The Knowledge Project with Shane Parrish - #20 Marc Garneau: The Future of Transportation

Episode Date: July 2, 2017

Marc Garneau is a Canadian politician, Engineer, and the Minister of Transport. This interview was recorded live in front of an audience in Montreal. As a bilingual country, you'll hear bits of French from the audience questions here and there but the interview is predominately in English. In this interview, we discuss the future of transportation (including self-driving cars), infrastructure investments, space, what it means to be a liberal in 2017, how we — as citizens — can judge an elected politician, how he ensures he's getting accurate information in a political system and so much more.  Enjoy this amazing conversation.   Go Premium: Members get early access, ad-free episodes, hand-edited transcripts, searchable transcripts, member-only episodes, and more. Sign up at: https://fs.blog/membership/   Every Sunday our newsletter shares timeless insights and ideas that you can use at work and home. Add it to your inbox: https://fs.blog/newsletter/   Follow Shane on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/ShaneAParrish   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, is Shane Parrish, and welcome to a new episode of The Knowledge Project where we deconstruct actionable strategies that you can use to make better decisions, learn new things, and live a better life. This time around, we have the Honorable Mark Garnow, who is the Minister of Transport for the Canadian government. Mark's been an elected member of Parliament since 2008, and previously served us the critic for industry, science, and technology, as well as foreign affairs. He's been a house leader in the House of Commons, and he was also the first Canadian to fly in space. Now, how cool is that?

A bit of a brief heads up, this interview is recorded live in Montreal, Canada. The audio is going to be a little bit different than what you're used to, and there's bits of French here and there, but don't worry. Mark brings an engineer's mindset to government decisions, and I really enjoyed the conversation, and I think you will, too, without further. do, here's Mark. Mark, I'm so excited to have the pleasure of interviewing you today. You've had such an esteemed public service career. It's a rare honor to be here with you today, so thank you. Thank you.

I want to start with something incredibly simple. but something that most of us don't know, which is how do you spend your days? I'm pretty busy these days as transport minister, but I have to say that I've always had the pleasure of doing a number of jobs where I have truly enjoyed what I was doing. In the very kind introduction, they mentioned that I was an astronaut and that I was now a politician.

But before all of that, I was in the Navy. And the Navy was my first love, in fact. And when I was 12 years old, I had the chance to cross the ocean in an ocean line. In fact, it left here from Montreal. It was called the Empress of Britain. And it went over to Liverpool in England. And I was 12 years old. I fell in love with the ocean, and I joined the Navy.

So, yes, I have my days are cold. They have all been, I think, in service of my country, and that has given me a great deal of satisfaction. Transport now is my main preoccupation, and that's a job that everybody here, I'm sure, has an opinion on, whether they're talking about airplanes, whether they're talking about railways, cars, trucks. Everybody has strong opinions, in fact, about transport. It's a very big file, it's an important file for a big country, like Canada and that keeps me very busy for morning tonight but I have to say again I truly enjoyed doing it it's it's a job that to me I'm passionate about

and I've been lucky to be passionate about everything I've done in my life what attracted you to the Navy specifically what was that your passion well I was out on the ocean crossing on my way to to England my father had been posted there And the immensity of the ocean, which was something that I had never seen, and which I saw as we crossed, we had some bad weather. So I saw an ocean that was very worked up and tempestuous, and it was rough. I saw beautiful calm waters with beautiful sunsets. And that just sort of grabbed me. And I said, this is what I want to do.

I never really wanted to do a job where I would be at a desk all day long. I wanted there to be, yes, that component, which is important, but also the physical component. I wanted to be doing other things as well as part of my job, things that would perhaps challenge me physically, and the Navy seemed to be that kind of a profession. Was the immensity of space, what pulled you to that as well? Is that something different? It's very similar in many, many ways. It is a vast frontier.

It is one where you rely on your fellow crew members for your survival. When you're in a ship, when you're out there, it's just you. And although we have modern technology today, things can sometimes go wrong, and you are, depending on the rest of the crew, in a hostile environment, sometimes hostile environment. And it's very similar to what you do in space. In fact, I think it's, we call spacecrafts, spaceships. And it is very much that kind of an experience of travel of going on to the new frontier. And the reason that I decided that I wanted to become an astronaut was because I like adventure.

the Navy had given me a sense of adventure, I thought this would be a new adventure. Did you realize the enormity of that role for Canadians in terms of pulling us into excitement about science and technology at the time, or is that something you came to recognize and appreciate after? I think I came to recognize it afterwards. It's not something that dawned on me right away. I was certainly aware of the fact that this was a new area for Canada to be involved with. space program. Most Canadians did not know very much about it. It involved satellites.

And in fact, it's quite a distinguished. Canada was the third country in space, which a lot of people don't know. But bringing a human dimension to it with astronauts. And the reason we were invited to become astronauts and to fly on the space shuttle is because we had designed the robotic arm that is on the space shuttle. And in fact, part of it was designed here in Montreal. And the United States, NASA wanted to thank us. And they said, look, you did such a great job with the design of the Canada arm. It works very, very well. We'd like to fly a couple of Canadians.

And so the government of Canada said, it sounds like a good idea. And they put an ad in the paper, and lots of people applied. And I saw it. And I said to myself, there's no way I'm going to pass up this opportunity to apply. I'm sure I won't be chosen, but I don't want to kick myself with it. myself later and say I should have tried. And so I sent in my name and my life changed. What was the drive that inspired you to run for office? Well, that's another matter. Running for office is, I used to say, when I was an astronaut,

people liked me. But when you enter the political arena, it's a totally different arena, and people tell you what they think. I happen to be a liberal, and not everybody's a liberal, liberal and some people feel and and they're quite right they're entitled to tell you that they don't agree with you they don't agree with your party they don't agree with you on your views and that is part of politics and so you have to you have to make a serious decision because the big change in my life when I went from being a naval officer I was an engineer to becoming an astronaut the big change is that I went from being a private person

to being a public person. So I knew then that when I walked down the street to go to, I don't know, a Canadian tire to buy some tools that people might recognize me, that they might want to talk to me. So, you know, on a Saturday morning when previously nobody would have known who I was or cared. So suddenly I realized that there was a big change

in my life because I was now a public person. And, you know, I'm no different since I became an astronaut from before I became an astronaut. I still slip on the ice, just like everybody does once in a while. People say, hey, you're an astronaut, you fall on the ice. Well, yes, I do. And so you have to get used to being a public person. But the big difference between becoming a politician

from being an astronaut is, yes, you're public in both. But in one case, people generally like you as an astronaut, because you are in a profession that is of interest to people. It's not controversial. But when you go into politics, you have to accept the fact that you are going to do something where not everybody's going to agree with everything you do. And so that's a big decision. And the reason that I did go into politics was because I'm an engineer by background or not very many technical people in the House of Commons of our country. And I thought I could bring a dimension that is perhaps missing.

And I'm delighted that I made that decision. The first time I ran, I lost, which is it's not easy to. to lose but i stuck with it and now it had been added for uh for eight years the conjuring last rites on september 5th i come down here i'm in your house Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!

Hooray! The Conjuring, Last Rights, only in theater September 5th. I want to go into a little bit more about your experience as an MP, but first, what does it mean to be liberal in 2017? And I want to contextualize that with... It seems to me that the demographic and campaign... Canada, anecdotally, from my point of view, is changing. Most people tend to be purple, I would say, which is a mixture of kind of red and blue.

They might be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And just with that backdrop, can you speak to me about what it means to be a liberal in 2017? Yes, and liberals, we're not narrowly defined. There is quite a special. You said purple. there are blue liberals in other words they are if you like more traditional and conservative fiscally but all liberals do have that social side to them so they're either going to be a little bit of left of center or in the middle or a little bit right of center so we have always been a party that

oscillates about the center I think more importantly today and I think our prime minister is articulated that being a liberal here in Canada is wanting to be open on the world at a time when we see protectionism coming in we've seen some some evidence of that in the world where where people talk about terms like populism and nativism coming into the politics of governments in certain countries we in Canada want to remain open with to the world as as far as trade is concerned, as far as bringing immigrants into our country.

So no change from that point of you, at a time when many other countries are changing. So I think that, to me, more than anything, means being a liberal. Can we dive into your experience? So when you first became an MP, you were a critic, and now you're a minister. So you've seen both sides of this.

Can you walk us through some of the nuances and differences that we wouldn't see from the outside between running and operating government in the sense versus critiquing? Both have an important role. I was on the opposition, in the opposition for seven years. I had lots of time to learn how to be in the opposition. And of course, the opposition is trying to hold the government their feet to the fire. Hold them to the promises that they made and to make

sure that they are doing what is right for Canada. Of course, opposition parties, whether during the time that I was in opposition, it was a conservative government. So we in opposition were either liberals or NDP or Green or Block, and we each tried to hold the government accountable so that they would hopefully do things in accordance with the values of our party. ultimately it is only when you are in government that you get to make the decisions and the decisions now I know that because I've been a minister for a year

in the government of Canada and I've had to make decisions I proposed bills in Parliament that have an influence and an effect on you and others and that is what comes with being in the government you are accountable for what you do in a way that you are not when you're in opposition. So we make decisions and we must live with the consequences. And if Canadians decide three years from now that we didn't do a good job, they have the right to elect somebody else. So that's the big difference between being in opposition and being in government. In government, you actually make the decisions that shape for better, for worse, the future of our country. And I'm delighted after seven

years in opposition where I think I learned my craft because you can't walk into the House of Commons on day one and know how to be an MP. It does take a while to learn how to be one, but now I have to say after seven years, it's a pleasure to be in government. Do you think your role as a critic makes you a better minister? I think it does. I would say that I was critic for science and technology, for industry, foreign affairs at one time. short time, natural resources. So I had to learn about those things in order to be able to ask intelligent questions, make intelligent speeches, and find whether or not there was reason to criticize the government.

So yes, it is a valuable experience, being a critic, and because you are the person who is officially supposed to take care of a particular file and so yes I've enjoyed being critic transport I was never the critic for that's something I had to basically learn from scratch but you know I have to say I love the job of being transport ministers it suits me perfectly ministers have an incredibly difficult job how do you define success for yourself in that particular role not in the context of the broader government but day-to-day how do you know that you're you're doing exceptional versus kind of just doing good I think you get a sense of it

from everything that's around you the media of course in addition to the opposition will criticize you if they think that you're doing a bad job the bad job may be legislation that you're bringing forward or how you handle a particular event and every single day of the week there will be a particular issue that will come up I mean that's just the nature of government there are a huge number of issues related to transport and you get a sense out there in the public whether people are with you and think that you're doing a reasonable job and that doesn't mean

everybody's going to agree with you but if most people feel that you're doing your job you get a sense of whether they believe that you're a competent It's just hard to define, but it is something that you get a sense of because you're going to read things where people will criticize you or tell you to your face and you're going to read things where people tell you that you've made the right decision and you've got to interpret all of that and you've got to be honest with yourself. You can't just choose to believe the good stuff. You've got to also remember that you've got to take everybody's opinion into account. But you get a sense of whether you're doing it and of course ultimately when elections come around you find out in a very brutal way whether people support you or not how are we supposed to judge as citizens the role of a minister well based on what we do for example we let me give you an example um i have come out recently with a what's called a vision for transport for the next uh 15 years, it's called Transportation 2030.

And in there, I say, we're going to do the following things as we move into the future. And there are a whole bunch of elements. To give you an example, I've said that we will come up with what people often call a bill of rights for air travelers. We call it a rights regime, and this is a regime by which if you are kicked off a flight because they've overbooked, and as

it happened to any of you? Yes, I think a few of you, including myself, or you've lost... How well you're a minister though, right? Not yet. Or your baggage has been lost or damaged or you've sat on the tarmac for four hours and then the plane flight has been canceled. We all have, I think, if we travel, experienced frustrations and we said we're going to put in place a set of measures, a uniform. form that will apply to all airlines that will be in a sense a clear indication to the airlines that if you do not fulfill certain obligations to the passengers to whom you sold tickets there will be consequences so that's

something now people may argue with the details of what eventually comes out we have to put this together some people may like it some people may not like it I gave you an example where I think most people will like it but there are other things that can be sometimes more controversial so that's just one example and there's a host of them and so you'll get positive feedback from one person on one thing but they'll really not like something else not everybody's going to agree with you on everything you do and that's that's part of the job speaking of that you're surrounded by people who have different different

incentives and some of those incentives don't align with you And those people are passing you information that you need to make decisions on. How do you go about ascertaining the validity of the information you're making the decisions on and testing it? It's been through so many filters and so many people with so many different political agendas. And that's a very challenging thing. I pride myself as an engineer. That's my education. That's my background.

in being very rigorous in doing my research. Because if I'm going to get out in front of a bunch of people and say, this is what happened, or this is based on my knowledge, this is what we're going to do, and I'm wrong, it's very embarrassing, and it's something that I really don't want happening. So, to me, there is a very rigorous process when you get all these inputs from the people that you work with. There's a very rigorous process of making sure that the information that you have received is correct

and that you're comfortable with that information. So I'm a person who is driven by logic. A lot of people call me Mr. Spock sometimes because I really do believe that, a lot of decisions in the field of transport need to be based on rigorous, scientific evidence, logic, and that's how I approach it. And I think that helps me. I think my whole background, in engineering, as you know, if there are any engineers here, once you become a professional engineer, you have a seal and you certifying your work, and if you're wrong, it can have serious consequences. If you build bridges or houses or electrical circuits and you don't do it properly,

there are serious consequences. So it's an ethical thing in terms of doing your homework properly, and I try to bring that to politics. Do you think that that should apply to politics as well? Do you think that there should be not only consequences whereby you can lose your job, but if you're an engineer and you sign off on something and there's liability as well, do you think that that transfers over? Well, a politician who's negligent? Certainly as an engineer, if you certify something and there's a flaw in it, it can lead to some very serious consequences. As a politician, typically your judgment comes at election time.

Or it can come within the cycle of a government. For example, if my prime minister thinks that I'm not doing a good job, he can remove me from that and he can send me to the backbenchers or if it's a really serious thing and here we're getting into things that are in ethical issues you can even there is a process by which you can be removed from what we call the caucus which is you're removed from the liberal caucus you can no longer being a liberal MP you become an independent right so there are different measures that of accountability that you're subjected to.

Can we geek out for a second? Sure. I want to talk about self-driving cars, which is top of line for everybody. How do you see this playing out of the next tenor, up to 2030, in line with your vision? It's coming at us. There's no question.

And I would like Canada to be not just a follower. This is really more than anything. It's an IT challenge. and I think that Canada has a huge amount of talent to bring to it. But we don't want to be playing catch-up and following everybody else. So I think there's a chance for Canada to lead in this country with the development of automated vehicles in leading in terms of intelligent transportation systems,

in developing the optimum V-to-V and V-to-I communications. in helping to develop the software that will, you know, help us to minimize congestion in our cities. There's a huge amount that Canada can do, and perhaps also take on a challenge, which is particular to countries like Canada that get covered with snow and ice, which can be quite different from driving on a nice Californian road. So there are some things that Canada can do. At the transportation, in the Transport Canada, we have a facility up in Blenville, just north of Montreal. The other day I was in a convoy of three 18-wheeler's, and they were all going at 85 kilometers, perfectly spaced from each other.

The second and the third were just queuing off the first truck, and the second off, the third off the second. The only thing the driver was doing was steering because we were in banked courses. The rest is all being controlled. Well, that's an area of development, connected vehicles. It's on a test track, but these kinds of things are things that we can do here in Canada, as well as what is happening in our universities and the initiatives that the provinces are taking as well.

I think we can make a contribution. To be perfectly honest with you, as Transport Canada and we're the regulator, we're playing catch up with the technology. It's evolving so quickly that we're trying to put in place, we have to put regulations in place for all transportation modes, and we are trying to intelligently stay ahead of the curve, and we're also trying intelligently not to put too many obstacles in the way, regulatory obstacles in the way of the innovators,

so that they can develop these technologies. So we want to help to be part of it. And of course the other aspect is that I work very closely with my counterpart in the United States, who is the Secretary of Transport. Of course, it's a new one. Now, her name is Elaine Chow, and I will be working very closely with her to make sure that we harmonize our regulations because obviously a lot of Canadians cross the border every day.

So those are the things that are important and is coming at us faster than I think anybody. Thanks. I want to talk about at least three specific kind of second order impacts of that one is how do you perceive that self-driving cars will affect our investment in infrastructure such as roads? Will it change the size of the roads that we build? Because now we can put cars closer together with fewer accidents. How does that play out? I think there are still a lot of unknowns. Are we going to end up having less cars on the road to begin with? That is a question

that some people say yes we will have less cars other people say we're going to have just as many cars i think that it's it's probably too early to know exactly how it's going to to evolve in terms of infrastructure we need certainly the smart intelligent infrastructure that's going to provide all the necessary information to the vehicles to help them to to uh to to uh to uh optimally get from A to B in the most intelligent and cost-effective way, the least damaging to the environment. Those things are all part of it. But in terms of whether we end up having less roads, we're also at the same time trying to push for more public transit, as you know, in our country. so we could very well end up I think in the long run perhaps over a long period of time redeveloping our cities according to different criteria we all know that our cities have all been built around cars

that's a truism and as a result of that we've paid some important prices with respect to that congestion pollution and those kinds of things. And I think a lot of thinking is that we should try to make sure that we don't make those new mistakes as we design new cities. We're stuck with the ones we've had at the moment, but we can, I think, intelligently

plan newer cities in the future with the technology that is coming now. And what do you think will happen? Like, it strikes me that truck drivers is probably one of the number one professions in Canada based on the number, sheer number of people doing it. It seems possible or even reasonable that within five to ten years, all of those people could be out of jobs. Yes, and they're worried about it, too. You're quite right. There are a lot of taxi drivers, another example. So there are professions that could, as a result of automated vehicles,

and intelligent transportation systems lose their jobs. And that's part of the evolution of a society. And the same applies in the manufacturing sector, where robotics is increasingly replacing the traditional manual labor that's involved there. So there are going to be big changes. And I think, again, there, our education system is playing catch-up as well.

I don't think that we're riding the wave at the moment. I think we're trying to play catch-up there because I think it's going to happen quickly. And the third kind of second-order impact there I want to talk about is if the cars become primarily based on software and they can interact with each other, what role does cybersecurity play in that? And what role does the government play for Canadians in that space? Well, cybersecurity is very important.

Because obviously we do not want to have a situation where there's a capacity from a hacking point of view to influence how a car is driving itself. If it's based on this system of V to V and V to I and it's working harmoniously and you disrupt that intentionally, then you can lead to some pretty catastrophic results. especially if cars are on the highway and they're all driving close to each other. So cybersecurity is part of the challenge that's involved there. And then there are interesting questions such as if an accident does occur, whose fault is it? And how does one purchase insurance? How will insurance companies price the insurance for automated vehicles? There are lots of new issues that have to be dealt with.

Reading, playing, learning. Stellist lenses do more than just correct your child's vision. They slow down the progression of myopia. So your child can continue to discover all the world has to offer through their own eyes. Light the path to a brighter future with stellus lenses for myopia control. Learn more at SLOR.com. And ask your family eye care professional for SLOR Stellist lenses at your child's next visit. Two questions just before we go to the audience questions here.

One question that came up a lot just as we were in here before is, why don't we have a high-speed rail between Montreal and Toronto. Stopping in Ottawa, please. So via rail came forward with a proposal about a year ago to the government of Canada, and it's called high frequency rail, not high speed, but high frequency. and high frequency needs that instead of six trains a day between Montreal and Ottawa, there could be 12. That in itself, offering people more hours of choice

in terms of taking the train versus the car can make a difference. I take the train, by the way, between Montreal and Ottawa every week in both directions. But there's also another part to it, that is converting to dedicated rail. Because via rail only owns 3% of this track. It rents the rest from CN and CP.

And it has to stop when there's a freight train that goes by. If you've taken the train, you've probably heard the message, ladies and gentlemen, we're stopping. This is a normal procedure to let the freight CN train go by. So the fact of having dedicated rail will allow a faster train, not high speed, but instead of 110 kilometers an hour, you can go at 170 kilometers an hour on its own dedicated track.

So it will shorten the time, and it will offer people more choices. They propose this to the federal government, initially in the Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto Corridor, which is a busy corridor, and we are studying this at the moment. In fact, we put $3 million in the budget to study it. So the things that we're looking at is their business case. solid when they project how many passengers will leave their cars behind and

take the train are those based on solid if you like analysis so those are things that we're looking at so that is something that could happen we're in the middle of looking at it and we're also looking at Quebec to Montreal and Toronto to Windsor although the Ontario government is also you should know looking at a high-speed train proposal between Windsor and Toronto. That's a provincial initiative underway at the moment. And last question, before we go to the audience for questions, what is something that you believe to be true

that most of your ministers would disagree with you or... Oh, my goodness. Well, that we actually did go to the moon. No, I'm joking, I'm talking, I'm talking about it. My colleagues believe me when I tell them that we did go to the road. They're just being polite. They're just being polite. No, where I have a difference of opinion, I'd have to give it some thought.

But as with any healthy group of people with different ideas, we don't all see everything the same way. And since this is going to be registered, I'm a little bit hesitant to tell you something. I believe that, and of course I know I'm right, and the rest of my colleagues are wrong, you but I'm sorry for skirting your question there. No problem. Okay, we can take questions from the audience. We do my train's questions, but just Bill Wright, is there used to like leg room? No, that is a safety-related issue.

Airplanes have to provide a certain leg room, elbow room, space, for safety reasons in case you have to evacuate the airplane quickly. And that is a Transport Canada requirement. Now, we establish minimums. If an airplane uses those minimums versus another airline that gives you more room, you're going to want to go with the other one if it gives you more room. So they are taking a chance if they really stick you together like sardines. like sardines of losing business. But the only driver there is that there is a minimum with respect to safety.

But the rest is up to the airlines. Thank you very much. Thank you very much of the populism, the dangers, also, of the changement of climatic, and then the time of the country also, that consists of the elements important in Rovue and you're going to stay with I was going to pose a question. At the level of service of in region, at the level of the issues, which is, again the fact,

the notoriety of populism, if we look at the correlations, to make the correlations that's perfect, on the new development of the Grand V, and the new popularity of the political, in the United, in France, but also in Canada. I'd want to know, in this context of, do you have a vision to the Minister of the Transport,

on the good way to get these different and the way of the way to prove the

equilibrium so that the end of equity, the efficacy, the responsibility policy that decouped

the decisions that they're put in the decision. First, if a party is an party is elue

to government, it does serve all the people, not simply those who have

for that, so we have been an obligation to diservire all the

country, and we doven a country of more urban, so the regions

us sometimes the regions rural that they are in obligate. So, it's

that we're to address to their business, that's on transport, that's on the

access to the internet, it's these are very important because that we're

many of our regions and you have there are our parts to the

United these places there, there are there are there there are

there, there there are there, Secondly, if we don't have access to the Internet today, and our government has pre an engagement of $500 million to continue to render the regions more accessible to the Internet,

we will say to it. And then, for what is the values, of the urban versus the regions, yes, you have the reason. In some regions, The values are a bit different, but as I mentioned, we have served all the country, and it's not only those who we have eluded, and it's our dovards to do it, and then it's something that is extremely important.

If we talk to the agriculture, the resources natural, the peaches, that are in our regions maritime, they all have all, do all a contribution important to the country and then he's

recognized that in the way that we're in the question. The first one

I think you know the theories of Jeremy Riffin you may a little a bit

he's talking about the internet of things automatic transport so

it is a vision on internet as coordinating almost everything in our lives. He's talking also about automatization of the transportation. But in this all view,

the thing that you can apply some of the theories of the rifting, you can add some of the theories of Jeremy, who is invited all in a lot of countries, of countries in the world, Europe, China and so on, and sometimes in Canada, or we'll have a more adapted view because in Canada is a little bit different from Europe, which is a lot of population concentrated in some areas. And my second question, concerning the grand project Actually in development

in Quebec and Moran, we have said one of the first there are two phases of investment, one of the United, one of the second phase of about a million, and one of the second phase of about a million, who will be invested with the government provincial and with Neville to realize the grand project of these infrastructures

Okay, on the new Pondon, Chamblain, and I've heard of other, for a project and not to put in this project. Okay, d'clock. On your first question, I have to admit, I'm not an expert on Jeremy Rifkin, I've heard the name, so if I... If I sounded like I was channeling him,

it was a coincidence. I think he's very concentrated at there. I think that every... Europe has its own solutions based on its geography and its densities. I think we will probably have some similarities, but I think we'll probably be more likely to the United States because we do interact with them a huge amount.

And we have mutual reasons to harmonize in terms of how we develop certain things because we freely flow across each other's borders. In fact, I not very many people know about it, but there is a specific body that focuses on regulatory harmonization between the two countries. Imagine, you know, we do over $2 billion daily in trade with the United States, and that's one of... So I should vote. Yes, and it's a big, it's a big deal. So trains and trucks cross each other's borders. ships go into the many states that are on the Great Lakes. If we arrived at the border

and there was a different set of regulations for safety and other factors as soon as you cross that border, it would be untenable. It would be ridiculous. So we and our airplanes carry passengers, so it's in our interest to take similar approaches. So I think we're going to probably, and they have a similar geographies as well. So I think that's kind of the approach. By the way, the intelligent transportation system World Forum is happening here in Montreal this September, and it's done by ITS America and ITS Canada. On the second question, the investment of our government in the infrastructures, which touch the infrastructure of public, the infrastructure social, if I talk to talk to the lochement

boarder, logement social, and infrastructures vert, will be evaluated at 180 million, 180 million during the 12 the next next year. There are a flagrant of infrastructure modern in our country, and 180 million it will not be a certainly good

debut, and the money, as I mentioned, will be distributed in different domain of the infrastructure. We have already announced this year $11.9 million. That's the phase 1, as you've mentioned. And that's for the reparation

and the intertient of infrastructure existent. But the phase two that will start this year,

will be for the grand project, like the rem of the case of the depot

here would be a possible the all longgement of the line blue. I do not

that it's they're they're This kind of project in Quebec, they want a a radio rapid of autobus. That's the examples of transport public. There is a man that absolutely incredible in the domain of the logglement social.

There are a lot of people here, Montreal, who have been in the loggents and who are not the way to pay. It's an other infrastructure important. The system of egot, these things, it's not very illegal, but it's extremely important. We're going to make these investments of these things and it will

come to be concretized this year for the 12 the next year. I'm going to ask everybody just to keep their questions to one and keep them short, please. I'll try to make sure. I have a question about the innovation strategy of Transport Canada. You commented on how automation, self-thriving arena. Canada is falling, frankly.

As the next generation of trans-generation, transport is starting to show itself for example a hypolute space travel even flying cars which seemed almost inconceivable what is Canada doing to try and spur that kind of innovation and once again capture leadership in transport innovation similar to the Canada arm we spoke about right so the innovation part of it is my colleague Navdee Baines it's the Ministry of Innovation Science and economic development. That's his mandate, innovation.

And so how is it done? It's by helping to fund promising technologies that will, or software developments that will help us to get there so that we as a country can be competitive, that we can lead, and we can, for example, in the aerospace world, we are a leader in that area, in a large number of different specific areas, technically.

It's an area where it's a success story. We'd like to be a success story. We have the potential to be a success story in modern transportation systems. Whether it's automated cars or connected vehicles or another area that is also new disruptive technology, UAVs or drones, Canada has the potential to be a leader.

From a transport point of view, my job is on the regulatory side of things and the testing side of things. We have, there's now a test facility in Alberta in a small town where you can test your drone technology. So we are providing infrastructure for testing purposes. That's part of it. You know, somebody who has a great idea in developing a drone in their garage needs to go out. test it we can provide the facility for that and then and and the funding if it's a promising idea may come from in from innovation science and economic development so those two ministries together are key in working together to

create the right conditions and and support for that kind of technology to be developed there is tremendous potential in this country we have a very talented workforce and we have great well-educated people who have great ideas that's never a problem great ideas it's it's successfully taking them through to to market absolutely we should offer Elon Musk testing facility towards high-point yeah no i'd love to go on that i meant that i met the guy once and and and we talked about rockets at the time but now he's on to so many other things and yeah thank you you're welcome you are you talking about you're talking about but what we've seen what we've been

mobility these last years there are both of development by the private like the teot taxi the vehicles and service like car to goze that could like a community auto or vixie the vellons service is that at that moment that, it would be a positional that the government should have, or when we're talking of mobility, in the sense that, for the ensemble of the Canadians, not only the grand big, is there also some investment to

do in these new mobility, versus the gross infrastructures that demand more of millions of these modes of transport more legge, but they can have been advanced, like the mod active, also? I see the development of new new mode of transport like Uber. I don't know that Uber is coming to demand to the government. It's a system that has been made in place and that seems to function perfectly well.

It's not all the time. There's a lot of times, there are justments to do, but it's something that has evolved, that comes to sector private and who respond to a business and many people serve

of Uber for their transport it's a jurisdiction provincial it's not federal to our

other point of view again if the system is security it's something

it's an exigence that we place on on all the boats of transport and

if that is satisfied we're there to encourage these modes of development. So I think the systems, like Uber, the systems we partage of transport, the systems of transport public, all these systems that are going to be concurrency

and try to establish an position, and in the same time, the vehicles automatized for us on-endire, Uber, I believe, has already said that they think that at a moment of a day, the people will not get more of automobiles. They will serve constantly of vehicles

that they'll call them, but they'll go to A-A-V in utilizing these automobiles without their proper automobile. We'll vera, we'll be how it

will evolve to this country that. From point of view, the transport, our responsibility is to us assure that it's security and that the reglements vis-a-vis the transport are

suites. The rest is an evolution of the society and then a society dynamic develop this genre of things. Let's go, let's say back. Regarding the Indian economy, I was wondering, why do you think that transportation can help most the economic growth in the economy? No.

Okay, so one of the One of the things that was announced in the budget, actually it was announced in the economic statement of Minister Bill Mornow, is our finance minister on the 1st of November, is an investment in what's called trade and transportation corridors. And it's a $10 billion, it's separate from everything else I've said so far, and that's under my, going to be under my responsibility, and it's $10 billion over 11 years. and it's to make our trade corridors more efficient. Canada is a trading nation.

We transport hundreds of millions of tons of products across the country to our ports, or we go across the border into the United States on trains and trucks. We are a trading nation. If I talk about CN and CP, they transport about 200,000, $180 billion worth of goods per year. How will we transport our goods to the port of Vancouver, which handles 140 million tons a year and ships out to the rest of the world, has a direct effect on our economic vitality?

I personally regard transport as an economic portfolio. And if we do not efficiently get our grain, our manufactured products, our containers, our potash, our coal, our lumber that the rest of the world wants, if we don't get them efficiently out to their destination, our customers will look elsewhere. So that is, in my opinion, a various people don't appreciate it, but I think a critical part of a healthy economy. is how well we move our goods south of the border or out to the Asian continent or east to the European continent. So I'm focused, and that $10 billion will help us to deboddle-neck some of the places

where our transportation system is not as effective as it needs to be. How could it be otherwise, really? Can you give an example of a country that has a solid economy without a solid infrastructure transportation well I think it's no you know I think you're right it couldn't be otherwise that you know if you're if you're a small country your challenge is much smaller if you're a small country in a temperate climate it's much

smaller moving the the amount of product that we move in this country over very large distances in what can sometimes be horrible weather conditions is a very challenging thing and if you look at the north where there is only rudimentary infrastructure and where a lot of the resources are located how well we can make that system efficient can have a definite and important benefit for Canada and that is something that we need to improve we have time for two more questions just following up we said to what degree is transport being an economic file in competition with it being an environmental file.

It's a good question. So the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases in this country is the oil and gas sector. 25% of our greenhouse gases are the oil and gas sector. What comes second? Transportation. 23% of the greenhouse gases that are produced by Canada come from the transportation. the transportation sector and 80% of that is cars and trucks so if you look at trains boats and planes and off-road vehicles they're just less than 20% so

80% is cars and trucks and we have made a promise by signing the Paris Accord that we're going to reduce our greenhouse gases and with that reduction will also come pollutant reductions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. That's in 13 years. So we have a tall order in front of us and we have to aggressively move towards vehicles that are on renewable energy sources. We have to move towards electrical vehicles or hydrogen vehicles in a fairly aggressive way as we move towards if transportation is going to do its share now we are improving truck emissions we are improving train emissions we are we just signed with ICAO a very important international treaty with respect to mitigating the

production of CO2 starting in 2021 because international air we deal with that through ICAO, through the International Civil Aviation Organization, because the skies are international. They're not just Canada's skies and German skies or whatever. So we are making progress in those areas, but we have to work hard to make sure that transportation is going to also do its share of reducing by 30% by 2030. Last question.

Thank you. Thank you. According to the Agency of Health of Canada and, well, one of the first one of the main for the major

for the subject, the congestion judicial and to make the promotion of the transport. I want to know if you

don't know the plan of transport to the we're sure, and, more and more more people

voyage by the road or at and then it's something that our government will encourage. It's an initiative that, I think, championed particularly by Environment and

Environment and Chances Climate, Canada. A role that we join and that I assume the autumn last, because I confront the Ministers Provincial and Territorial of Transport, is to

us address to problems in the transport active, of the vulnerability of the voyageers in transport active. We have all seen, here even in Montreal, the incidents or the canyons, have erasied of the cyclists or the pitons. So, we have started an study to be an issue to see if we can't put in place of the measures that would

make the routes more secure as you see the carmions ultimately it's

to municipality to make it in place but we we're going to do

the study and offer and propose some that the

carmone in particular could make in place for for that

they are more conscious of what is because we

We've all seen, some of the camions, the conductor is in a position and in a view not necessarily exactly what he's going to be. And, there are these accidents that are produced. So, from the point of view of transport, Canada, in a sense, it's for trying to encourage the augmentation of the transportative. And then we'll try to make in place these measures for that. And I know that my colleague at Environment Canada want to also

do the promotion because it's sure it will be help you America want to thank you very much on behalf

everybody for coming for coming for Hey guys Hey guys this is Shane again

just a few more things before we wrap up you can find show notes at Farnham Street blog

dot com slash podcast that's F-A-R-N-A-M-S-T-R-E-E-E B-T-B-L-O-G.com slash podcast. You can also find information there on how to get a transcript. And if you'd like to receive a weekly email from me filled with all sorts of brain food, go to Farnham Street blog.com slash newsletter.

This is all the good stuff I've found on the web that week that I've read and shared with close friends, books I'm reading, and so much more. Thank you for listening. You know, I'm going to be. You know, I'm sorry. Thank you.