Finance Committee on May 25th, 2026

[Stefania Seccia]

That's fair, absolutely. I think the important thing to note, though, is that regardless of the conditions the federal government puts on any province, at the end of the day, every province and the federal government are duty-bearers to the rights holders within their provinces whom they oversee. Whether it's the federal government enacting certain conditions or not, what we're hoping for is that there is an alignment. The condition of the housing crisis in all streets across Canada—from where I'm from in Vancouver to Quebec—is such that if we don't work together, if we don't maximize the funding outputs and make sure we're providing housing that is adequate and meets the need on the ground, we're not going to end it.

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

You understand my reservations. They often stem from the desire to provide more housing and better access.

Ms. Tooze, in your brief, you say that when it comes to climate, the federal government's climate commitments fluctuate. I'd like you to explain what you mean by that, because Mr. Guilbeault, the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, is simply saying there are no more climate targets. You say they fluctuate. What do you mean?

How have they fluctuated since Mr. Carney took office?

[Helen Tooze]

Thank you for the question.

I'm no expert particularly on that, but we found under the Trudeau government that there was a lot more outward support for climate movements and environmental regulation.

Prime Minister Carney is not as outwardly spoken. There have been a lot of questions, when I speak to people, about what he is doing. I think it's perception versus reality. Obviously, Mark Carney has been very involved in the environment for many years. He stepped into the Prime Minister role and has taken more of a relaxed opinion on that. A lot of people are wondering—

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

I understand your discomfort, because I share it.

I'm going to ask you one last question about the importance of developing a green finance taxonomy. The government keeps setting up committees, but, in the end, they never lead to anything.

Do you think we need another committee?

[Helen Tooze]

The good news is that what is making up our taxonomy committees isn't government. Business Future Pathways is made up of many organizations involved in the climate sphere. These are experts who are passionate about what they're doing when it comes to the taxonomy.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

We will continue now with Mr. Lawrence for five minutes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

My questions will start with you, Mr. Kingston.

I've had the pleasure of meeting with representatives and many of your members. A lot of the time the message is the same and it's one that, quite frankly, scares me. They say to me, “Do you know what? It's okay...for now.”

If things don't change, if we don't get renewed access to the U.S. market, if we don't have changes that make your business more profitable, how long are we looking at before there is a complete decimation of auto manufacturing in Canada?

[Brian Kingston]

I'll start on an optimistic note. I do believe that there's an opportunity to get an agreement with the Americans as we head towards the July 1 CUSMA review date. It will likely take longer than that, but the reason for my optimism is simple. Canada is the largest export market for U.S. autos, by far. There is something to be negotiated here, but we actually have to get to the table.

If we don't get any sort of agreement, manufacturers.... So far, we're estimating that Canadian-built vehicles have been tariffed to the tune of $5 billion. That is not sustainable. Companies cannot continue to pay that. If we find ourselves through the summer and into the fall with no resolution whatsoever, current production levels in Canada will be very difficult to maintain.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I appreciate that. I can understand why perhaps you can't quantify that. I'll underline again the worry I have for the members over there, as someone who grew up with their parents all working at General Motors in Oshawa or the St. Catharines plant. It is critical to the Ontario economy, where I come from.

Let's talk a little bit, Mr. Kingston, about competing with the Chinese EVs. I don't think most people fully understand—or I would say, maybe the Prime Minister doesn't fully understand—that when you're competing against a Chinese company, you are competing against the entire Chinese state. You, as your manufacturers, whether you're Toyota, General Motors or Ford, when you're competing against the Chinese, you are competing against the entire resources of a country with close to a billion people.

Would you say that is an accurate statement?

[Brian Kingston]

All you have to do is look at examples like steel, aluminum, solar panels—you name the sector. If the Chinese state decides that it wants to be a global, dominant player, they put all of the resources of the central government behind it. Then they use what is called “scale, dump, destroy”. They scale their industry domestically, dump excess product into markets that will take it, destroy that domestic industry and then you're totally dependent on China. We see it in sector after sector, and the government has just opened the door for this to occur in automotive.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Finally, we'll talk a bit about the second point you had, with respect to the environmental policies and emissions controls. I'm the shadow minister for intergovernmental affairs and interprovincial trade, so this is of particular importance to me.

Could you elaborate more on what the government could do to make it easier for your manufacturers with respect to environmental controls?

[Brian Kingston]

Right now, as companies manage all of these tariff costs, we have to do everything possible to lower the cost of doing business in this country. To give you an example from the environmental side, an auto manufacturer that builds and sells cars in Canada currently has to comply with an EV mandate in Quebec, an EV mandate in British Columbia, a federal EV mandate—its repeal has been announced, but it remains in force—and federal emissions standards on top of that.

The cost of compliance in this country is enormous, and it makes it very difficult to be competitive.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston.

I'll leave it there, with a few words to my friends across the aisle.

It cannot be overstated how important auto manufacturing is to Canada and our communities. It provides so many quality jobs. It pays for minor league hockey. It pays for our communities. We need to make sure that our auto manufacturers have access to the U.S. market. That simply has to get done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

We'll continue now with Mr. Leitão for five minutes.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Perhaps we can start with you, Mr. Kingston, along the same lines.

I'll remind everyone that we didn't start this. The United States imposed tariffs, unilaterally and unjustifiably, on Canadian auto exports and an industry that is highly integrated.

My question for you is more to get your opinion.

What are your folks in the United States saying about this? What kinds of conversations are GM, Ford and Stellantis having with the U.S. administration? Let's be clear. The U.S. President has said several times that he doesn't need Canadian cars. He's going to make them all in the U.S. How is your industry dealing with this?

[Brian Kingston]

I was in Washington last month. Manufacturers are constantly trying to find a way to get the administration to see how damaging this policy is. To give you an example of the severity of it, it is now more cost-effective to build a car in Japan or Germany, export it into the U.S. market and pay the 25% tariff. You will still have more margin in that vehicle than if you build it in the States, because not only do you have to comply with the costs of bringing in a vehicle from outside, but you have tariffs on aluminum, you have tariffs on steel and you have tariffs throughout the supply chain.

They are making the case to the administration. I cited that $188-billion U.S. tariff cost. That is on U.S. auto manufacturers. This is not sustainable. It is not making American manufacturers more competitive globally.

Unfortunately, there seems to be significant consistency in the White House on this tariff policy. They are making progress. The posted 25% rate is not the effective tariff that companies are paying, but we clearly still have work to do.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I would just add that, in fact, we are at the table. We want to talk, but if the other side is not there, then we're talking to the wind.

Mr. Williams, just this morning, we were having conversations with the folks in the heavy truck industry. They were saying there's a blockade on Canadian exports to the U.S. Since November, and especially since mid-April, more recently, it's been almost impossible to sell anything into the U.S., yet we import a lot of heavy trucks from the U.S.

How are your industry, your group and your dealers managing this?

[Huw Williams]

You make very good points.

First of all, on the trade issue, one thing you have to know is that the Government of Canada isn't alone in this fight. All the industry associations involved in the auto sector are spending a great deal of time in Washington, D.C., pointing out that we're their largest customers. Canadian auto dealers and, by extension, Canadian consumers are the largest purchasers of American-made vehicles. That's bigger than the next three countries—China, Mexico and Germany—combined.

We've made this point state by state—for example, to congressional leaders in Indiana. Instead of a Subaru being built in Indiana and going over the Canadian border, spec'd for the North American market, Japan is now sending those same Subarus to Calgary. How does that help Indiana? How does that help this integrated supply chain? I can tell you that behind the scenes, I hear very good things from both sides of the aisle in Congress. It's breaking into the public that's a problem.

The second thing we did was work very hard with the National Automobile Dealers Association in the States. During the first Trump administration, they ran a campaign with us on auto tariffs being bad for the car business, bad for consumers and bad for the economies on both sides of the border. They're now engaged with several other associations in delivering an anti-tariff message to the White House, so there are glimmers of hope down there.

On the truck and trade issue, all the truck manufacturers are united over the lack of compliance I spoke about in my remarks. Those compliance certificates that can't be issued anymore for the 2027 model year should be removed so we can get trucks flowing from the U.S. Ninety-five per cent of the heavy trucks that are sold in Canada are U.S.-made. It is a challenge, for sure.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

Time is flying. Perhaps I can go to Dr. Tooze.

You mentioned made-in-Canada guidelines. Could you add, in the few seconds we have left...?

We don't have any seconds left. I'm sorry. I asked a question, but....

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

She's bringing down the hammer.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I'll follow up on the made-in-Canada guidelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Leitão.

To finish this meeting, I give the floor to Mr. Garon for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll continue with you, Ms. Tooze.

We heard from the Canadian Bankers Association today. Some of its members invest heavily in oil to the point of being overexposed, lend to the oil sector and engage in greenwashing. In the last budget implementation act, the government amended the anti-greenwashing law so these companies could, to some extent, mislead the public more easily.

What do you think about the banking sector's exposure to climate risks, and how do you think it should be regulated?

[Helen Tooze]

The banking sector is quite well regulated when it comes to mandatory disclosures because of OSFI, from that perspective.

The anti-greenwashing bill hoped to help with ensuring that they wouldn't greenwash. Their exposure to the oil and gas industry is a known problem. They do need to diversify. This is where greater transparency would help investors and the market know which banks are heavily invested in oil and gas. With the possibility of stranded assets, movement elsewhere would be helpful. You get that push and pull. If they're transparent, investors and people who go to them would realize that they are over-invested and, perhaps, go to a bank that isn't in that way.