Finance Committee on May 25th, 2026

[Brian Kingston]

I would agree with that. Diversification does not solve our economic challenges. The Canadian economy is subject to the gravity model of trade. You do the most trade with the country that is the closest and has the largest economy. We happen to sit beside the United States of America. That is where our priority should be.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Kingston, on February 16, you said allowing Chinese vehicles into the Canadian market was a bad idea. You're saying the same thing today. You even said this agreement between Canada and China should be terminated. Why?

[Brian Kingston]

It's a major strategic error. The Chinese do not compete on a level playing field. They subsidize their industry to the tune of $230 billion U.S., far exceeding any level of subsidization you would see here in North America. The average wage at an assembly plant in China is between two dollars U.S. and four dollars U.S. an hour. At a Canadian, unionized, Unifor plant, it's $45 an hour, plus benefits and a pension. You simply cannot compete with the Chinese because they're not playing by the same rules. By allowing those vehicles in, we are going to undermine our own domestic industry at a very sensitive time.

On top of that, China is a major irritant to the relationship with the United States, so we've put a vehicle-sized irritant on the table at the worst possible time.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Do you think this agreement between Canada and China is an obstacle to investment and development in the automotive sector in Canada?

[Brian Kingston]

Absolutely. We're very fortunate to have five OEMs that have invested here and employ Canadians. We're now opening the door to Chinese manufacturers that have no investments here, no footprint and no supply base, and no commitments to make them. It's not only that. Chinese OEMs don't typically invest in the markets they want to access. That's not their model. They ship. They have massive overcapacity in China, with two to three times their own domestic demand. They take those vehicles and dump them into countries that are naive enough to open the door to them.

This is a huge mistake. They will not invest here. They will not employ Canadians, and they will not create a Canadian supply chain.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much.

You raised another issue. You said there's no cybersecurity measure for the information and data that can be collected through Chinese vehicles. That's serious.

[Brian Kingston]

Yes. It's a significant cyber-risk. In 2024, the government committed to putting in place rules around Chinese connected and autonomous vehicle hardware and software to follow what the U.S. had done, but there's been no progress on that. There are no rules or guardrails in place. These vehicles can collect significant amounts of data. We don't know where that data will be stored. They can also be controlled remotely, hence why the U.S. has taken a very firm approach on Chinese software and is doing everything possible to get it out of the supply chain.

We have no protections in place whatsoever, and these vehicles are here now.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Williams, do you believe vehicles sold in this country should be electric vehicles? Shouldn't we instead let consumers choose freely whether they want an electric vehicle or a gas-powered vehicle?

[Huw Williams]

I would say we have to leave it to consumer choice. That doesn't mean that we don't have incentive programs. That doesn't mean that we don't work on infrastructure.

The challenge is that we've come a long way in terms of electric vehicle technology. My biggest fear all along has been that when we push that technology artificially, consumer uptake has to match the actual product. For example, in some of the coldest parts of the country, dealers have had to take back multiple vehicles because they can't work in those climates. That problem is going to be solved, but not today. For rural and remote communities, it's long distances. We have to have a solution that's made in Canada, as opposed to a solution that's forced through a pipeline.

People know I'm not anti-EV. In fact, we're very bullish on EV technology. It's a great technology, particularly in urban environments. It's great technology for second-car families, when one car is used for longer distances and one car is used internally. However, the planning behind the targets has to be done in conjunction with what's possible.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

By the way, I have to say I agree: I'm not against electric vehicles, but I think we have to give consumers the choice. When we talk about travelling small distances—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre. Your time is up.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We will continue with Dr. Martin for six minutes.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us.

I'd like to start with Mr. Williams to talk EVs and climate.

You said that we're all in on the EV transition, and that you're supportive of electric vehicles but at a pace we can manage. I think we're all in agreement that there needs to be a balanced approach, but of course we all know, based on our experience with all kinds of industries, that sometimes the pace we want to move at is not necessarily the pace that will slow climate change. There's an imperative there that we're all trying to wrestle with.

If not mandates, then what? What can industry do and what can government do to accelerate the pace of that transition, to make it as rapid as possible but within the means of the capacity of these vehicles at this time in terms of the technology?

[Huw Williams]

It's a great question, and I appreciate it. I think we're all closer to the idea of consumer choice than not. At the end of the day, again, my fear is that if one technology is pushed too far, consumers will just hang on to older, higher-polluting vehicles, which doesn't actually help the environment.

If you look at the rough numbers from over the past 20 years, GHG emissions from the passenger and light vehicle market are around 11%. That's been maintained. Even though we've had great expansion in population and great expansion in on-road vehicles, we're actually keeping steady with respect to the percentage of emissions coming from the auto sector. The reason is that's it's driven by technology—having lighter vehicles overall, bringing aluminum into the car, having more efficient engines. Electrification is part of that. Every manufacturer is working on different models to adjust to that.

I think the exciting thing about the Prime Minister's announcement is that it will be technology-neutral. If you bring in a technology that reduces greenhouse gases, it doesn't have to be electric. On the electric side of the equation, the thing that I hear from dealers across the country—I spend a lot of time travelling with dealers and their customers—is that they don't have range anxiety anymore; they have charging anxiety. I didn't make that phrase up. I heard it in multiple different communities across the country. Consumers love the technology, but they're worried about whether they can get it charged at the right period of time. That charging infrastructure has to match the point of adoption.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Right. I think that's why we're making major investments into charging infrastructure. It's for exactly that reason. Thank you.

Professor Tooze, we haven't forgotten about you on Zoom. I want to go to you about the proposed amendments you're putting forward related to pension regulations requiring federally regulated plans to be more transparent around climate.

Can you help us understand a little bit more about what we know about how those funds would see that change, how the members of those pension funds would see that change and how it would affect their competitiveness?

[Helen Tooze]

Thank you for that question.

When it comes to pension plans, the climate governance we're requiring is really already a fiduciary duty for them to consider climate as a material financial risk. Feeding that into their pension plans—the taxonomy would help a lot with this—you would end up being able to demonstrate that for certain plans, the way they're investing into climate-resilient infrastructure is greener and more sustainable. This would increase people's willingness to invest. It would increase investments into climate-resilient areas. It would be beneficial for intergenerational equity principles as well. We're focusing on not just short-term gains but also long-term views.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you.

I'm short on time here, Ms. Seccia, but I wanted to make sure I asked you a question related to the important work you're doing around gender equity and homelessness.

I think we all know and are aware that homelessness is a housing issue first, but it's definitely not only that. I'm wondering if you can speak to some of the non-housing collaborations that might be required, particularly between federal, provincial and municipal levels of government if we want to address homelessness among women and gender-diverse groups here in Canada.

[Stefania Seccia]

I think what we need to see, of course, is an alignment. In the housing sector, we often talk about wraparound service support as well. The issue is that we tend to take a very wide approach. We tend to build shelters for women and gender-diverse people escaping violence. We have a specific GBV-serving shelter system that is siloed from the homeless-serving sector system. They're not talking to each other, and we find that a lot of women—we've heard this across the country over and over again—are falling through the cracks.

Our first point of order is always that we need all levels of government, even within the federal government itself—all departments—doing a better job of talking to each other when their services or funding overlap, to make sure as well that we're not misaligned when we are using.... Not to jump around too much, but when we're talking about definitions, I talked about accurate affordability definitions. When we don't have that, we see lower percentages of the housing builds we're doing being deeply affordable. They're not targeting the women in need.

The other thing we're seeing is that, in Build Canada Homes, although we support it, of course, our concern is that when the mention of women and gender-diverse folks comes up, we're talking really about shelter and transitional housing spaces. However, what we're seeing in shelter and transitional housing spaces is a revolving door—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'm sorry, Ms. Seccia. I'm going to have to cut you off there.

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kingston, you're saying that by signing an electric vehicle agreement with China, Prime Minister Carney simply sanctioned a Chinese dumping tactic. Is that correct?

[Brian Kingston]

Yes, that's correct. The vehicles will be dumped. They're heavily subsidized and they'll be coming in at below-market rates. That's the Chinese export model.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, that answers my question.

Mr. Williams, we recently met with representatives of the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association of Quebec. They're dealing with the retroactive application of the goods and services tax. Some vehicles purchased in Quebec cross the Ontario border and, for harmonization reasons, the CRA imposes a retroactive tax on the dealers in question. That's a problem.

Is that a problem for your member dealers as well? Were you made aware of this situation? Is it fixed? The Minister of Finance doesn't seem too interested in this file.

[Huw Williams]

No, but I can look into that for you if you'd like. I think I would have heard of it.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

That's excellent. Thank you very much.

I'll now turn to Ms. Seccia, but anyone can answer.

Ms. Seccia, thank you for joining us. I read your brief carefully and I think you have a great mission. I'm very sensitive to all the challenges you're highlighting, particularly when it comes to discrimination and access to housing. It's understood there are multi-faceted challenges, such as housing and access to health care. I understand it's complicated.

That said, in your brief, you urge the government to implement all the recommendations of the Neha Review Panel, which would involve imposing housing conditions on the provinces. I wonder about that. The Bloc Québécois is never really in favour of those kinds of conditions. I think when the federal government imposes conditions on the provinces, it generally leads to barriers rather than housing construction and better access to housing for people from diverse backgrounds. Given the current relations between Quebec and Ottawa, I don't think this is likely to help your cause.

What do you think?