Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 21 - Evidence - September 20, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 20, 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.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
[English]
Excuse me Mr. Beghetto, but we need to take care of a little bit of business, and then we'll get to you right away. I know on Wednesday night some people like to leave so I'll deal with this issue right away.
I was told that we were to have Bill C-23, the pre-clearance bill, referred to our committee. As you know, we've Bill C-48 coming to our committee, as well as Bill C-49. There were 82 witnesses who spoke on Bill C-49. We want to get our report out. I know we're a very efficient committee, and that's why they like sending things to us, but it was dealt with in the house by the National Security Committee.
If you can, talk to your respective leaderships and say, listen, we want our report out and we think it's important we get it out early. We know we will have problems with Bill C-48 and Bill C-49. We're taking time in our committee because National Security doesn't want to handle it. The minister responsible for the bill is the public safety minister. If you can, ask your respective committees because I wouldn't want to delay this report. We already know that we're to have a second phase on it.
Senator Eggleton: Do you want Bill C-23 to go to another committee?
The Chair: I want it to go to National Security, where it was supposed to go. We are busy, and some people here have influence.
Senator Saint-Germain: I'm a member of National Security. So are you.
Senator Mercer: Have you called some of those people?
The Chair: I'm saying it publicly so that it puts on a little bit more pressure.
I'm pleased to introduce our witness, Marco Beghetto, Vice President, Communications and New Media, Canadian Trucking Alliance. Our second witness, Mr. Picard, is delayed because of a flight and he might or might not be joining us. We will start with Mr. Beghetto right away.
[Translation]
Mr. Beghetto, the floor is yours.
[English]
Sorry, I have another question. We have a document that is in English only, but it was given to us by a private organization. I don't feel very troubled by the fact that it's in English only, if my colleagues agree that the document be distributed. Do you agree?
[Translation]
It is available only in English, but this is a private organization. It's not like a department. Do you agree?
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
The Chair: I'm sorry, now we can start.
Marco Beghetto, Vice President, Communications and New Media, Canadian Trucking Alliance: Good evening, honourable senators. Thank you for having me this evening. My name is Marco Beghetto, Vice President, Communications and New Media for the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which is a federation of provincial trucking associations representing about 4,500 for-hire carriers across the country.
As you can see in some of your notes, the impact our members have on the Canadian job market and economy is quite significant. We employ approximately 150,000 Canadians and are responsible for providing 70 per cent of the country's road freight needs. The industry generates over $65 billion in revenues per year. In terms of GDP, the transportation services sector represents 4.2 per cent of total economic output or $53 billion. The trucking industry is responsible for creating 400,000 direct jobs in Canada, 300,000 of which are truck drivers.
For some time we've all been hearing and reading about the advent of autonomous vehicles and so-called driverless trucks and how they will inevitably displace the hundreds of thousands of professional men and women who operate commercial vehicles. I'm here tonight to dispel that myth. If there's one message I can leave you with tonight, it's that the truck driver is here to stay. In fact, if CTA has one major request of this committee, it is that you recommend in your final report that the government resist the urge to refer to future trucks as autonomous or driverless and instead use the industry preferred term, "advanced driver assistance systems.''
Why do we prefer that term? The key word is "driver.'' The new modern high-tech truck will introduce many changes to our industry, but the constant will still be the driver, even if the role of the job evolves with the technology.
The future is not the driverless truck but instead the integration of trained professional drivers into a cab with innovative technology.
I liken the evolution of trucking to the aviation industry of decades ago. The first autopilot was introduced in 1912 and here we are, over 100 years later, and we still have pilots. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the public likes it that way. As advanced driver assistance systems technologies evolve with commercial vehicles, drivers will still play a key role, no different from aviation.
Truck operators are required to do much more than just hold a steering wheel. Among other things, they control access to the vehicles, maintain security, balance loads, secure cargo, manage transportation of dangerous goods, communicate with first responders, conduct pre-trip inspections, perform en route mechanical tasks, communicate with customers and deal with the myriad of border crossing processes.
With the advent of ADAS will come increased demand for a new generation of highly skilled, technically adept equipment operators. Training and education programs like mandatory entry-level training, which is currently practised in Ontario, combined with ADAS will improve driver safety performance tremendously. The safety benefits of ADAS systems are self-evident. The lesson learned from the data is if we are to improve upon the safety performance of commercial vehicles, the prime focus should be on driver behaviour and skills training. As ADAS penetrates the trucking industry, it's important that provincial and federal regulations and policies work in tandem to ensure that this technology is maximized in a safe and efficient matter.
Furthermore, to ensure Canada keeps pace with the rate of ADAS innovation and adoption around the world, governments here could consider incentives for early adopters while also accelerating the development of vehicle safety manufacturing standards consistent with the U.S. It's also vital that CTA and our supply chain partners are at the forefront in assisting government in the development of a national framework for ADAS technology.
There is no doubt the advent of ADAS is a game changer for the trucking industry in terms of safety and productivity. Frankly, the possibilities are endless. However, let's stop giving credibility to the notion we hear in media circles and some capital investment communities that the future truck will supplant our nation's workforce of truck operators. Rather, let's work toward ensuring that the new breed of drivers in our industry are as safe and professional as the current workforce and properly trained for this rapidly changing environment.
I'm willing to take any questions.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I read an article, which was not scientific, but it appeared in the media in 2015 and talked about truck hacking. An experiment was carried out with a school bus and a heavy truck, which were successfully hacked remotely, stopped and, in a way, highjacked.
The biggest concern with computer-operated vehicles, especially through Wi-Fi, is that the signals may be used for criminal purposes. How do you see the government's role at this stage? We will eventually have to prepare legislation to ensure maximum security for those who will acquire these kinds of heavy vehicles or automobiles. Since optimal security does not exist, we must focus on maximum security. What role must the government play in that respect? Should we leave that responsibility to private companies or will it always be a matter of public domain?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: Thank you for the question. To your point, obviously the public domain has a role to play here. As you mentioned, from various news programs, and we've all seen them over the last few years, we've seen cargo or car thieves being able to hack vehicles remotely. In an age of what would be an autonomous or an automated vehicle environment, I think it's clear that we need safeguards in order to prevent the remote hacking of not just commercial vehicles but all sorts of vehicles in the transportation sector.
The clearest safeguard is the truck driver, to make sure there is somebody in that vehicle, with that cargo, regardless of what that cargo is. Some of it could be hazardous materials or transportation of dangerous goods. The first line of defence is a human operator who has been security cleared and follows all of the compliance protocols that already exist in the transportation industry. I would say that would be the first line of defence. Yes, that is another reason the driver isn't going anywhere.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: We heard from witnesses yesterday who were telling us that, in terms of technological development, the progress is much more rapid than we might have anticipated five or six years ago. What we thought would arrive in five or six years is practically on the market, and what we expected to see in 2030 will be here in 2020 or 2025. That technology acceleration is speeding up progress significantly.
Concerning heavy trucks, it is estimated that up to 40 per cent of vehicles would be vulnerable to hacking. Is the Government of Canada lagging behind other countries? Shouldn't the government pick up the pace to avoid eventually being overtaken by events?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: I can't speak to the pace that the Canadian government is keeping with the criminal enterprises or the entities that would want to hack a vehicle.
That being said, to your point, yes, there is definitely a role for the Canadian government to play here. As for the speed of the technology, how it evolves and how criminal enterprises may be one step ahead of that, it's clear. I would have never imagined 15 or 20 years ago that I would have a device in my pocket that is essentially more powerful than the computers of 20 years ago. The technology does evolve quickly and it's imperative that we stay one step ahead of anybody that would want to use those vehicles for nefarious purposes, whether it's for theft or whether it's in a post-9/ 11 environment.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Can we say that vehicles and trucks will always have a driver? Do you foresee driverless operation in some trucking situations? I am thinking of shorter routes or trucks with lighter loads, where travel-related risk is lower. Do you foresee the possibility of trucks someday being driverless and everything being fully automated?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: Well, never say never. To your point, the market, as well as the government, public perception and the comfort level of the public, will dictate a lot of this.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Let's use the example of a union framework, where a company is having problems with its automobile drivers, and it has at its disposal a full fleet of automated vehicles. Wouldn't such companies be tempted, in order to rationalize wages and working conditions, to automate part of their driverless fleet? Do you understand what I mean?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: Absolutely. I think you are saying there are certain sectors or environments where it does make sense.
Senator Boisvenu: As a robot.
Mr. Beghetto: Yes. That being said, we don't know what the future holds. We have a driver shortage. If that continues to be as acute as it is, some markets will be pressured to have more automated vehicles. Obviously, the return on investment has to level off. We have no idea when that's going to happen.
As I said in my speaking notes, an automated vehicle, for instance, won't be able to chain its tires in Prince George in the winter. It won't be able to deal with the U.S. customs official, and the vast majority of our for-hire trucks participate in international commerce.
We're seeing pilots now with platooning, for example, which is obviously an automated environment where there's a lead driver and it's platooned. There are certain corridors that exist, perhaps the Montreal to Toronto or the Montreal to Windsor corridor where I think we will start to see some of these pilots over the next, who knows, 5 to 10 years. Again I think the public will dictate the expediency and the pace where this technology will evolve. Yes, businesses will be interested. I'm not an expert. I'm not a market analyst. I don't know where that will balance off at some point. In some sectors it's possible, yes, but, in my opinion, in most sectors, with the degree and the level of demand placed for a truck driver and the everyday duties that a truck driver is required to perform, not in the foreseeable future.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for being here and thank you for your presentation.
I've been a member of this committee for 13 year. In my early years I heard stories from people from associations like your own and others in the industry telling us about the driver shortage. We've had many discussions about the driver shortage and about possible immigration solutions to that problem, recognizing that Canadian truck drivers have had to have unique skills, which meant that those skills will probably have to come from Northern and Eastern Europe because of the similar weather conditions.
I am very frustrated to see in your presentation tonight that you're talking about a shortage of 34,000 drivers by 2024. We've made no progress here. It seems to me that we've not made driving a truck an attractive job to young Canadians. We need to find a way to do that. These are well-paid jobs doing an important thing by helping to deliver Canadian products, or products that are imported through the ports in Canada, to customers. It seems to me that's something we need to fix.
That being the case, it seems to me one of the ways of reducing the numbers of drivers needed is new technology. Will this technology lessen that shortage or will it just complicate the issue?
Mr. Beghetto: My answer to that is two pronged. I would say that as far as attracting a new generation of workers to the industry, the technology will go a long way to improving that.
We're dealing with millennials and whatever will come after. Obviously it's a different type of worker. They're conditioned differently. When you talk about ADAS technology and some of the advancements that are being made there, I think younger people, new generations, are more inclined to seek or have more interest in the trucking industry in that environment, a more cerebral, technically adept worker. I think we will attract a pool of potential employees that we may not have attracted in years past.
The other side to that, and you mentioned it, is the level of professionalization of the trucking industry. Right now it's not considered a skilled trade. In Ontario, we've done some preliminary work in terms of creating mandatory entry- level training which has raised the level of professionalism and how truck drivers are seen in the industry. With that also comes the ancillary benefit of attracting again a pool of potential new recruits that might not have otherwise considered trucking in the past.
Senator Mercer: I guess there are just too many country songs about truck drivers that it's hard to rise above it.
You did mention in your presentation, and I appreciated it, about the importance of safety that truck drivers bring to the industry.
Mr. Beghetto: Yes.
Senator Mercer: We've heard a number of times here, as we've had these discussions, that as we get to the point where we may have automated trucks but they may not travel alone; they may travel in caravans. There would be a number of them travelling, which means there may not be a driver in each cab. There may be a driver in one in five cabs or one in three cabs. If there's an accident with a large rig, particularly in a caravan on a major highway, I'm concerned about the safety factor. Has the industry started to look at this? Whether you want to go this way or not, you may have to anticipate that this is the way to go.
Is anybody doing any work or studies? How do we make those caravans safe and friendly to the non-truck driver who will be travelling on the same highway?
Mr. Beghetto: I'm not an expert on the technology and specifically how it works. I know there is a lot of work being done across the river with certain companies, certain manufacturers that are testing platooning systems, which I think is what you're referring to.
To your point, I think no matter what, the technology has to be tested and proven over and over again over an extended period of time. We still see on the Internet autonomous Teslas that lose control and slam into concrete barriers and things of that nature, and they've been testing those for years.
We have to be sure the technology works. One message CTA constantly delivers, regardless of what the issue is, is that it has to be a made-in-Canada solution. Not only does it have to work, but it has to work in Canada. It has to work with our unique operating and weather conditions. Sensors can't be circumvented by weather and things like that. It is going to take time.
Senator Mercer: It is tricky to train people and fine-tune the technology to get it to work in our environment. I recall a time when I was going to visit some relatives in North Carolina. I drove down by myself and stopped over in Rona. I got up the next morning and it had snowed. I was fine; I had snow tires on my car because it was wintertime. I got out on the freeway and I was moving along, but not at the rate that I wanted to move along as conditions dictated. I came around a bit of a turn on the freeway and I started passing trucks. I thought, "Oh, gee, they're going very slow.'' Then I took a moment to glance. They weren't going very slow. They were sitting still with the wheels spinning because they had no idea how to drive in snow and probably didn't have the right equipment.
Your comment about a made-in-Canada solution to the problem has to be underscored because our conditions are unique and aren't universal from coast to coast to coast because British Columbia's weather is much more amenable to driving than it might be in parts of the prairies or Quebec and Ontario.
My point is I want to know that the industry is taking this seriously and is putting resources to do studies and make recommendations to provincial governments as well as to the national government as to how we address this problem. Back to your number, a 34,000-driver shortage by 2024. The need is not going away.
Mr. Beghetto: Training has to evolve with the technology. We can't have a stagnant training apparatus. It needs to be uniform and consistent across the country. As this technology penetrates the market, drivers will have to be trained to it.
Senator Mercer: Community colleges are the ones to respond the fastest. Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax received the contract to build a large number of navy ships. It is a 30-year contract.
The next day, the Nova Scotia Community College started to retool their programs to accommodate that. A welding program had lain dormant. There was not a great emphasis on it but it suddenly moved to the top of the list.
This stuff has to happen quickly, but you have to have the context. I am encouraging you as opposed to asking a question.
Senator Eggleton: We all have an image of the typical truck driver. Is that about to change? Will the skill sets be different? If they're not to be driving a truck so much and they are to be more concerned about security issues, they probably have to have skills in terms of the advanced technology. Is it even correct to call them a driver? Will they need a university degree?
Mr. Beghetto: I can't speak to whether they will need a university degree, but I think you're on the right track. The driver will evolve with the technology. What he or she will look like, nobody knows for sure. The image of the truck driver of years past will probably be outdated as this technology penetrates the market.
Like I said, it plays to the characteristics of millennials and the younger generation of drivers. They are more cerebral and technically adept. There is a wow factor that might be attractive to them as this technology starts to take place. A university degree, no, I'm not sure about that.
Senator Eggleton: Maybe some community college.
What about the pay? Do you see that changing? Will it go up or down? They won't have to sit at the wheel constantly driving.
Mr. Beghetto: Market conditions will obviously dictate that. It is important to remember that this is sectorial. In certain sectors, the driver will always have his hands at 10 and 2 and will always be operating the vehicle. You're referring to a more automated environment. Perhaps that driver will be asked to do various tasks. Maybe it will be more administrative work, customer services tasks and things of that nature. The pay will obviously adjust depending on the tasks.
Senator Eggleton: Some of the more advanced autonomous vehicles can be described as being computers on wheels. They would need skills in that direction to operate them.
The people we've had before us as witnesses have talked about driverless cars or even minibuses. We had a completely autonomous one up on Parliament Hill today. Those of us who were out there went for a ride. I find it hard to understand why that technology wouldn't also eventually apply to trucks.
You very clearly said to forget it; there is not going to be driverless trucks. You have described them as advanced driver assistance systems. Does that mean your industry will resist an attempt to create a driverless vehicle? I'm trying to understand how that differs from the car or the minibus. There are all sorts of vehicles people foresee as being driverless, but you are saying no to the trucks.
Mr. Beghetto: We are not saying no. To answer your question in terms of resistance, no, we will not actively resist the evolution of technology. The market will dictate how it penetrates.
As I said, I'll never say never, but for the foreseeable future the requirements of commandeering a commercial vehicle requires human intervention or oversight for the variety of the tasks a truck driver is still required to do in the majority of sectors out there.
Senator Eggleton: I will go back to the platooning. The idea of a convoy of vehicles is possible, I thought you said, but would you need to have a driver in every one, or would you just have the driver in the front or someone in the back? It would be more like a train. How would you see that working?
Mr. Beghetto: I was involved in the pilot program in Blainville where there were three platooning vehicles in a convoy. For our purposes, there was a driver in each cab, but the drivers in the second and third cab didn't actively do anything. The first driver did. Through sensors and wireless technology, they were reacting to the braking and acceleration of the lead truck.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: As you have shown, the trucking industry in Canada is very important. You bring up an argument in your brief I would like you to explain further regarding the safety issue, which has been discussed a bit. You talk about it in your brief as something that causes a number of problems. However, in one of your statements — on page 3 of your brief, concerning truck safety — you say that studies have been done in Ontario and shown the following, and I quote:
[English]
Of the trucks deemed at fault during a collision, 90 per cent were a result of driver error, while mechanical factors of the vehicle contribute to fewer than 10 per cent of collisions.
[Translation]
I am somewhat puzzled by that because, as I see it, this argument is in favour of your industry developing technologies and investing in them for safety reasons.
Do you plan to do work or have you already done work to analyze and implement technologies to improve safety?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: Absolutely. One thing I want to make clear is that ADAS, the advanced driver assistance system I am trying to reinforce here, speaks directly to that. It's a tool for the truck driver. A driver, as I mentioned, who hopefully evolves into a more highly skilled truck driver now has this array of tools.
Some things we are already seeing: forward collision warning, lane departure warning, automated emergency braking, driver alertness, fatigue alertness, and things that measure how many times a driver will close his eyelids. These things happen as part of the human condition regardless of how skilled the truck driver is. These ADAS systems will go a long way to closing that gap.
The combination of a better trained driver, a driver that has to be mandatorily trained like they are in Ontario combined with ADAS, is a tremendous combination.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I have one last question for you.
I am now referring to the "What Does the Industry Need from Governments?'' heading, which is related to ADAS. You say the following, and I quote:
[English]
This technology would seem like an ideal candidate to have government explore incentives for early adopters and the accelerated development of vehicle safety.
[Translation]
Your premise is that you will need financial support from the government in that context. Can you tell me more about the arguments you would use to explain why an industry like yours — with its revenue and profits — may still need government assistance in that context?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: As we discussed before, we want to make sure the technology that rolls out on the road in an automated environment is proven and tested and made-in-Canada solutions. To accelerate that and to keep pace with the level of innovation, we will have to get this stuff on the road.
To expedite market adoption there's room there from a safety perspective to perhaps incentivize certain carriers to adopt some of this technology in certain sectors.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Much has been said that ties in with what I was going to ask, so let me see if I have this right. It seems in any business, as the world changes around us, strategic business planning for the future is absolutely critical. One of the key essential elements of that is doing an environmental scan of the field itself and the field one is working in connects with.
When we move that into the job situation, we are obviously in this case facing changing job descriptions. Part of my question is: What kind of time frames is your organization working on in terms of how the job descriptions may change?
Once we have the job description, we then get into issues of job entry and what are those qualifications. You have talked about that a bit, but to push the security and training aspects together I would like to know a little bit more about what that training might be and where it might be obtained if not at a university. Is this on-the-job training or at college? I'd like to know what kind of work you've done on that.
Once we've hired our people we worry about retention, and that's where Senator Eggleton's question about salaries becomes really interesting. Do you see in your future scans and strategic planning an increase or decrease in what those salaries might be?
Then the fourth and last category is picking up on Senator Saint-Germain's question. What is the role of the federal government in developing the required regulations, guidelines or scenarios that will dovetail with your strategic and environmental planning?
Mr. Beghetto: Thank you for the series of questions.
First and foremost, the drivers have to get trained. We need mandatory entry-level training, which is not a reality in most jurisdictions in the country. Anybody can go and apply, take a road test and get a commercial licence, with the exception of Ontario which has mandatory entry-level training. CTA is working with the provincial associations to work with their ministry counterparts to adopt similar programs in those provinces as well. As far as training goes, we have to get them trained to begin with.
Senator Bovey: Trained in what?
Mr. Beghetto: Right now, to do more than just pass the commercial road test: pre-inspections, safety and more advanced skills training. I'm not an expert on what is involved in the Ontario curriculum, but it's far more comprehensive than what existed previously.
Senator Bovey: I would assume IT would be part of that?
Mr. Beghetto: As we get into an ADAS environment we will have to start looking at ensuring the training evolves with the technology. There is going to be a need for some sort of computer competency or IT.
Senator Bovey: I am very naïve here, so forgive me. Who's going to define what those needs are? Is the trucking organization going to do that, or the community colleges or the IT specialists or governments? Given that curriculum in universities is the universities' and it's provincial jurisdiction, and given that I'm convinced our trucks will continue to cross borders, who's going to pull all this together?
Mr. Beghetto: That's a good question and it's a conversation that the CTA welcomes with all of you and your provincial counterparts. That discussion is still in its infancy in most provinces, if it exists at all. Those conversations you're talking about still have to take place to a large extent. We're more than willing to have those conversations about how those things get rolled out.
Senator Bovey: I apologize. I have a background in strategic planning. I know it's going to be a hope. You talked about how the field will hopefully evolve. I'm going to say I hope there's some organization or group of people who are really looking at defining the strategic issues that will have to be defined and then putting the pieces of those strategic elements together almost like a child's floor puzzle.
This is critical. We have a lot of the pieces but I'm a little confused today, feeling on one hand that we seem to be fairly far along and, on the other hand, I'm the kid at the back of the race.
Senator Griffin: We're having an agreement here, and that is that training will be much more extensive and intensive than it has been in the past. Of course, as the job changes, there will be winners and losers. Unfortunately not everybody working in the industry now will either want to or be able to keep up with in-service training, if they're already there. I'm assuming most new drivers will have been used to that kind of stuff since they were little kids now, so I don't worry as much about them. I agree with Senator Mercer that community colleges could be a logical place for that training.
My big concern is that the level of literacy in Canada is not high. Considering how much money we spend in our public school system there's still a really highly functional illiteracy rate in our country. That's going to be tough in terms of determining who will be able to meet the standards in the future.
I have a couple of questions. Right now, who in Ontario is doing the mandatory entry-level training?
Mr. Beghetto: It's obviously a government policy. It's the Province of Ontario working with the training schools, so the training schools now have to adopt a certified curriculum. Previously that wasn't the case. Previously you could go to the ministry or the drive test centre, make an appointment and pass the test. There were schools that would just teach you how to pass the test, but now those schools have to teach a defined curriculum.
Senator Griffin: Basically it has been truck driver training schools. I'm used to those, being from Prince Edward Island. We have those there and in Nova Scotia. It hasn't been technical schools or colleges as yet. It has been specialized truck driver training schools, right?
Mr. Beghetto: For the most part, yes.
Senator Griffin: I agree with Senator Mercer that the nature of those schools will be changing.
You mentioned you were doing consultation with provinces. Have you communicated with all provinces and territories? Of course that's a whole new area when you get into Northern Canada with the great distances and climatic challenges.
Mr. Beghetto: For mandatory entry-level training, specifically, yes. It's a CTA policy that has been communicated to each provincial trucking association belonging to the CTA. They have initiated discussions with their provincial government counterparts. Obviously there are differences in terms of how advanced those discussions are in various provinces but at least Ontario has an example. A lot of the provinces are taking a wait-and-see approach where we're waiting for data, sort of quantitative and qualitative information to come back. MELT was only implemented in July of this year. Once we start seeing some of that information come back, we will start to see the wheels turn quicker in other provinces.
Senator Griffin: It will be very helpful.
Mr. Beghetto: Absolutely.
Senator Griffin: Thank you.
The Chair: We're still waiting for communications from Mr. Picard, but we have not received a call yet.
Senator Eggleton: The question that I forgot had to do with the type of fuel used in vehicles in the future. I see there was a test a year ago in Blainville on truck platooning conditions. According to the information I have here, quite a bit was saved. In fact, when platooning technology was combined with aerodynamic trailer devices, fuel savings of 14.2 per cent were measured.
Do you have any comment on that? Also, do you have any comment about electrification? When we come to talking about automobiles or public transit vehicles and minibuses or whatever, the advanced technology seems to include the electrification of the driving operations of the vehicle. Do you see that happening in the truck industry with the electric vehicles?
Mr. Beghetto: We talked a lot about safety today. Another aspect is the environmental benefit of some of this technology. Fuel efficiency is key. We will have fuel efficiency standards coming into effect nationwide very soon in Canada.
Whether it's electrification or natural gas or the add-on devices such as anti-idling systems or aerodynamic devices or things of that nature, I think what's happening is a combination. There's no such thing as a uniform truck. In certain aspects and certain markets, some of these devices and technologies will play better than in others.
Senator Eggleton: I have one final question. You said that we should stop talking about driverless vehicles in terms of the trucks and talk about advanced driver assistance systems. Would you suggest that we put in our report that in fact there should always be a driver, an attendant with a commercial vehicle? I think about the big ones as opposed to little trucks. The big ones have a lot of stuff in them and they have a lot of possible breakdowns or issues that can occur even if the vehicle can drive itself.
Are you making a case that there should always be somebody there and should there be a requirement that there is always somebody in a vehicle?
Mr. Beghetto: What I'm saying is that as we start to develop a framework we reflect the current reality. The current reality is that there is not going to be a driverless truck in the foreseeable future, so we should concentrate on the technology currently in front of us, which is ADAS, and assume that it's a tool more than something that's going to circumvent or overtake the truck driver.
Senator Eggleton: Yesterday we had a witness that suggested we might have a level 5 within five years. If you understand those levels, level 5 is the fully autonomous vehicle. You still don't see a fully autonomous truck anywhere in the near future.
Mr. Beghetto: Within five years?
Senator Eggleton: Well, not within five; maybe 10 or whatever.
Mr. Beghetto: A lot of that has to do with what the people in this room have to say about it and what the public has to say about it. That's still a mountain that needs to be overcome.
Senator Eggleton: Okay, good answer.
Senator Mercer: Your June 2017 article on the Canadian Trucking Alliance website notes that your association is in the process of creating an industry advisory committee on AVs. I have two practical questions. What is the status of the advisory committee, and what would the purpose of this advisory committee be?
Mr. Beghetto: I have someone who is actually involved on the advisory committee. I can update the clerk and provide that information. As far as the advisory committee goes, I personally was not involved with that committee.
Senator Mercer: But the association.
Mr. Beghetto: Yes, clearly the CTA has developed an advisory committee.
Senator Mercer: I was hoping to provide Senator Bovey with the hope that she was looking for with that answer, but you've managed to tear that hope away from us one more time.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I am glad to be the last person to take the floor, as I think everyone has had a long day.
You say that electrification does not seem to be a very realistic option because of the substantial loads to be moved. That is how I understood your presentation.
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: No, I don't believe I said that.
Senator Boisvenu: No?
Mr. Beghetto: As far as electrification?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Electrification of heavy trucks is probably more complex and less feasible in the short term because of the loads being moved, or is it just as feasible as for automobiles?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: Again, I'm not an expert in terms of electrification specifically. What I do know about electrification is that it requires a vast infrastructure for electrifying. Again, I don't think we're there yet. What's happening now is that markets are testing various propulsion systems and alternative technologies, natural gas.
We just saw what happened in Ontario.
Senator Boisvenu: Hydrogen.
Mr. Beghetto: Hydrogen liquified natural gas. In Ontario we saw the government make part of its budget available to incentivize natural gas in the commercial vehicles specifically and the infrastructure needed to support that. That was a positive first step in that province anyway. We absolutely welcome those sorts of initiatives.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: So the heavy trucking industry is not headed toward fully autonomous vehicles, but rather toward semi-autonomous vehicles. You already have a major problem with recruiting truckers. Even in a semi-autonomous context, truckers' tasks will need to change over time and will become more complex, and that will require more training. Taking that into consideration, could this not potentially make the trucker shortage worse?
[English]
Mr. Beghetto: It's something that's constantly discussed in the trucking industry. If you make the barriers to entry more difficult by increasing the levels of training and accreditation, then would you restrict the number of people that will come into the industry? We don't believe that.
If you elevate the industry, make it a skilled trade and increase the level of professionalization, you attract a whole new generation, a whole new crop of potential employees that would never have otherwise considered the industry previously. Let's face it; it's a difficult job. It's a job of solitude and the computer aspect, the wow aspect of some of this technology, makes it easier.
I talked about some of these things. Driving for an extended period of time is a stressful activity. Some of these things, such as collision warning systems and awareness monitoring, make it easier. The comfort level and the stress level make it easier on the driver. With the generation of new workers that like and prefer comfort, I think it speaks to them a little bit more.
Senator Boisvenu: He can rest at the back of his truck and the truck will drive by itself on the road, so it would be easier.
Mr. Beghetto: I don't know about that, but at the very least he will have all these tools and assistance systems to reduce the stress level and make that whole environment more comfortable over an extended period of time.
Senator Boisvenu: So it can be positive.
Mr. Beghetto: Absolutely.
The Chair: Colleagues, our next witness has not arrived but he's on the way. I can stay and listen to him alone. We can adjourn and ask him to give a written report. I'm at your —
Senator Mercer: Is he on his way from the airport or from Moncton?
The Chair: He is on his way from the airport.
First of all, let's thank our witness for his presentation. His presence is very much appreciated. This is a facet of the study we will have to concentrate a lot on. Vocabulary is also important and you have brought in vocabulary that will be very useful to the analysts, as far as preparing the report. We can free you right away.
I'm ready to submit to your decision, whatever it is.
Senator Mercer: I'm happy to stay for the next witness.
The Chair: Honourable colleagues, we have a representative from the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association, Mr. Jean-Marc Picard, Executive Director.
If you had come by truck, you might have made it here earlier, but you had to take a plane.
Jean-Marc Picard, Executive Director, Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association: I am sorry for the delay.
Senator Mercer: First of all, we want to know what airline you flew.
Mr. Picard: I'll give you one guess.
Senator Mercer: Air Canada.
Mr. Picard: Give this man a prize. I am sorry about that. We were delayed 90 minutes for safety reasons.
Thank you for having me tonight. Again, my name is Jean-Marc Picard and I'm with the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association. This topic on connected automated vehicles is interesting and very real today. I spoke at a few conferences in the past on it. It's a great topic as the industry evolves with this new technology.
The APTA is obviously the voice of the commercial trucking industry in Atlantic Canada. We've been around for about 60 years, and we have about 320 members across Atlantic Canada that are companies, carriers, suppliers, et cetera. I've been in the role for about eight years. Therefore, I'm still learning just like everyone else.
I want to talk about the trucking industry in Canada. It's pretty obvious that we're a huge industry, contributing a lot to the economy, GDP, et cetera. I'll get into our view as an association on automated vehicles going forward.
First and foremost, what I hate hearing is driverless, automated or autonomous trucks. They should really be called semi-automated trucks or vehicles because that's the reality of the technology. It will probably be the reality for many years to come. They're not going to replace the driver. They are simply changing or enhancing their duties. It's going to help the driver be safer on the road. It's probably going to attract younger people to the job, as we've had great difficulty in recruiting. The job will be different. It will probably be more challenging and have more technology on board that they can play with.
There might be a market for some of these fully automated trucks in certain isolated areas like private yards, the oil sands, for example, and maybe some industrial parks. Some fair amount of testing is being done today on equipment without a driver, although for long-haul moves we're very confident that we'll always see someone in the cab of a vehicle. Winter conditions in Canada, construction zones, or whatever the case may be, there's always going to be a need to deliver the load because the basis of our industry remains the same, bringing the load from point A to point B.
The new technologies are really providing great support for our industry in terms of safety and fuel efficiency. Obviously safety is our number one concern and fuel efficiency brings some cost savings, therefore making a little bit more money for the trucking industry, which has been tough to do over the last few decades.
The technology is here today such as lane assisting, brake assisting and in-cab cameras. It's providing some security for the drivers, for the trucking companies, and it's improving their safety records. When there's a car in front of you and the computer sees the car tail lights light up before the human, it takes probably three seconds faster than a human to brake. You want that on your truck because it can save a life. It can avoid a lawsuit if you're in the U.S. There are all kinds of benefits to it. These are the types of technologies on our trucks today and that's probably as far as we will see our industry get into automation.
There are four levels of automation. We're probably at level 2 today. We will probably reach level 3 to maximum. Level 2-2.5 includes cruise control on a car but on a truck, it is lane centring assistance, brake assistance and things like that. They will only enhance the vehicle and there will always a person in the truck. They might not have their hands on the wheel but they will still be there in case all else fails.
In terms of labour, it will not address our labour shortage. It's very evident and well documented that we will need between 25,000 and 30,000 drivers by 2024. It's at a pace where it's getting alarming due to the fact that the economy is picking up. Therefore our industry is busier and we need more seats in these trucks. We're focusing on recruitment, training, retention and on youth. These new technologies are bringing a new dimension to our industry, which is really exciting, but it's not changing the way we operate to deliver goods. It's just making things better for us.
I'm sure you've heard from my colleagues on their views. They're quite similar, but I would like to conclude by saying that there are different hurdles that we need to face as well in terms of legislation. That's always the tough part. We're encouraging bodies such as these committees to continue to work with us and reach out to us to make sure these technologies are doing what they're supposed to do on the market, which is providing safety and making our industry better.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Picard.
Senator Mercer: Mr. Picard, thank you for being here. I appreciate the difficulties of flying out of Atlantic Canada, being from Nova Scotia myself.
Your presentation at the Conference Board of Canada April 2016 conference on AVs attended by some committee members raised the question of whether or not maintenance of technology will be an issue because previous new technologies have not always been reliable.
What has been the trucking industry's experience in terms of the reliability of previous advances in technology?
Mr. Picard: You make a good point. The new generation engines have been quite a challenge for us. There is a lot of wiring in them. When they broke down 25 years ago a driver could open the hood and fix it himself. Now there's not a chance that they can detect the problem.
You're right that there are more sensors on a truck now. There are dozens of sensors which I guess run this technology. Yes, it's still being tested. The results are good, but we have tough conditions in Canada in terms of the winter and all that. We don't know the longevity of them. That's why it's still in that mode of experiencing the real value of this technology and if it's worth the investment.
I think it is. We have come a long way. Five years ago there were a lot of unanswered questions, but even now the schools, the community colleges, are training their technicians on this technology. Two years ago maybe they didn't. We made a donation to all the community colleges in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia last year so they could get new equipment on which to train the technicians with the new technology, so they don't get to their workplace and have no idea what they're looking at.
I don't know if I answered your question. Yes, there are always concerns, but I feel confident that the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Senator Mercer: There will be more wires than spark plugs, as we know. If there's a truck going through the Cobequid Pass in Nova Scotia, which is famous for its snow in winter and all that snow building up on wires, that boggles my mind. How do we test that in advance?
Mr. Picard: What would happen typically is the automated side of the technology would shut off and the driver would have to take over the vehicle. It's already happening today. If they detect something down the road, it will say 10 seconds it will be disengaged and you're taking over. The technology has advanced to the point where they're seeing obstacles and advising drivers to take over the wheel.
Things like that are very important. They're heavy trucks in snow and sleet. Drivers are trained differently now. If you're on autopilot and driving on snow, you turn it off. It's like driving a car. You're not going to put cruise control on in a snow storm. It's the same concept.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, chair.
Senator Bovey: This is a fascinating and complex aspect of the whole field. You said in your typewritten conclusion that it's imperative the trucking industry is part of the discussions when the time comes. My sense is that the time has come. It probably came a while ago.
This leads me to my question: Who should be driving the discussions with regard to safety, regulations and consistency of training across the country? Should the federal government be leading this or is it a multiplicity of partners at the table? If so, strategically how should the issues be defined and who should be taking the lead?
Mr. Picard: We follow the National Safety Code. Amendments will have to be made through CCMTA, the body we work with, and with all provinces to the National Safety Code, inspections or anything regarding safety in our industry.
It will have to be done through those types of established committees. Take, for example, the electronic log devices that are coming. All the technical papers have been worked on through these committees by industry specialists and associations like ourselves and our members to develop this technology and provide feedback on certain things we're not aware of.
The efforts we put in will be similar to the efforts in the past to change anything regarding new technology. This is not necessarily new. It's obviously very new to trucking but trucking has been exposed to different types of things over the years. These bodies like CCMTA have been instrumental in coordinating the efforts to make sure that when the legislation is amended we have it right.
E-logs are a perfect example. We're still working on changing the technical paper that was issued. There are questions like: If a driver runs out of hours and is half an hour from the closest truck stop, do you park on the side of the road or give him that buffer? When you develop a computer you don't think about that, but bodies like ourselves, our members and the CCMTA can give that feedback. It's important that everyone is at the table and I would recommend CCMTA take a big role in that.
Senator Bovey: I know there's a shortage of drivers now. With the changing job description and technology that drivers will have to deal with, and given that there will need to be increased training and there's a job market that needs to be met, I was interested in your comment that as the economy goes up your shortage goes up too.
Mr. Picard: That's right.
Senator Bovey: What will happen to the salaries? How will you retain these people?
Mr. Picard: I would like to see things like salaries evolving like technology is evolving. We're lobbying to mandate training in our industry. Today you can get a commercial licence and get a job tomorrow if you pass a test. In my mind that is scary. Training should be mandatory. These ladies and gentlemen have a lot of responsibility and will have more with the technology coming our way. They need to be trained properly. The more training they have, the more educated they are and the more money they will make. I have no problem with that.
If some of my members challenge me, I will challenge them back. They're hard workers who work 60 hours a week in a good week. I think they should be paid adequately and it all starts with training.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator Griffin: What is the average age of truck drivers in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Picard: Fifty.
Senator Griffin: It's younger than Catholic priests and farmers but not a whole lot younger. Increased technology will mean more intensive training. I can see two groups. There are the in-service people. If you come in with new standards there will have to be in-service training. Some people will not want to adapt to the new technology. As in most job changes, there will be winners and losers. I can see it being easier to train new drivers who are probably more used to the technology, to start with, and certainly even more used to it than we are at our ages.
Where do you see the training occurring? Right now we have truck driver training schools throughout Atlantic Canada. Will they be adequate or will it be community colleges?
Mr. Picard: In New Brunswick there's a community college that rolled out two truck driver training programs in the last few years, one in French and one in English. They reached out to us and industry to ask what curriculum to use, so that was encouraging. They're very successful to date.
Every successful company in Canada retrains their drivers year after year, whether it is with new equipment or because they want them to be the best on the road and they need those refreshers. Every company retrains their drivers and now they put more responsibility on their shoulders, such as fuel consumption and aggressive driving. If you save so much fuel in a month, you get a bonus; if you don't get pulled over or are not in an accident, you get a bonus.
It's encouraging for us to see that because it's making a better industry and is retaining drivers. We're all fighting for the same drivers. You don't want to lose them. You make sure to compensate them well and recognize them in terms of little extras.
Training is key and we're already seeing changes at the schools. Electronic log books are here and every truck driver has an app on their phone to look at their hours of service. They have different devices that they use, and Roadside is using more computers as well.
I know a large company in New Brunswick with a couple thousand drivers that said they were all going with electronic log books. A lot of them said they were going to quit and were told, "Go right ahead.'' Now they love it. They can plan their week better. They know when they will be home. They know how many hours they will get paid for and they know how many hours they will drive. There are no ifs, ands or buts. It's all on the computer. It's much better for the industry.
You're right that training will be a key area where we need to change a lot of things. Mechanics is another area with a big shortage. Trucks are changing every year so I'm assuming it will get worse.
Senator Griffin: Probably. One worry that I have, and I think it's bad across Canada, but particularly in Atlantic Canada is the high rate of adult illiteracy. That will be a real challenge in all industries, but I'm assuming that will be a challenge too. Are you looking at the Ontario system of the mandatory entry-level training?
Mr. Picard: Yes, we are. We're trying. It's easier said than done with the provincial governments, but I have made some headway. Like I said, a lot of the questions are who needs to make the changes: Is it Motor Vehicles, the Department of Transportation or Education? No one wants to lead the charge. That's why I'm trying to manoeuvre myself with the different provinces.
We've made great headway. The industry continues to support 12-week training at the minimum. We encourage our carriers not to hire anyone with no training. I would say most of them don't, but there's always someone desperate who will hire a person who doesn't have proper training.
We're cleaning up the industry. We really demand mandatory training. If we were a skilled trade, it would be more easily sold to the provincial government. We're trying to do that as well. We're trying to change the code and become a skilled trade. We are trying to mandate training. All these things will bring that necessary structure to our training and our industry. It will weed out the bad drivers and bring us up to a level where we need to be.
The essential skills of a driver are changing dramatically for the better, I think. They need certain levels of reading and writing. Now they need a certain level of understanding of technology such as iPads and iPhones. This is all stuff that is given to them by their employer. Therefore, the essential skills are changing and the driving schools need to understand that they need to train them properly.
It is not easy working with private schools but that's what we're faced with now. Like I said, if we can get up to that skilled trade level and be able to bring that structure in training, we'll be off to the races. That's what we want.
Senator Eggleton: We're talking about commercial trucks that are travelling long distances, but what about smaller trucks that travel short distances? Would you still see them as needing a driver? We're talking about completely driverless cars, buses or even minibuses like the one we were on today. Do you see that in the smaller vehicles?
Mr. Picard: I do. Probably more so because they're usually the courier services or daily deliveries to restaurants. You need the physicality that goes along with the driving skills. A long-haul driver will arrive at a customer's and probably someone will unload the trailer for him, as opposed to the short haul or inner city where he needs to do it all by himself. There's a dual role there. I can't see that disappearing, but I can see some customers using automated trucks to move trailers around their yard. In the rail yard all the engines are moved remotely. Switching railcars has been happening for years. I might see that as a possibility with our industry within isolated areas such as industrial parks, customer yards, and the oil sands, like I mentioned a while ago.
For the commercial industry, whenever you deliver goods the concept of in between arrival and departure the driver's duties are different for sure, and that's where he can use this new technology. The main role of the driver to deliver from start to finish hasn't changed in a hundred years.
Senator Eggleton: What about this platooning idea and this idea of convoys?
Mr. Picard: That's interesting.
Senator Eggleton: Would you still need a driver or attendant in every truck?
Mr. Picard: You do. The lead truck is controlling everything and the signal is only between those four or five trucks, so there's no interruption. Like I said, whatever the lead truck does, the others do.
The main idea is to save fuel. The second truck will save 4 per cent; 7 per cent; and the last one, 10 per cent. You save 20 per cent on fuel for a company on four trips, which is humungous for them. It's millions of dollars a year.
The concept is very smart. I would like to get some testing done from Moncton to Halifax, but it could probably work in some nice lanes without much interruption or many hills, but every cab has a driver. They might be doing something else but there's someone in there. Like I said, if you hit a construction zone and you have 30 seconds to grab the wheel and take over, you need someone to do that.
Senator Eggleton: What about electrification? It was certainly talked about in terms of automobiles, minibuses and things like that.
Mr. Picard: The downfall is where the horsepower we have in diesel trucks and the horsepower we can get in electric vehicles. Cummins came out with an electric engine recently, but you can only go a hundred miles with it. Yes, it has a horsepower of a diesel truck, but the longevity of it is very minimal so it doesn't meet our needs.
There are natural gas trucks which have been tested. Robert in Quebec is still using them and Bison out West, I think, but the infrastructure is not necessarily there to fuel up. It's still in the development stage and there's a lot of issues to get things going so it wasn't an option.
We're stuck with the diesel truck until the manufacturers make some major research and development investments to bring out something new.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you about the cost of these changes. More advanced technology costs more money. You may still need traditional auto mechanics for some things, but you may need computer specialists for other things because you're talking about computers on wheels here in many respects.
Mr. Picard: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Eggleton: You're going to train people. The typical truck driver of the past may give way to a new model of truck driver in the future. It may cost more money. Is the industry prepared to absorb all these things?
Mr. Picard: There are two thoughts there. There are the innovators in our industry who will see this as an opportunity, and there are the carriers who will see this as extra costs they will have to absorb and pass on to their customers and whatnot.
If you look at today, these computers help us to be safer, but they also produce rows and rows of data on a spreadsheet that most carriers didn't know what to do with before. They looked at it like it was mumbo-jumbo. I was talking to someone yesterday who hired two analysts to crunch this data to figure out ways to save more money. That's how they will make more money. There are companies that realize that cameras in cabs can save them millions in accident claims, and within six months those cameras are paid for.
With the electronic logging device, they crunch data. From Moncton to Halifax, for example, if you drive a certain speed and with certain hills they're going to save X per cent of fuel. They train their drivers that way. The speed limiters on the cabs lock the speed at 102 and save X amount of fuel.
They're really finding these opportunities with these computers and the data they have at hand, as opposed to someone who doesn't have that staff or those resources still picks up the phone and says, yes, I have this load. He still drives at 120 and really burns that fuel. Even though the cost is through the roof, he can't raise his rates because the other guys are adjusting and they're making savings instead of raising the rates.
You are right. It has been difficult in the past to raise the rates and things will have to change because a truck today is $175,000. Five years ago, it was $125,000. Something will have to give because if we want to be better we need to invest more. We need to pay our drivers more money. We need to make more money. We need to charge more.
It all goes hand in hand but they're certainly making the carriers better operators by default. It's hard to turn around and say my truck cost $50,000 more and then tell the customer it will cost double to move the load. It doesn't work. They need to look within themselves and look for these opportunities, which is what they're doing. That is great to see.
Senator Eggleton: Those costs you can pass on to consumers.
Mr. Picard: It's tough. Fuel is obviously the highest cost, but now it's becoming a side conversation because the equipment is so expensive, the computers and the support.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to thank you, as your testimony provides value added compared with what we have heard from various witnesses so far. Yours is an industry with its own expertise and requirements, and what you are saying is truly insightful.
Your industry is crucial for trade between Canada and the United States. I would like to hear your thoughts on competitiveness with U.S. motor carriers. The studies and research carried out at various levels indicate that a great deal of investment is being made in the United States, and the investment is ongoing. Their efforts in research and development, pilot projects and experimentation in terms of autonomous vehicles surpass Canada's efforts, and we are lagging behind the U.S. in that respect.
When it comes to the trucking industry in particular, are you aware of how advanced experimentation — research, pilot projects — with autonomous vehicles is? Moreover, do you foresee a potential threat to your competitiveness or pressure that should inevitably make you pick up the pace?
Mr. Picard: That is a good question.
I don't think we feel any pressure. Traditionally, manufacturers in our industry are almost exclusively located in the United States. That is where the large volumes are. Conditions in some states, such as Nevada or California, are optimal for experimenting with those new vehicles. Those states have nice big roads and good weather. So it is easy to test vehicles there.
I don't think that is really a threat. However, we are always lagging behind the United States in terms of advancement. I was talking about E-LOGs earlier. They will be mandatory in the United States as of December. We would have liked to be the pioneers in that area, but we will probably have to wait another two years for E-LOGs to be mandatory in Canada. This is not new. It has never been a threat, but you never know.
I know that we are starting to experiment with road platoons in Montreal and with automation systems in Quebec, with PIT Group by FPInnovations. That company has a solid foothold. I know that it does trials in the United States, it is moving forward and it represents us well. It benefits us to have these kinds of companies, which are funded by the industry, testing new products for us, so that we can cut back on our investments. Those companies do all the testing for us and, ultimately, they share their results, so that we can make the best decisions for our investments. That organization has not been around for a long time, and it spoke at the conference I attended in Ottawa last year. As I said, those are the kinds of companies that help us advance in industry and compete with our U.S. partners.
We go to the United States, and we know that others come here. That is normal and, to an extent, it promotes competition. However, we mustn't stop focusing on innovation and things that may set us back a bit. Our clients are demanding. They want us to be green, and they don't want any idling. They want us to have the latest equipment in order to save diesel fuel, and they want the trucks to have the best safety ratings. They ask us for that, so we don't really have a choice but to keep abreast and stay on the cutting edge of our industry. Otherwise, they will look elsewhere and could just as well hire a U.S. company or another Canadian company.
Senator Saint-Germain: If I understand correctly, there are already experiments or pilot projects in terms of cooperation between industries, between Canada and the United States. You think that this should intensify and that, federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments should also accelerate the adaptation and preparation of legislation. It seems as though an integrated private-public partnership would be the ideal approach.
Mr. Picard: That's right.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I have one question. You talk about the testing in the United States, California and Nevada. I'm from Manitoba where we have ice roads.
Mr. Picard: Yes, I lived in Manitoba.
Senator Bovey: You understand the issue. I'm fascinated with the concept of platooning where trucks have to be close to each other.
Mr. Picard: Yes, like five feet.
Senator Bovey: And on ice roads they can't be close to each other?
Mr. Picard: No, because it creates that weight.
Senator Bovey: Are we doing testing that takes into consideration those really diverse situations? I know the ice roads were short last year. They didn't last long, but it means, especially with the railway down to Churchill, the ice roads this winter will be absolutely necessary.
Mr. Picard: There's great technology available to us but there needs to be an understanding, especially here with ice roads and treacherous conditions in the winter in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Wherever you are, you need that human eye and human base. We're a human-based industry and that will not change.
Technology is enhancing things with some good results in terms of testing. It's being used today and it's great, but I think there's a time to use it and a time to not use it. The ice roads are a perfect example. Will any of these technologies be able to function in those areas? I don't know. It's a good question.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Although it was a bit complicated, we are glad to have had you as a witness.
To echo what Senator Saint-Germain said, I also think that you are providing us with value added for our report, both in terms of the vocabulary and in terms of the notion of reducing operating costs by 20 per cent, as mentioned by Senator Mercer. That will be very important for us.
Mr. Picard: It was a pleasure.
The Chair: Honourable colleagues, before we wrap up, I would like to announce that we will be hearing from very different witnesses next week.
[English]
We are going to hear from the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. We are opening up a very different venue on our study.
On that note, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)