Hey, it's 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 honourable Mark Garnau, who is the Minister of Transport for the Canadian Government.
Mark's been an elected member of Parliament since 2008 and previously served as the critic for industry, science, and technology, as well as foreign affairs.
He's been the House Leader in the House of Commons and he was also the first Canadian to fly in space.
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 are 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 ado, 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 honour 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, I 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.
When I was 12 years old, I had the chance to cross the ocean in an ocean liner.
In fact, I left here from Montreal, it was called the Empress of Britain, and it went over to Liverpool in England.
I was 12 years old, and I fell in love with the ocean, and I joined the Navy.
So, yes, I have my days are full.
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 from morning to night, but I have to say again, I truly enjoyed doing it.
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?
Why was that your passion?
Well, I was out on the ocean, crossing on my way 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.
What is the immensity of space?
What pulled you to that as well, or is that something different?
It's very similar in many, many ways.
It's 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 spacecraft spaceships, and it is very much that kind of an experience, a trial of going on to the new frontier.
The reason that I decided that I wanted to become an astronaut was because I liked 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.
We had a space program.
Most Canadians did not know very much about it.
It involved satellites.
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.
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.
In fact, part of it was designed here in Montreal.
The United States NASA wanted to thank us.
They said, look, you did such a great job with the design of the Canadarm.
It works very, very well.
We'd like to fly a couple of Canadians.
The government of Canada said, sounds like a good idea.
They put an ad in the paper and lots of people applied.
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 later and say I should have tried.
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.
People tell you what they think.
I happen to be a liberal, and not everybody's a liberal.
Some people feel, 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.
That is part of politics.
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, to 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've known who I was or carried, 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 is 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.
First time I ran, I lost, which is, it's not easy to lose, but I stuck with it and now I've been at it for eight years.
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 in 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?
And liberals, we're not narrowly defined.
There is quite a spectrum.
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 there are 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 has articulated it, 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 evidence of that in the world 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 to the world as far as trade is concerned, as far as bringing immigrants into our country.
So no change from that point of view 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.
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.
But ultimately, it is only when you are in government that you get to make the decisions.
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've 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 are 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 or 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, for a 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 a critic.
Transport, I was never the critic for it.
That's something I had to basically learn from scratch.
But I have to say, I love the job of being a transport minister.
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 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 minister.
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 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, let me give you an example.
I have come out recently with what's called a vision for transport for the next 15 years.
It's called Transportation 2013.
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 this has happened to any of you.
Yes, I think a few of you, including myself, or you've lost...
How about you're a minister, though?
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 cancelled.
I think if we travel, experience frustrations, and we said, we're going to put in place a set of measures, a uniform 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've 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 part of the job.
Speaking of that, you're surrounded by people who have 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, and 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 certify 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 up on something and there's liability as well, do you think that that transfers over?
Well, you're 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 backbenches.
Or if it's a really serious thing, and here we're getting into things that are in ethical issues, 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 be a liberal MP, you become an independent.
So there are different measures 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 mind for everybody.
How do you see this playing out over the next ten or up to 2030 to 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 a 90 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 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 Transport Canada, we have a facility up in Blaineville, just north of Montreal.
The other day I was in a convoy of three 18 -wheelers.
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 third off the second.
The only thing the driver was doing was steering because we were in banked courses.
But the rest was all being controlled.
Well, that's an area of development of 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, 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 Chao.
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 thinks.
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 is 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 probably too early to know exactly how it's going 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 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, 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 have at the moment, but we can, I think, intelligently plant new 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 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 to 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 a 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.
Two questions just before we go to the audience questions here.
One question that came up a lot just as we were being 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 means 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 Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa every week in both directions.
But there is also another part to it and that is converting to dedicated rail.
Because via rail only owns three percentage 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 train go by.
So the fact of having dedicated rail will allow a faster train.
Not high speed, but instead of 110 km an hour, it can go at 170 km an hour on its own dedicated track.
So it will shorten the time and it will offer people more choices.
They proposed this to the federal government initially in the Montreal -Ottawa -Toronto corridor, which is a basic corridor and we are studying this at the moment.
In fact, we put $3 million in the budget to study it.
So the things we're looking at is, 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 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 on?
Oh my goodness. Well, that we actually did go to the moon.
No, I'm joking, I'm joking, I'm joking.
My colleagues, believe me, I'm going to tell them that we did go to the moon.
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.
Sorry for skirting your question there.
No problem. Okay, we can take questions from the audience.
This is my train's question.
Does the right introduce the legroom?
No, that is a safety -related issue.
Airplanes have to provide a certain legroom, elbow room spacing 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, 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.
We have to look at the to pay, and if we reconnect, we have to pay.
Here are the questions.
The first one in my speech.
You know the theories of Germany with me.
You may know who is talking about the intelligence cities, internet of things, automatic transport.
It is a vision on the internet as coordinating almost everything in our lives.
He is talking also about the automatization of the transportation.
But in this overview, the thing that you can apply some of the theories of the rich king, you can adapt some of the theories of Germany who is invited, or in a lot of countries in the world Europe, China and so on, and sometimes invited in Canada, or we will have a more elevated view because in Canada it
is a little bit different from Europe, which is a lot of cooperation concentrated in some areas.
The first question that I will answer is that the government and the people of Germany are going to pay $40 ,000 to the government.
The government is going to pay $50 ,000 to the government.
So the government is going to pay $40 ,000 to the government.
So the government is going to pay $50 ,000 to the government.
So the government is going to pay $50 ,000 to the government.
Okay, Taikou, on your first question, I have to admit I'm not an expert on Jeremy Rifkin for the name.
So if I sounded like I was channeling him, it was a coincidence.
I think it's very concentrated.
I think that 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 like 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 that there is a specific body that focuses on regulatory harmonization between the two countries.
Imagine that, you know, we do over $2 billion daily in trade with the United States.
And that's among...
Yes, and it's a big deal.
So trains and trucks cross each other's borders, and 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 crossed 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 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.
I'm going to ask everybody just to keep their questions to one, and keep them short, please.
Question about the innovation strategy of Transport Canada.
You commented on how automation, self -driving arena of Canada is falling.
As the next generation of transport is starting to show itself, for example, high -ballooned space travel, even flying cars, which seem 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
that you spoke about?
Right. So the innovation part of it is, my colleague Navdeep Bains, 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 of developing a drone in their garage needs to go out and test it.
We can provide the facility for that.
And then, and the funding, if it's a promising idea, may come from innovation, science and economic development.
So those two ministries together are key in working together to create the right conditions and support for that kind of technology to develop.
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 with great ideas.
It's successfully taking them through to market.
Absolutely. We should offer Elon Musk a testing facility to his pipeline.
Yeah, no, I'd love to go on that.
I met the guy once and we talked about rockets at the time, but now he's under so many other things.
Yeah, I think you're welcome.
Thank you. We have a very good team of people who have had some good ideas.
We have a very good team, so we have a very good team.
We have a very good team.
We have a very good team, so we have a very good team.
We have a very good team, so we have a very good team, We have a very good team, so we have a very good team, but we have a very good team.
We have a very good team, so we have a very good team.
We have a very good team.
We have a very good team.
We have very good team.
I think that's really the point.
I think that we have a very good team.
It's very good team and very good team.
I think that's really the challenge.
The rest is a very important team.
That brings me to the last question.
Good afternoon and welcome back.
apologies for getting your time.
It's hard to think that thatbradition can help an independent.
One of the things that was announced in the budget, that actually was announced in the economic statement of Minister Bill Morneau, 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 going to be under my responsibility.
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 $280 billion worth of goods per year.
How well 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, 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 de -bottle neck some of the places where our transportation system is not as effective as it needs to be.
How could it be otherwise related?
Can you give an example of a country that has a solid economy or without a solid infrastructure and transportation?
Well, I think it's, no, I think you're right.
It couldn't be otherwise, but 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 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, you 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%. 23 % of the greenhouse gases that are produced by Canada come from 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's been shared.
Now we are improving truck emissions.
We are improving train emissions.
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 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. Hi, my name is Many other disabilities fare in transparency It's an amazing thing to work on in a country like Kenya where we are getting stuck in a list called chitin We areoo looking forward to each other The question was, if the question was, if the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question is for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the question was for the Hey
guys, this is Shane again.
Just a few more things before we wrap up.
You can find show notes at fernamstreetblog .com slash podcast.
That's f -a -r -n -a -m -s -t -r -e -e -t -b -l -o -g dot 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 fernamstreetblog .com slash newsletter.
This is all the good stuff I 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.
