Environment Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

[Brian Kingston]

No, we have existing regulations.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No? Okay.

In his latest report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that suspending the standard for 2026 alone sets Canada back, and that the gap between where Canada is headed and the target is even greater because of the suspension of the standard for 2026. What are your thoughts on that?

Do you agree with what he said?

[Brian Kingston]

Yes, I did think it was incorrect because it was clear that we're not going to hit any of the targets in these EV mandates. The regulation itself is not having an effect if companies can't achieve it, if the demand isn't there.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You are saying that what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying is wrong. When he says that Canada is falling behind the target by suspending the standard for 2026, you are saying that he is wrong. Is that correct?

[Brian Kingston]

I'm saying that the report was incorrect in some of its assumptions, and we had issues with the—

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay. That’s interesting. Can you send us something in writing with more details to explain why the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report is incorrect?

I’ll now turn to Mr. Bernard.

Mr. Bernard, I’d like to have a further discussion about vehicle prices. Some of the people who have appeared before this committee have said that the zero-emission standard served to ensure there are more vehicles and that it helped lower the cost of vehicles, and we’ve seen that. I’ve seen figures that show that prices of new vehicles went up by 43% between 2019 and 2025. The increase occurred before the zero-emission standard came in.

However, you have told us that the zero-emission standard would not result in more cost-effective and cheaper vehicles in Canada. Is that correct?

[Charles Bernard]

Yes, I would say so.

Most studies have shown that because of the constraints you mentioned earlier, which are difficult to navigate, the standard will make many companies restrict the total number of vehicles they ship to Canada, be they electric or non-electric. By restricting the supply of vehicles, regardless of the technology chosen, fewer offers in a market where there is constant demand will cause prices to rise. Furthermore, it is clear—

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I’m going to stop you there to clarify something.

My understanding is the opposite of what you’re saying. There is a wider selection of electric vehicles when companies are forced to have more electric vehicles. We’ve seen that in Europe.

Why do you say that there would be fewer options? From what we’ve heard and observed, the opposite is true. European markets that have implemented this mandate have a greater variety of vehicles, with more compact and affordable models.

However, you’re saying that if there was zero-emission standard legislation, there would be fewer options.

[Charles Bernard]

Generally, Canadian consumers are not looking for the smaller vehicles you mentioned.

If companies have to ship fewer vehicles to hit targets, they will not send vehicles that appeal to a small niche in downtown Montreal or Toronto. They will send vehicles with strong sales potential. If they sell vehicles that perform strongly in the market and generate high sales volumes, they achieve economies of scale. That’s smart from an economic standpoint and smart from a pricing standpoint.

Reducing inventory means what’s sent to Canada will generally align with demand across Canada, and not just in Quebec. People want bigger vehicles that have more emissions; they want pickup trucks or heavier vehicles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you for that answer, Mr. Bernard.

Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today.

The witnesses are now excused.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. Leslie, the floor is yours.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our support staff who worked diligently to resolve an IT issue. I believe we should now all have a copy in both French and English, circulated digitally and physically, of the motion I read into the record toward the end of my questioning of Brian Kingston from the manufacturers' association. It was specifically regarding questions from, I think, many around this table—and rumours, we'll call them, that are unverified—in terms of whether or not Canadian auto manufacturers have sent cold, hard cash to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to American automakers, most likely based on the criteria of producing a high enough volume of electric vehicles to create the credits under the credit exchange system.

We had a bit of an exchange between my Bloc colleague, one of the witnesses, and you, Mr. Chair, regarding that particular question. Given the difficulties and, I think, a lack of transparency, frankly, that certainly will exist in this credit scheme that has been developed as an attempt at flexibility of an electric vehicle mandate, the commercial sensitivities as to the costing of these specific credits on an individual basis is the reason for...the commercial sensitivities and the inability for any of the manufacturers to specifically disclose.

Hence, in the motion I tried to be broad enough to further differentiate what we know Tesla's compliance credits revenues have been in two of the quarters from this year, recognizing that they are certainly not all from the Californian portion of the North American credit markets. Certainly, Canada has contributed, as evidenced by the representative who came here from the manufacturers, so we know that they have been bought. Given the limitations of those contracts, I think it's reasonable to ask the only party we know has the information and has the ability to share it with us.

In that vein, that is why my motion today is to request that Tesla tell us how many compliance credits Tesla has already sold as of the end of October of this year and has committed to sell, as well as the overall total Canadian dollar equivalents for each of those categories. This is to know with some finitude whether or not, at a time of a liquidity crisis for Canadian auto manufacturers and a jobs crisis for so many people, particularly in southwestern Ontario....

The challenges facing this sector are immense. We have government trying to take action, but they apparently have policies in place that are at odds and are causing so much confusion. They've potentially driven hundreds of millions of dollars of much-needed cash from these companies to an American auto manufacturer, particularly Tesla.

In an effort at transparency, I think it's very reasonable for the environment committee to make this request to Tesla. There's no guarantee that they would share this information with us, but I hope I can have unanimous support from all our colleagues to provide clarity to Canadians on what the outcomes of this policy and the confusion sown from the pause have been and whether or not the manufacturing industry is out potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. It will hopefully help lead to future policy decisions on whether or not we should completely eliminate the EV mandate to stop the bleed, or whether or not the companies have been honest in the amount of money they have already sent to the American auto manufacturers and/or committed.

With that, I hope we can get to a relatively quick vote with support from all my colleagues, I hope, in an effort to have transparency for Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

I will give the floor to Mr. St-Pierre in a moment.

We have to table all motions in both official languages for the benefit of Mr. Bonin. You also have the option of getting a hard copy. This will ensure the proceedings move on without additional delay. Thank you.

Mr. St‑Pierre, you have the floor.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’d like to thank you for the French version.

It was an observation I made as well. I appreciate that there's a bilingual version for my colleague and me.

I appreciate this motion. I think it's quite reasonable. I wasn't sure if you were going to seek Elon Musk as a witness, but I see that's not in the motion.

I don't have much else to comment on. I do appreciate this version.

I think it's a reasonable request. Thank you for raising it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Is there any further debate?

You have the floor, Mr. Bonin.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you for the French version.

I do appreciate that your goal is to find out how many credits were sold in Canada.

The motion asks: “How many compliance credits has Tesla…committed to sell, to any corporation in Canada”. I think that means the credits sold in Canada. I don’t know if you can appreciate the subtle nuance. If a corporation in Canada is buying credits from the United States, then that’s not the kind of information we want to obtain. That’s why I’m asking whether we can specify that.

We can move an amendment that says: “How many compliance credits has Tesla…already sold as of October 31, 2025, in Canada?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. Leslie, would you like to address that comment or would you like the member to move an amendment?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Maybe I can address this before moving an amendment.

In the motion, in the first part, I believe that's already covered under (ii), “committed to sell, to any corporation in Canada”. To me, the motion is explicit. If they are selling to a U.S.-based auto manufacturer due to a lack of compliance with the Californian mandate they have in place.... I agree we don't necessarily need that information. I think it's just Canada, but that's why, to me, the specific language of “to any corporation in Canada” should cover that off.

I don't think there's a need for an amendment.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I’m not sure.

I don’t want us to get mixed figures that include numbers for the United States and then we won’t be able to determine the impact of the zero-emission legislation in Canada. I do understand that you’re not interested in numbers concerning the purchase of emissions credits in the United States by Canadian corporations. You want to know how many credits Tesla has sold to Canadian businesses due to the zero-emission legislation in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes, I would be open to a friendly amendment. I could suggest one that somebody else could move that, in the middle of the second line of the first point where it says, “How many compliance credits has Tesla (a) already sold as of October 31, 2025, to Canadian companies” or “Canadian corporations”. Would that offer the clarity you're looking for?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes. You alluded to the English version and I’m trying to compare the English version with the French version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Would you like the clerk to translate the text? That might be easier.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Point (a) of the English version and the French version are not consistent. There are two (b)s in English and only one in French. That’s why I’m a bit confused.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

I understand your confusion. Before we go any further, I’ll ask the clerk to take a look and correct that point and then we’ll talk about it.

Mr. Clerk, you have an (a), a (b) and a (b) in English, and then you have an (a) and a (b). You have two (b)s and only one (b) in the French. Can you please modify the text?

Do you see it?