Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for inviting me to speak with you.
I have been asked to appear today to speak about the Canada infrastructure bank and the smart cities challenge. This is my second visit to the committee. I'm so honoured to be here.
I also want to talk about what my department is doing to deliver on our government's commitment to invest in Canadian communities.
I'm joined by my DM, Mr. Tremblay; Jeff Moore, ADM for policy and communications; and my parliamentary secretary, Marc Miller, who recently joined the team. Also with me is Glenn Campbell, the executive director for the Canada infrastructure bank transition office.
As you know, in budget 2016 we launched the first phase of our infrastructure plan, and we wasted no time in rolling it out. We signed bilateral agreements with all the provinces and territories and approved over 1,000 projects under the new plan. Based on the information provided to us by our provincial and municipal partners, 60% of those projects are already under way.
That is just the first step. On November 1, the Government of Canada laid out the fiscal framework for our long-term infrastructure plan through the fall economic statement. The plan will invest more than $180 billion in federal funding, doubling over the next 12 years. These investments will create long-term economic growth; build inclusive, sustainable communities; and support a low-carbon, green economy.
Our plan is focused on five key areas: public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities.
To maximize the benefits of our infrastructure investments, our government is committed to finding new and innovative ways to fund infrastructure and mobilize private capital. As part of our fall economic statement, we announced the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank.
Canada has a very mature market when it comes to infrastructure projects and partnerships with the public and private sectors. Many key pieces of infrastructure, like Edmonton's light rail transit system and the Iqaluit international airport improvement project, were financed in part by the private sector.
We believe there is an opportunity for the federal government to crowd in private sector investment in infrastructure through loans, loan guarantees, and equity participation. The bank will do just that and create more options and opportunities for provinces, territories, and municipalities across the country to undertake large, transformative infrastructure projects.
The bank will invest $35 billion in new projects across Canada, projects like major public transit systems in larger cities, energy transmission corridors, bridges and ports, and more. Of the $35 billion planned to capitalize the bank, $15 billion will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, and trade and transportation infrastructure. This $15 billion is less than 8% of the total infrastructure funds announced in the fall economic statement. An additional $20 billion in capital will be available to the Canada infrastructure bank for investments, which will result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion will therefore not result in a fiscal impact for the government.
The bank will serve as a single federal government point of contact for the private sector and will employ private sector experts to enable the government to invest efficiently with private capital. The bank’s funds are over and above the commitment we made to doubling infrastructure funding. More importantly, it offers our funding partners a new way to help meet their pressing infrastructure needs.
By using private capital to build these new projects, public money will be freed to build more public infrastructure. The bank will be a centre of excellence in infrastructure investment by the private sector, providing advice to allow for better planning and procurement decisions.
To be clear, many infrastructure projects will have no need for the bank and we will not impose it on any of our partners, but we will work with willing partners who think this can offer them additional value. The vast majority of the infrastructure funding will still be delivered through the traditional financial contributions to municipalities, through our bilateral agreements or national programs, but the bank is another tool that our partners can use to invest in the infrastructure they need.
As I said, the use of the Canada infrastructure bank is entirely at the discretion of communities. We hope to see engagement and participation from cities from across Canada through the smart cities challenge, which we also announced in the fall economic statement. The challenge is modelled on similar competitions around the world and aims to accelerate the planning and adoption of innovative infrastructure. It will be an opportunity for our communities to innovate, take risks, and think outside the box.
We will invite Canadian communities to develop integrated, innovative, evidence-based solutions to improve the quality of life for residents, ultimately supporting long-term transformative change across Canada. We have seen smart cities challenges launched by countries across the globe, from the U.S. Department of Transportation's smart city challenge to the Nordic Council of Ministers' Nordic built cities challenge.
These smart cities' initiatives illustrate the changing nature of our world and cities, and the opportunity that information technology and innovation can afford us moving forward. Canadian cities face the same mobility, environmental, and social challenges and we must respond with innovative ideas.
As laid out in the fall economic statement, we will be launching this challenge this year but we strongly believe that our cities must be at their absolute best to compete globally, and initiatives like the smart cities challenge will help drive innovation and foster positive change in our communities. Canada's cities are growing at such a rapid rate when it comes to infrastructure investment that the status quo is no longer acceptable. Now is the time to make smart infrastructure investments that will prepare communities for the challenges ahead and allow them to prosper for generations to come.
Our government is making more infrastructure investment than ever before, but more importantly, we are making strategic, targeted, and transformative investments. We are investing in Canadians and in Canada's future.
Thank you so much for having me here.
You talked about smart cities and the transportation component of it that you have listed in the budget. It speaks to monies that will be allocated based on ridership. In that context there are a lot of communities that will be left out because they don't have the infrastructure and they won't get the funding allocated, because, of course, it's based on ridership.
I want to talk about Smart21, which has been up and running since 2006. We've had winners of Ottawa, Edmonton, New Westminster, and Montreal in the top seven global cities. I'm proud to say that Surrey was a winner in 2014, 2015, and 2016.
This comes back to my point in terms of smaller cities accessing those dollars for transportation. Will you remove that component out of the budget, that the allocation is based on ridership only?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Please note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague Ken Hardie.
Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being with us this morning to answer our questions.
As the member for the riding of Alfred-Pellan, which is part of the City of Laval, in Quebec, and the greater Montreal area, I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity of your appearance here to stress that Montreal is the ideal city to welcome the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Because of its high level of expertise, its universities and the presence of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which has recently established its CDPQ Infra subsidiary, Montreal has all the assets it needs to become the national centre of excellence in infrastructure and to get the bank up and running in no time.
Could you tell me where you’re at with the decision-making process in determining which city will host the Canada Infrastructure Bank?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My thanks to the minister for being here with us today.
Since six minutes pass by quickly, I will start right away.
My first question came to me after reading the parliamentary budget officer’s latest report. In the report, there’s a graph showing the distribution of investments in infrastructure. Since we’re dealing with investments in infrastructure, it is not unreasonable to imagine that there should be a relationship between infrastructure and the percentage or density of the population in each of the provinces and territories. However, when I look at the numbers, Quebec, which has more than 8 million people, receives 12% of the investments, that is 1% more than Alberta, which has 4 million people, and 5% less than British Columbia, which has about 5 million people. Those are rounded numbers.
How do you explain those disparities?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Sikand.
Welcome, Minister. It's good to see you. I was very pleased to hear you say in your opening comments that when it comes to infrastructure investment, “the status quo is no longer acceptable”.
I can't think of a jurisdiction where that's truer than in my riding of Nunavut, where a dollar down here is 33 cents up there, where the highest cost of doing anything up there is three times as much, and where we have only one out of 25 communities that is tax based.
I think there's a need to look at a base-plus funding model to be able to address those needs. It's no secret that we have a huge infrastructure deficit in Nunavut as a result of the ongoing traditional way of doling out investment on a per capita basis. We have the largest land mass, a small population, and high costs, with hardly any infrastructure.
One thing I've always said in terms of any investment in the north is that one important thing to remember is that for us everything we need for infrastructure comes from the south, so it is an investment in the north but it's also a significant investment in the southern economy as well.
When it comes to the infrastructure bank, I know that the northern premiers have said there should be a northern infrastructure bank. I guess I'm just wondering if there will be a portion of this that will be dedicated to northern infrastructure, and if they will be looking at a different way of making that investment, aside from the per capita basis.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to express my appreciation, Mr. Minister, for your recognizing the importance of working with municipalities, aligning the strategies, helping to finance those strategies, and becoming an enabler to bring forward new smart city initiatives.
With that, we are aware that we have a lot of new ways of doing business with respect to the self-aware infrastructure, assets that direct their own consistent assistance, and most importantly, a disciplined budgeting process.
With that, Minister, are you going to be looking in the future at allowing bundled applications to come in? Then, municipalities, when they put an application in for infrastructure funding, they can bundle an application based on a community improvement growth plan instead of just applying for one project.
During the discussions, it was mentioned that, for the projects authorized by the bank to be profitable for investors, the projects must be over $100 million. There was even talk of projects of more than $500 million in the various discussions that took place. Just now, in response to Mr. Aubin’s question, I heard Mr. Tremblay say that the projects that will dictate decisions will be those able to attract investors.
At the same time, let’s look at the document produced on the middle class in the fall, the economic statement.
Mr. Minister, in your presentation, you said that the projects you will want to handle with the $15 million are green infrastructure projects, social infrastructure projects in various communities, transit projects and projects in rural and northern communities. Is that correct?
Could you tell me how a small municipality in a region—say, for instance, Daveluyville in my riding, which has 2,000 residents—could have access to a grant, a loan or any financial assistance from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, for a water filtration plant project, which is essential for the development of its small economic park and of the community? That would allow investors to have their piece of the pie.
Let me point out that, before being elected as an MP a year and a half ago, I was the mayor of a municipality with 45,000 people, which is in the centre of my riding. I can tell you that never in my life have I seen any projects that could generate profit for investors in those sorts of municipalities. They are in large centres such as Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.
Can you answer my question?
Mr. Tremblay could confirm what I’m saying. Based on what he said, attractive projects are needed for investors. What will happen in the small municipalities?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just taking it to the next step with respect to what I asked before, Mr. Minister, what are some of the methods or the mechanisms, the enablers, that you can actually provide for P3s, for private involvement?
Mr. Rayes has mentioned, through his question, what opportunities exist. I know about rail spurs, short lines, marine when it comes to docks, and intermodal facilities when it comes to air, airports, especially regional airports and the possibility of applying for capital work in those airports by the smaller municipalities. What other methods do you find that can actually involve the private sectors to get that fourth level of funding? Right now, we have federal, provincial, and local, but how can you then expand that to the private sector to be involved and to get that fourth level of funding for economically strategic initiatives?
We are starting our meeting again on the study of infrastructure and smart communities.
We have with us today, from QNX Software Systems Limited, Grant Courville, director of product management.
Thank you very much for coming. We weren't able to give you much notice, so we really appreciated your fast response. I will turn it over to you for five minutes of opening remarks, followed by questions from the committee.
We also have Marc Miller, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities; and Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Both of them, by the way, are available to the committee members if they have any questions they would like to have clarified at any given time, during or after the meetings.
Mr. Courville, please, the floor is yours.
Thank you for inviting me. I very much appreciate it.
What I thought I would do in the five minutes that I have is to give you a little bit of an overview of our company, what we've been doing, and how we can work together on some of the initiatives, going forward.
Firstly, as mentioned, I'm with QNX Software. I started with QNX in 1987. QNX is an Ottawa-based company—with over 400 people based in Ottawa—and it has been since its inception. We provide core software that you will find in everything from wind turbines, gas turbines, traffic lights in Ottawa, MRI machines, and laser eye surgery equipment. Atomic Energy of Canada uses our software for nuclear reactor monitoring, and General Electric uses it to monitor the energy grid. We're at the heart of Cisco routers for communication, the largest routers in the world. We really are at the heart of a lot of the infrastructure that we all interact with every day.
We don't get a lot of publicity, but we've started to involve ourselves much more publicly, I'll say, in some of our activities. Thanks to government efforts, we've been able to advertise those and bring about a lot more awareness on a global basis, quite frankly.
Our primary market today is the automotive market, and specifically the automotive market. We're in over 60 million vehicles. We're at the heart of every OnStar system that ships. We have number one market share in infotainment, so if you have a display screen in the middle of your vehicle, chances are it's running QNX software.
I should mention that QNX was acquired by BlackBerry in 2010, so we're a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackBerry.
As far as vehicles are concerned, there are telematics; digital instrument clusters, because they're moving from analog to digital; infotainment systems; and now safety systems in cars. There is tremendous disruption in the automotive market today. The architecture and nature of vehicles is changing tremendously, and that is manifesting itself in the form of announcements and initiatives such as at General Motors and what they announced in terms of what they're doing in Oshawa. There are a lot of initiatives at a provincial level and in private industry. You're seeing investments from Ford, for instance, and from GM into Lyft, into ride sharing and into shared mobility. The automotive industry, and to an extent, transportation, is undergoing incredible disruption.
There is a tremendous opportunity to collaborate among the private industry, academia, and government, to take advantage of this disruption and truly be a world leader. We can do this, not just here in Ottawa but in Ontario and in Canada. We have the technology and we have the innovation. The heart of it is security and communications, for which we're very well known. If you think of BlackBerry, they're second to none in terms of security. If you think of communications and the expertise that we have there....
When I was thinking of infrastructure, one of the things I wanted to put forward was that the definition of infrastructure should, perhaps, be broader than the way most people think of infrastructure. It should involve technologies and communications—and not necessarily roads and bridges and whatnot that probably most people think of today—because transportation in the future is going to change. There are a number of reports that will say that there will be more vehicles or that there will be fewer vehicles. At the end of the day, our job—we offer foundation software—will be making vehicles much safer.
If you think of vehicles today, there are 1.5 billion vehicles on the road today. In Canada, there are roughly 2,000 people who die because of traffic accidents. We can make vehicles safer. We can make vehicles more secure. We can have vehicles talk to each other. We can enable first responders to get more information more quickly. There are so many advantages from an environmental perspective, and we can enable greater mobility for all ages.
There really is a tremendous opportunity from a QNX-BlackBerry perspective. We're working with all the major automakers and all the major suppliers to automakers. We're right at the heart of these next-generation vehicles that, essentially, are going to be a point or a sensor that you can actually gather information from.
We can make the roads a lot more efficient, and we can make transportation much more available. We can do it through technology and through technology that can be developed and commercialized here in Canada, understanding that automotive and transportation are definitely global industries. Obviously, we need tremendous collaboration between the U.S. and Canada, which I think we have and have had.
I can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives there. They have a vehicle-to-vehicle communication guideline that they've put forward for something called DSRC, or vehicle-to-vehicle communications. They're going to mandate that the equipment be in cars starting in 2021, and all vehicles will need to be equipped with that technology for 2023.
Essentially, vehicles will have to broadcast where they are, how fast they're going, what direction they're going in, and what position they're in. Think of, say, a simple scenario where maybe you have a blind intersection. If you have vehicles talking to each other, all of a sudden they can become aware of each other, and then you can get into warning the driver of an unsafe situation. As we look at technology going forward, if the driver doesn't take action, the vehicle can take action, in other words apply the brakes, for instance.
This could be a very long topic and I'm absolutely thrilled to have this kind of discussion. The message I want to leave you with is that transportation and automotive is going through a disruption, and we have a real opportunity.
One of the things we did recently—and I'd like to thank Prime Minister Trudeau again—was that at QNX, we actually opened and launched an autonomous vehicle innovation centre, putting autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles, and safe vehicles on the map right here in Ottawa, Canada. That was a thrill.
That's a very interesting question. The notion of a smart city, to be honest, is still being defined. Things like the smart cities challenge, for instance, are going to help evolve the definition of a smart city and help push technology and some of those use cases to help us understand what's really important.
On a global scale, we have cities that are connected. We'd have to talk a bit about the definition of a smart city. If you take a look at Stratford, Ontario, for instance, they have installed a wireless network throughout their city, and they're looking at testing autonomous vehicles there and leveraging that connectivity to extend into smart city scenarios.
As another example, if you take a look at the city of Ottawa, all of the traffic lights are connected. I've had meetings with the City of Ottawa to see how we can extend that to enable smarter scenarios, where we can have traffic lights talk to emergency vehicles and potentially to private vehicles and pedestrians.
In terms of ranking, I don't think I have a good answer for you, because there are a number of initiatives that are going on. Some are publicly funded; some are not publicly funded. I would say that we have tremendous potential in Canada, and I think this is where we need some collaboration and some focus on specific goals pertaining to smart city to rally academia, private industry, and government around some specific deliverables.
First, I would recommend collaboration.
Second, many of the programs that are under discussion today are research initiatives, which also obviously pull in funding and so on. I would recommend that the initiatives we put together have specific goals with a view to commercialization and to the benefits that they will bring to the table. Research will fall out of that, if you can define what you're trying to deliver at the end of the day. Whether it's smarter traffic lights or reduced congestion, with some specific things to measure, from a government perspective, those are things we can rally behind. The initiatives have to be very well defined.
If I'm to talk about automotive specifically, if the government could align with the U.S., for instance, in terms of vehicle-to-vehicle communications, I think that would be great. Right now, there are no widely adopted standards for vehicles to talk to infrastructure or for vehicles to talk to vehicles. That's one initiative that we can really get behind.
That's a very good point. I would agree with you 100% that some companies are going to advance their agendas, be it in transportation or elsewhere, independent of government activities.
Our approach, just as the nature of our business is in terms of what we do in working with the automotive and infrastructure companies, by definition it has to be collaborative to achieve success. I think you might see some companies that will be more aggressive. However, from a QNX perspective, from a BlackBerry perspective, what we're doing is so foundational that collaboration is extremely important. Government has to absolutely be a part of that. We need standardization.
To your point, Uber is an example of a company and an application and a mode of transportation that was introduced in a number of cities without any co-operation, quite frankly, and it was adopted by the public. In a sense, we were lagging. They were leading, if you like, purely from a technology and a business perspective.
From an infrastructure perspective, from an automotive perspective, there are no standards widely adopted right now. The opportunity today exists to collaborate, because the industry is going through a disruption. Things aren't defined yet. It has to be collaborative. We need the standardization. We need it beyond municipal, provincial. We need it at the federal level. We need it in collaboration with the G7 countries, quite frankly.
The nature of vehicle ownership is changing and the importance that society puts on vehicle ownership is changing. It's a demographic shift. To your point, you're going to see vehicles that are on average used about one hour per day today. If you do the math, it's about one hour a day. These are incredible inefficiencies.
In the investments you see from the automakers, they're investing in ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft. They're investing in ride-sharing companies. Ford made an investment, for instance, in Chariot, which is essentially a van shuttle.
We're working with some cities and other organizations where they're looking at putting together essentially mobility on demand, a term you might hear. If I can get access to mobility, if I can get access to a vehicle that I don't necessarily have to own, and it's convenient, then from an elderly person's perspective, I'll have many options potentially available to me. It could be ride-sharing, for instance. I could hail a vehicle, a taxi. There are other mechanisms as well, and public transportation.
The thing we have to think about is this. To get from point A—whatever that is, my home, etc.—to point B, what you might see and what we should try to enable is connected, intelligent, safe and secure, multimodal mobility. In other words, it might be part public transportation, part private transportation. You're seeing e-bikes. I used the word “disruption”. Again, this isn't all established and I think there is a real opportunity.
As I said, I'm passionate about the definition of infrastructure and the potential of infrastructure.
In terms of how I would view it, again it's a lot about connectivity. At its basic level it's about connectivity. Can we have traffic lights talk to vehicles? Can we have first responder vehicles talk to an infrastructure? I'm just using the words “talk to” because I'm not going to get into cellular technologies and all that. It's not important at this level. It's really about whether I can get reliable and smart communication.
The opportunity there is to sponsor and get involved in joint initiatives within Canada, obviously, but also in collaboration with other countries, to enable standardization from a communications perspective. If we can define a standard for vehicles to talk to vehicles or for vehicles to talk to infrastructure, if you can enable that fundamental technology, then all of a sudden we can apply artificial intelligence. We can apply better use of the infrastructure that we have and the vehicles that we have on the road, and the benefits you are going to see are going to follow.
From my perspective, at this stage of where we're at in the disruption, it is very much communications and standards as it pertain to communications, because the automakers are collaborating. Automakers used to be pretty much in silos and not talking to each other. Because the nature of the car is completely changing, you see this collaboration. They are also open to it, which is great.
If I understand correctly, with my new connected vehicle—I’m talking about the next one, not the one I have right now—for example, if I were alone on the road at two o'clock in the morning, I might not have to wait at the red traffic light. The traffic light could detect that I am alone and turn green. However, is there not a notion in the definition of infrastructure, even the connected infrastructure we are talking about, that should be linked to the community? In my mind, when we talk about infrastructure, we are not talking about personal benefits, but about collective benefits.
In terms of those cars, that’s probably the most compelling example you've given me so far. However, since you started talking about it, I couldn't help remembering when I came to Ottawa two weeks ago and I narrowly avoided a pile-up because of the so-called “black ice”. All the vehicles were going at full speed and everything was fine, until the first car, which I had never seen, triggered the pile-up. The best drivers, either the luckiest or who had the best braking systems, were able to avoid it.
However, in such a situation, can vehicles exchange information, analyze road conditions and determine possible ways to avoid problems? On that day, all the cars were waltzing from one side to the other.
Yes. The short answer is yes, absolutely, vehicles are going to have so many censors. At one of the talks that I did recently where I was invited to speak, I used the example of potholes. Vehicles hit potholes. What if we could gather that information and send it back to a smart infrastructure? It would know which potholes are being hit, how severe they are, and how often they're being hit, and all of a sudden it would direct those resources to those areas that need attention.
To your point, yes, if there's black ice and if there are adverse weather conditions, the vehicle should be able to communicate back to the infrastructure and, again, warn other vehicles. You might get a warning in your car, for instance, as well as a warning throughout the community that there's black ice on such-and-such a road at such-and-such a location. Potentially, the vehicle would warn you and ask you if you'd like to take an alternate route.
It's the same thing when we look at first responder scenarios. I'm glad there wasn't an accident that you were involved in, but imagine if there were a situation and the vehicles were connected and you had cameras in the vehicles, which you will see and you're starting to see today. Imagine if in that first responder situation there were vehicles in the area and you could securely and safety tie into the cameras in the vehicles, so that you could have “eyes on scene” from the vehicles. When I say vehicles, I mean buses, cars, and any mode of transportation where all of a sudden they could get earlier access to information, which again would enable them to provide better service in an emergency situation. There are all these scenarios that come into play.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think this is a very exciting conversation. Parking the politics, parking all that, we have a huge opportunity here as a committee to really be visionary and, although we are not in the business like you, to have you included with us to try to bring that agenda forward. I appreciate the comments you're making and the passion you're bringing to the conversation.
It sort of stems from the conversation we were having earlier—and I'll use a layered effect—about municipalities, areas of the country planning strategically for the future. Within those, they have community improvement and growth plans that they have put in place, and that obviously attaches itself to infrastructure—roads, water, bridges, and stuff like that, which are traditional—but it's becoming a new norm. That new norm is now demanding municipalities to take on new infrastructure: fibre, more transit, more integrated transportation, and the list goes on, including what you're talking about.
What I'm going to get at is, what's next? This is ultimately going to be my question, just to give you a heads-up. How do we ultimately move this agenda forward? We have a national transportation strategy that was just announced by the minister in October. We have an infrastructure strategy and a smart cities strategy that we're launching now. We have infrastructure investments being made, and the last thing we want to do is spend millions, if not billions of dollars on infrastructure that we're going to have to go back to five or 10 years down the road to replace, update, or change. It's like paving a road and finding out five months later that you have to redo the water and sewer line underneath it.
How do we eliminate doing that? How do we ultimately put a strategy in place that really drives the other strategies and keeps everything up to date and moving forward with smart cities, integrating the ideas that you're coming forward with at the table with everything else that's happening around us?
That's a great question and a huge topic. It's not an easy answer. I'll come back a bit to what I was saying earlier. If we can define some specific goals—for instance, in terms of smart cities, even defining the elements of a smart city.... I'd like to share with the group that the way we and other companies are approaching this is very evolutionary, for a lot of commercial as well as public reasons.
If we think of autonomous cars, we can't rush into this. When people ask me when we are going to see the first fully autonomous car, I say at least 15 years from now, because if we don't do it right, we will risk people's lives and lose public confidence. It just won't be the system that we need, and it will delay it even further.
To your point, I think if we can get very crisp on the definitions of what we're trying to accomplish, and work collaboratively with other countries.... I think there are some standards that are starting to be agreed to—I mentioned DSRC earlier. A lot of it is about standardization, to standardize the communications and define the use cases. I think the key there is to take a look at the companies that can help, because it's going to take collaboration and partnership. Look at the companies that can help, understanding that each company has its own commercial agenda. I think it's really about thinking differently, which I think is what you're saying, and looking further out.
As I said, I'm comforted by the fact that we are approaching it in a very evolutionary fashion, so I welcome the opportunity to take a look at some of the projects that are under way, and maybe what we can do is refine them and direct some of those investments to some of the things that we're talking about today and that you'll be looking forward to.