on as we speak.
We also do work with universities in Ontario, such as Waterloo and McMaster, which both have centres of expertise and excellence on automated and connected vehicles.
We do have the beginnings of a foundation but we have much more to do in our strategy, and we are looking to this study, as well, to inform that strategy.
Do you want to speak to regulatory aspects, Ms.Benjamin? That is a critical element.
Kim Benjamin, Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada: I can perhaps add to that.
When we look at regulations and the regulatory framework, I would say there are two different sides. One is the content — what actually goes into a technical standard and the other is the framework that allows us to accept those standards. A lot of the actual technical standards are developed on a multilateral basis. For example, we participate in ISO working groups and work with our European partners in the development of new technical standards that are the building blocks of how these technologies will move forward, so that once they are developed they would be standards that we know would operate and could work in Canada, and would be the ones that would be accepted globally.
We also made some changes to the Motor Vehicle safety Act two years ago that allowed us to incorporate by reference standards, once they are developed, so that we don't have to develop all of our standards by ourselves. Once ISO has created it and we have worked with them, we can incorporate by reference on an ambulatory basis to use those standards within our system.
As you know, you have just gone through the BillS-2 process, and within that there were other mechanisms that would allow us to more easily and flexibly use new exemptions and new interim orders to allow us to accept the new technologies that are coming forward that perhaps we didn't work on the development of, but come from industry. As long as they can demonstrate that it is still a safe vehicle, we can say, ``Yes you can come in and bring this vehicle here.'' We are trying to work on the standards side as well as on the framework.
Along with that, at our Motor Vehicle Test Centre in Blainville, Quebec, we are also conducting testing. We have been testing braking and lane assist systems to make sure we understand how technologies that are being built elsewhere, for example to a standard being developed in the U.S., will still work in Canada when we have the ice, sleet and snow. It is a many-pronged way of addressing several different elements with this.
You asked whether we are speaking to others. There is a working group that was set up by the Council of Ministers that is pulling together the provinces and territories, as well as the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and pulling representatives from all these different groups. That is to make sure we are not duplicating the work of each other and there is a coordinated way of pulling this together so we can build on the work that each other is doing.
You can see all the building blocks in place, but as Catherine said, we are still gathering momentum from those building blocks to be able to say what else we need to do. We are still gathering information and working with our partners to build some standards and making some initial changes to our legislation so we can more readily accept those standards and recognizing we already have some automation.
In 2011 we implemented a new regulation for electronic stability control in vehicles and when you use the cruise control on your vehicle. Those are the initial steps of automation. When we talk about automated vehicles, we talk about the levels of automation because then we start to add more building blocks within that system. It is not all of a sudden they are all here; we pull them in.
Right now the next phase of regulations or standards that you will see will be on the braking side. Then we will be moving on to how to keep yourself in the correct lane. I will not say they are mandated priorities but this is the direction in which the standards organizations as a whole tend to be moving. I hope that provides more information.
Senator Doyle: I guess it is obvious that the U.S. has taken the lead in preparing for AVs and CVs. Our notes indicate that the automotive industries of the U.S. and Canada are pretty well highly integrated. Given the stated wish of the U.S. to renegotiate NAFTA, will that substantially change in any way the nature of the integration of the American and Canadian automotive industry?
Ms. Higgens: That is a good question. There are so many questions right now about what the path forward will be with the new U.S. administration, and I think it's too early to speculate.
However, the newly appointed Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, referred to the importance of safety in her confirmation speech. She also spoke of innovation in the transport sector. It's clearly on her radar screen as well as the emergence of new and disruptive technologies, so clearly they are at the forefront of her priorities and sense of where the shifts and attention will be in the transport sector. There's a very good foundation to build on between the two countries. We do have a long history of collaboration on regulatory alignment through the RCC, through joint collaboration on understanding new technologies and joint testing so we have a very solid foundation to move forward on and will be having a close dialogue with our U.S. colleagues.
Senator Doyle: What about the infrastructure that's going to be needed to handle the data required for the operation of CVs and AVs? How do the infrastructure requirements play out in the urban areas versus rural areas of Canada?
Ms. Higgens: We have some deployments under way in Canada now. We have some in Edmonton and Greater Vancouver. Ontario has moved ahead and created a policy frame for on-road testing of automated vehicles and has put some parameters and opened up their infrastructure to that testing. That will help to inform us on the requirements, the costs and the things we need to understand about the infrastructure.
In the fall economic statement in 2016, the government announced its intention to launch a smart cities challenge. This is very relevant because this challenge will catalyze investment in things such as smart roads, smart traffic systems, integrated transportation grids, and it will be looking for urban centres across the country to participate in this challenge, step up and see how these elements integrate in the real word setting in Canada. This is another area where we will gain more information about the infrastructure requirements.
Senator Doyle: Have you looked at the net job loss and net job gain that might happen in the transportation sector as a result of it?
Ms. Higgens: Disruptive technologies will disrupt many things and will shift employment patterns. I mentioned earlier some of the new jobs that will be created by these technologies as they come forward; QNX, 650 jobs in Ottawa. GM created an innovation centre in Greater Toronto, 1,000 high-skilled engineering jobs. These are the kinds of things that Canada will be able to take advantage of as they leverage the new technologies.
We have strengths in Canada and areas within this technology where we can compete. We have strong R&D and academic potential to build on. We have world-class facilities for RD&D. We have sectors where we have strong potential, information and communications technology sectors certainly, but also data, automated and privacy technologies as well. These are areas that will create employment, but there would be employment impacts in traditional areas such as drivers of vehicles and trucks. Transit would be an area that could be affected.
There will be far-reaching social changes that will stem from fully automated connected vehicles.
Senator Mercer: Thank you very much. That was a fascinating presentation. It continues to scare the hell out of me, but that's okay.
I have a number of questions so I will probably want to go on the second round.
The Chair: He's the senior member of the Transport Committee.
Senator Mercer: Laurier was on the committee with me.
In your presentation you talked about the United States, Europe and Japan having invested significantly in connected and automated vehicle test bids and deployment initiatives. Why not us? Where are we?
I have three major concerns as we begin this study. The first is jobs. The second is trade. The third is the privacy issue of all this data floating around that somebody is going to know where I'm going when I don't want them to know where I'm going, not that I go anywhere I shouldn't.
Now that I have talked myself into that corner, perhaps you can get me out of it.
Ms. Higgens: You raise some really fundamental issues around automated and mostly connected vehicles. We need to work with industry and our other government partners but also engage the public and really address some of these concerns that are going to be very real with the disruptive technology coming on stream. I think that we spoke a little bit about jobs. There will be shifts in employment.
With respect to privacy, that is a concern that we've heard from our international partners as well. It was a topic discussed at length at the G7, how to protect privacy. We have some very good technology suppliers in Canada who are well-positioned to compete in that area, but as regulators and as government, that is an area we need to think of as well. Do you want to speak a little bit about some of the privacy issues and what governments have been looking at?
Ryan Klomp, Acting Senior Director, Environmental and Transportation Programs, Programs Group, Transport Canada: Privacy, of course, is foremost in the minds of regulators and consumers as they look at the increasing deployment of connected and automated vehicle technologies. It is worth distinguishing between two different types of connectivity. There is connectivity to support infotainment systems, global positioning systems and in-car conveniences. Then we have vehicle-to-vehicle communications for safety, which is the subject of the rule making, and this is relying on dedicated, short-range communications technology. This V2V communication technology that is being proposed into the vehicle fleet really has privacy by design as a key factor of the system's development, so when they were looking at developing the technology and the vehicle-to-vehicle communication capabilities, it was necessary to ensure that it would be difficult to track individuals and vehicles, so that as vehicles communicate for the purposes of safety they are doing so in a relatively anonymous way. This will certainly recognize that public acceptance is key. Certainly this is not an isolated issue. It's something that has to be looked at from a very holistic perspective.
Senator Mercer: You've raised the issue of safety. In your presentation, you talked about saving lives and reducing the risk of injury. I'm not sure how that works unless you have 100percent of vehicles on the road having connectivity. If you throw somebody in there that doesn't have it, then I don't see how that generates a safer driving environment because they're not communicating with the car next to them. Is that not a concern?
On page5 of your presentation, you stated we need to answer questions such as how well does the system need to perform before it's deemed safe enough to drive without a human operator present? How should an automated vehicle operate if it encounters a situation where it is unable to navigate safely? Who will answer those questions, you, us, industry?
Ms. Higgens: I will ask Kim to answer how regulators will approach this challenge.
Ms.Benjamin: With respect to safety, one of the reasons that we say this will improve safety is that most of the collisions occur because of driver error rather than because of a faulty vehicle or the vehicle not functioning properly. We'll talk about the automated technologies before the connected technology technologies.
Automated technologies may make it so your car will let you know if you are about to hit somebody, and you might not hit them. The idea is that as these technologies move forward, we should be able to increase safety by minimizing the possible human error with it.
When we talk about connectivity with the vehicle, you're correct; there is that beautiful end state where everyone has all of these technologies and there's that mélange in the middle where we have some people who have the connected technology, some people who don't. One of the things that the U.S. is looking at — they've given a notice of proposed rule-making that we're studying closely — is that they want all new vehicles to have the technology built into it. It would take several years for all vehicles to have it, but the idea is that the fleet would slowly start to transform into one where the technology is there. As you said, it's a complete shift and it's going to take many years. So it's little incremental improvements to safety, but not the end result.
Another thing the U.S. is doing — we're studying closely how they are addressing it, and also Australia and many other countries — is that they're saying, ``What about our standards? Do we have many different ways of meeting the same standard? How do we test it?''
So whenever we have a new regulation or standard, we have a testing methodology that goes with it. We will need to have more variable methodologies. We still require the manufacturer to demonstrate safety to us, and it is performance based. When we do a crash test to make sure they meet their standard — it did not buckle more than it should or it stopped when it should — we need to have all those tests in place on a performance system to ensure they're still meeting the basic standards we expect them to meet.
It will be a challenge and I would say we have a very interesting task ahead of us. But one of the reasons for coming forward and asking for the assistance of this group was to perhaps help us with some recommendations in this area as well.
Senator Mercer: I would gather that by the time we get to the point where the entire stock has the technology, the renewed technology that it will change again.
Ms.Benjamin: It will be an ever-changing world. One thing they're looking at in the U.S. is whether this is something that can be retrofitted in the vehicles or something that might exist on your cell phone when you go into the vehicle that you might bring with you. They're looking at many ways of bringing this connectivity into the vehicle, but it has to be studied and proven safe before saying you must do it.
Senator Unger: Thank you to our witnesses tonight.
I'm from Edmonton, so when our committee was there last fall, we took a ride on a bus with a connected vehicle in front of us. Quite honestly, the first thing that occurred to me was: What about distracted driving? This thing was talking to us constantly to the point where I found it really irritating and had a headache when we were all done.
I do have questions about costs. This technology is going to be built into all new vehicles. Who will be able to afford those, the infrastructure, the roads, the changes that are going to have to be made? What will happen to the trucks that right now use the same roads?
These are just a few things. For example, in the city of Edmonton, there were things mounted on the light posts. I had never noticed them before, but they were issuing commands to what we were doing. I found that disconcerting. They're mounted on buildings. They're all over the place. I haven't yet had a chance to talk to our mayor and ask him who the heck is paying for all that stuff. There was nothing ever indicated to me, as a taxpayer, that these things were going up. All of this costs money, so that's one big question.
In your presentation, you talked about Transport Canada also working with the United Nations World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. How closely have you been working with the United States, which is our most likely partner in all of this?
Ms.Benjamin: First, to address the issue of distracted driving, one of the things is that we recognize, especially as you get into that new vehicle and it has so many bells and whistles, you don't know how to see what speed you're driving because there are so many things on there. We are actively studying the human machine interface to see how we can reduce the distraction that comes from the vehicle and to see what standards might be required around that type of interaction.
With respect to the cost, I'll speak to the cost of the vehicle and leave the cost of infrastructure to my colleagues. When we bring forward a regulation, we're bringing it forward because there is a safety benefit. For example, when we brought forward the regulation for electronic stability control, we had to demonstrate that the savings to society, the lives being saved, counterbalanced whatever costs there were going to be for the vehicle. We will save lives and there will be this incremental cost, but if we can't demonstrate that it's a reasonable cost and that it's offset by savings, we can't bring it forward as a regulation.
We're not bringing forward these rules to better society. We're bringing them forward because there is a safety benefit and the cost benefit is positive for us.
With respect to the United Nations and the U.S., when we go to the United Nations, we actually go there with the U.S. They are participants in this as well. There's a set of standards within the EU, which includes more than the EU; it's many other countries. The U.S. has standards and we have standards. We try to make sure for Canadian standards that we are aligned as closely as possible with the U.S. as we move forward. Sometimes it looks like we're waiting for the United States but, in reality, we're working with them and trying to ensure we come up with the same standard and then we'll reference back and forth.
When we go to the EU, it is because we have decided there is a benefit. It may be something that the United States and Canada might choose to implement, and there may be something that we see. There are a few differences between Canada and United States and if there is a safety reason, we might still choose to have a difference. But most of the standards we're looking at are what works best for everyone, and we're becoming more globalized where a lot of these start to flow into each other. However, we work closely with all partners, the U.S. and the EU.
Ms. Higgens: I will speak to the infrastructure. The first point I would emphasize is that to reap the full benefit of automated and connected vehicles, we will need to engage the infrastructure. To leverage the full safety benefit, full efficiency and environmental benefit, that infrastructure connection is critical.
To be specific on what type of infrastructure, it would be sensors built into the infrastructure that could, for example, give information about temperature and moisture that would then give advice on speed. You could have an optimal speed for a stretch of road in different weather conditions. It could issue a warning to a driver if they were at a speed where they would go through a red light.
It could be school zone warnings or variable speed messaging, giving optimal speeds to minimize congestion and maximize efficiency. These are all things that get embedded in the infrastructure.
I think what you're referring to in Edmonton was probably part of the test bed that they have set up. That's a partnership between Transport Canada, the university and the Province of Alberta, who have come together to create that test bed that you saw with the sensors. If you were asking who is paying for that, that's a partnership for a deliberate demonstration or contribution.
I would say, more broadly, the provinces, the territories and municipalities in fact own the road infrastructure in Canada, and eventually they will be participating in the costs and investments of embedding these sensors in the infrastructure.
I would point out that congestion costs Canada about $5billion a year, and as the connected vehicles come on stream and are able to improve efficiency, there will be benefits to the economy from that technology. While there are costs, there are also benefits to the economy, and those benefits will flow through to the provinces and municipalities as well as at the federal level.
Also, the benefit of the automated vehicle sector to Canada has been estimated as high as $65 billion. There is a great amount of wealth in the new technologies that can come into the economy, so when we look at costs we have to look at both the benefits and the costs of bringing the infrastructure into the connectivity.
Mr.Klomp: Maybe just to add a few small illustrative examples.
The importance of having the infrastructure as part of the communications capability with vehicles is really being able to deal with the transportation system in an integrated fashion holistically to be able to manage vehicles, traffic lights, intersections and highways at a system level. That is extremely powerful and will bring our transportation system into the 21stcentury with the digital overlay.
There are a few examples, as Catherine mentioned, where there are benefits from installing smart roadway infrastructure. Just having traffic lights being timed with the movement of the vehicles you can save 2 to 5percent in terms of fuel economy per year per vehicle. Variable speed limits alone give you another 5 to 13percent, particularly along very congested corridors.
We recently conducted a great deal of work looking at cooperative truck platooning, allowing vehicle-to-vehicle communication for the close platooning of heavy-duty trucks to obtain aerodynamic benefits, and we saw potential savings of up to 14percent.
So when you're really able to start dealing with the transportation system, both vehicles and the movement of goods, people and services from a holistic perspective, that's where you get a lot of the environmental, safety and economic benefits that we think will certainly outweigh the investment in the smart roadway infrastructure required to enable that.
The Chair: We want everyone to get their questions in, so shorter questions and answers will make our lives easier. You'll always be welcome to come back, and we'll probably have to have you back again.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much.
I note in your remarks, Ms. Higgens, that you say there is no single level of government or department responsible for all aspects of connectivity and automation in transportation. You mentioned three federal departments, provinces and municipal governments. Fair enough, but what about coordination of all of this? I would think there would need to be coordination and a lead player; someone who calls the meetings. Who does that?
Mr. Hutton: That's a very good point. Leadership and coordination, given how many players are involved in the industry and bringing these technologies into the marketplace and applying and deploying them on roads, does require a high degree of coordination amongst players, as well, that haven't necessarily been involved in the transportation space. The Samsungs and Blackberry QNXs of the world are actually new to the transportation world, but it's those technologies that are having an implication for transportation business models and vehicles. Coordinating all of that is an important task.
Given that transportation is a shared jurisdiction amongst provinces, territories and the federal government, there is that coordinating role that is absolutely critical. The Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation Highway Safety is taking on that coordination role to make sure that as the work is being conducted, it's being leveraged so that one jurisdiction looking into a particular aspect can inform others. Ontario, as we've talked about, is moving out on their pilot project, but that work is shared amongst jurisdictions, so the Council of Ministers is becoming a venue where some of this coordination is happening.
As was mentioned earlier, we co-chair the CV/AV Committee that was set up under the Council of Ministers following their meeting of September2016, where they agreed to look at how these technologies are coming on-stream and the need for better coordination in terms of understanding the impacts of those technologies and then identifying exactly what role each actor is playing.
As Catherine mentioned, there is that responsibility on behalf of the provinces and territories in terms of some of the infrastructure ownership and asset management. There is the licensing issue that happens at the provincial and territorial levels as well, but that, again, has to, as you look across the country, work together amongst other jurisdictions. So there are existing venues where those discussions are happening. The CV/AV working group will pull actors together to ensure that where gaps or specific issues are identified that perhaps aren't being brought to light or not moving fast enough, work can be pushed in a good direction to make sure that we're looking at all aspects.
Senator Eggleton: So you co-chair with Ontario?
Mr. Hutton: With Ontario, that's correct.
Senator Eggleton: Is your department the lead federal department?
Mr. Hutton: That's correct.
Senator Eggleton: Another one of your comments, Ms. Higgens, was that the U.S. has also published a Federal Automated Vehicle Policy to speed up the delivery of an initial regulatory framework and to provide best practices to guide manufacturers and other entities in the safe design, development, testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Will we have one of those, and when?
Ms.Benjamin: Yes, they have published their guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, one of the things that we did in BillS-2 was to try to bring more flexibility and increase the use of the exemption power, which was one of the areas they had brought forward in their policy. We're looking at all of the same areas they're looking at in the U.S., and what they've put forward is a policy to say, ``Here are some things we're thinking about. What do you think?''
We've been reviewing theirs and the system that has been brought forward in Australia, and looking at all of these issues and doing our analysis to say what we think the correct regime would be in Canada. We are looking at developing such a policy, but we're still in our analysis stage.
Senator Eggleton: It looks like something useful here in terms of an initial regulatory framework, providing best practices and guiding manufacturers. That sounds useful and I should think we would want that here. So you're going to do that, but when will this be ready?
Ms.Benjamin: We're in the process of studying it right now and we're pulling all the information together. I can't give you a date yet as to when we will have it out.
Senator Eggleton: You mentioned Australia, but again, as others have said here, we have an integrated auto market with the United States. That's where most of the attention needs to be paid and when we did the automotive safety legislation, BillS-2, it was spelled out very clearly that you wanted to be in sync with the United States. I should think that's the main point here, too.
Ms.Benjamin: It is a key driver.
Senator Runciman: Most of my questions were covered that dealt with the economic issues. I do have a comment and would like, perhaps, a response from the panel. Technology is moving so quickly and it's very challenging to stay ahead of it, and one of the concerns that jumps out at me with what's happening and in terms of this study is the policing and security aspects surrounding these kinds of vehicles.
I sit on the Legal Committee, and we see the challenges that the policing organizations are having as they try to struggle with how to deal with impaired driving with the legalization of marijuana. This is a much greater challenge. Depending on what we accept as a work plan, if we as a committee decide to go with the longer study, I think we should pick out one or two priorities for an interim report and I think this should be a priority because of the fast moving technology and the very significant issues surrounding especially security.
We've seen in other parts of the world suicide bombers using cars loaded with explosives and when you can have an unmanned vehicle, not to mention all of the other challenges in policing, I think that we should consider that as a priority for this committee. If indeed we do an interim report, I think it would be well received. It might mean some travel to Washington to meet officials there.
The Chair: We will be reviewing the issue with the analyst about the timing and the length of the study, and we'll be coming back to the full committee as soon as possible.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for your presentation. Building on Senator Eggleton, I'm fascinated by the globalization of this and read today the report that came out in Toronto last October. I'm well aware from the reading I've done over the past few hours about the amount of work that Ontario has done and the States have done. I have to ask how much do we have to reinvent the wheel or what's out there that we can build our own platform on going forward?
Time is ticking and three years from now it's anticipated that the technology will be such that the driverless cars will be ready to be on the road. We see right now that in Sweden they will have 100 automated cars on the road this year and it's coming pretty fast.
I'm concerned about the timing and, as I said, not reinventing the research. We have different conditions. I appreciate the snow is different and ice is different. Are you looking at going over everything or is there a platform with all your international and provincial work you can pick up on and we can be focusing on the issues that perhaps are not covered elsewhere?
Ms.Benjamin: We are pulling in information but there are several different aspects we're working on. There's the legislative regulatory framework and what standards go into that. There is a whole range of issues that will need to be dealt with at all levels of government and we have to decide what's federal and what's provincial and we've been trying to address each of these different areas. We have put the most focus to date on the development of those standards for the specific technologies as they come.
With respect to the timing, there's quite a range of views as to how quickly these vehicles will be here and a vehicle that can be safely driven in the Nevada desert, let's say, will be very different from what can be on the road in Ottawa today. Three years to have such a vehicle like that in Canada capable of driving in all weather would be a push, I would think.
Senator Bovey: I was quite fascinated by the article in The Atlantic on the ethics of the autonomous cars and so I would hope your work will look at the ethical aspects.
Ms.Benjamin: Definitely.
Senator Duffy: Do you have industry wanting to do things in Canada now and are their requests for the go-ahead still being studied by your department? Are they knocking on your door? And how long is it taking us to deal with their requests?
Ms.Benjamin: We have not had industry come to the door with a proposal that says, ``Here's how we will specifically do this and maintain safety,'' so we've not had a request for an exemption that includes any documentation for us to look at yet.
Senator Duffy: I thought it was Boston but the researcher says Philadelphia where Uber has deployed driverless cars. I think I saw something a couple of months ago that said they went out one day and had a problem and didn't go out again. Do we know whether the Uber project is still going on in Philadelphia?
Everyone has seen Google Street View. I understand they've also developed a driverless car. What's the status there? If they can do it in Philadelphia where they're getting a foot of snow today maybe they can do it here.
Mr.Klomp: It's important to come back to my colleague's opening remarks where we spoke about automation coming as an incremental reality to transportation. With respect to the Google car, for example, where it's being deployed in California, although it is running in an automated state, a driver is always required to be at the wheel to take over in the event that the system is no longer capable of operating as anticipated. This is similar to the deployments of increased levels of automated vehicles in Philadelphia.
It's important to recognize that automation will take time. We are probably more than a decade away from having a vehicle that is completely capable of driving without any human intervention from door to door, but testing those vehicles on the road in real world scenarios is an important part of understanding the limitations of those systems.
Senator Duffy: Is there a reason why Uber isn't doing a similar test in Canada? In other words, is there a regulatory reason? Is there an official roadblock to them doing that here should they choose to do so?
Mr.Klomp: Not that we're aware. Currently, of course, we know that Ontario has an automated vehicle pilot deployment initiative that will allow for the testing of automated vehicles. The province is responsible for licensing and registration of that vehicle. They have had several companies approach them to conduct automated vehicle pilot testing in Ontario. That program was launched early in January. I don't believe Uber has made an application yet but certainly I don't think there is anything currently that would preclude them from operating a trial of that nature.
Senator Mercer: I don't expect you to answer this question but it's a question I will be asking as we go through the study. I will be asking pretty well every witness this one question: Are we ready to capitalize on these changes, meaning jobs for Canadians, meaning manufacturing of whatever parts and technology that will go into these vehicles? That's a question that needs to be asked.
However, you did say in response to another question that you're working with universities in Ontario. Why just Ontario? There are some fine universities in other parts of the country. I wouldn't want this government to be thought of as being Toronto-centric.
Ms. Higgens: I can respond to that. I certainly want to acknowledge the other important universities we're in partnership with. I would particularly mention UBC and University of Alberta as well, but we have a network of universities. It was simply an example.
Senator Mercer: And don't forget the universities in the East, please. That's an advertisement brought to you by Dalhousie University.
A practical question in discussing that we're embarking on this study that people have posed to me is okay, we now have a country with all the cars connected. Everyone has the technology. Some 15-year old kid somewhere is locked in his mother's basement at his mother's computer and he hacks in and takes the system down. We suddenly have 34 million people in the country who have lost their technology. At that stage many of them have only ever driven using this technology. Now we have 34 million people who may not know how to drive as well as their automated system can drive. What happens?
Mr.Klomp: Cybersecurity is obviously of paramount importance.
When it comes to connected vehicles, for example, and vehicle-to-vehicle communications, in the design of the system, there are explicit elements that will allow it, for example, if a user has hacked into a vehicle, if a vehicle is communicating an erroneous or malicious signal by intent, to have its communications capability revoked from the network.
Senator Mercer: By the driver?
Mr.Klomp: By the system itself, the system that will govern the vehicle-to-vehicle communication.
Senator Mercer: If somebody takes control of the system, the ultimate decision needs to be made by the man or woman sitting in what we now call the driver's seat. They have to have the ability to shut all of the technology off if something has gone wrong.
Mr.Klomp: Right. Okay, so when it comes to communications, there are elements that allow us to revoke a vehicle's ability to communicate.
When it comes to automated vehicles, the critical element of cybersecurity, I think, is the challenge of continually identifying and mitigating threats. That is why industry, including Transport Canada, is conducting testing on vehicles to identify potential threat factors and mitigate them, but it will be a continual process. It will be necessary to share best practices. It will be necessary to share information about potential malicious threats to vehicles and address them, similar to what is done, quite frankly, with our mobile devices or our computer devices. But failsafe mechanisms certainly need to be designed into vehicles in the event that there are malicious hacking attempts.
No known events have occurred to date, but that is high on the radar of most automotive OEMs as they deploy higher and higher degrees of automation in their systems.
Senator Greene: There are so many issues, and they are all tangled up together in a big morass of issues. Some are provincial and some federal. Where, generally, does the federal jurisdiction end and the provincial jurisdiction begin? Or, maybe another way, would it be possible to have a list of all of the issues and a description of where those issues lie or whose responsibility those issues are? Maybe even a chart form would be a good thing. I think it would help us to determine who we should ask what questions.
The Chair: If you can send that to the clerk, the clerk will forward it to the members of the committee. Good question, Senator Greene. Any other questions?
So colleagues, thank you very much. I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations. We will be meeting again on this subject next Tuesday morning and will hear from officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. So some of the questions dealing more with jobs and the research and technology aspect will be dealt with at that time. Senator MacDonald will chair that meeting.
I thank the members of the committee. The steering committee will meet right after you have left the table, and we will make a proposal for you for next week.
(The committee adjourned.)