Industry and Technology Committee on March 12th, 2026

[David Shipley]

They're not just going to hack their own stuff. If they really want to go at it and to spy on members of this committee, the odds are that if you're driving a vehicle made in the last five years, you're connected to the Internet, so they're going to listen in to it. There are three identified companies out of Israel that are making what they're calling “car-in-tools” to spy.

Obviously, if they have direct access through influence over the manufacturers, they can build in back doors if they want. The same can happen with American-manufactured vehicles and other things. Our list of what's hostile to Canada has changed dramatically in the last couple of years, so I think it's a good idea to secure all of them, because we wouldn't then have to worry about any one manufacturer alone. We would have the assurance that we have the right standards. That's where I think the simple solution of mandating a kill switch.... Every Canadian should have the right to take these off the Internet.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Something that we've heard, though, in our AI study, is that a kill switch can be overridden by AI technologies today. The kill switch is perhaps a good opportunity, but it's not a fail-safe any longer. Unfortunately, just in the last couple of weeks, these AI advancements have shown that kill switches can be overridden by the very algorithm that powers the device. It is a challenge. I appreciate the idea, but I don't think that's necessarily the only solution.

I appreciate that, of course, we need to safeguard ourselves against all of the technology in our lives, from whatever country it's from, but I do believe there is a difference between our driving an American-made vehicle versus a Chinese-made electric vehicle. Would you not agree there's a greater degree of risk if the vehicle comes from China?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Please answer in about 15 seconds. Thank you.

[David Shipley]

Just to be clear, the type of kill switch I'm talking about is a hardware one. You pull the fuse. You can't hack that. It's powered down. If we make them do it, we can power it down.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

No, that very scenario was overridden by AI algorithms, just recently, just to be clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Unfortunately, we're going have to continue.

Mr. Shipley, you're always welcome to provide additional information to the committee, should you wish.

Mr. Bardeesy, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the birthday wishes.

Thank you to Victoria Morton and Kristina Kisin on my team who fed us all.

I am turning 50. As I mentioned, I came into this world just as stronger tailpipe emissions standards came into the world. As a result of that work, for instance, we don't have leaded gasoline, which was around when I came into the world. I want to start there.

Mr. Allan, you referred to the importance of tailpipe emissions standards and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Could you explain briefly what has been happening in the United States in the last few weeks and months around this issue? What do you think Canada should be doing in relation to the Trump administration's decisions around greenhouse gas emissions standards?

[Travis Allan]

There have been comprehensive moves by the current U.S. administration to roll back effectively all policies that were promoting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. That includes blocking state-based ZEV mandates. It also includes, basically, pulling back from greenhouse gas regulations of light-duty vehicles.

Canada found itself in a very challenging situation—one of many, I would say—over the last year, where it needed to decide whether it wanted to follow that particular anchor right down to the bottom of the ocean or whether it wanted to set its own course and determine to create greenhouse gas regulatory standards for Canada. That's exactly what the government did as part of the auto strategy.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That course is also one where California is attempting to pursue the same approach, having led this for most of the 20th and early 21st centuries, along with many European nations.

You referred to the charging investment programs that have been made available through our new auto strategy, which incidentally also includes those tough greenhouse gas emissions standards that, as you referred to, need to be implemented. You also said that this doesn't include private charging investment.

What proportion of private charging investment do you think could accompany public charging dollars? What kinds of ratios are we talking about?

[Travis Allan]

If you look at charging data, you'll find that most Canadians charge at home between 70% and 90% of the time. That means the bulk of charging, if you have a detached house, is home charging. That typically will be a station that can be anywhere from zero dollars to $1,000, and then installation can be from $1,000 to $3,000, depending on your house. We're also talking about billions of dollars of private investment for fleets, schools and workplaces.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Households would offset these costs, whether they can finance them or not, just by the lower servicing costs of running the vehicle, because that electricity plus the charging infrastructure will, over time, be less expensive than gasoline, in general. Is that correct?

[Travis Allan]

That's correct.

As Ms. Doran mentioned, a recent analysis shows savings of $2,000 or higher per year for a typical Canadian family, which pays itself off quickly.

I'd also note you don't have the same exposure to price volatility, and I think a lot of Canadians are feeling that right now.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That's an excellent point. Thank you.

There is another perhaps distinct aspect of charging infrastructure. Mr. Leury, you could jump in on this.

You alluded in your testimony to specific and very different needs in low-density and high-density areas of the country. Can you elaborate on that? What different needs are required? What different kinds of interventions are required from government and public bodies to serve both low-density and high-density?

[Raymond Leury]

It's a complicated picture. Obviously, we have the infrastructure we need, for now, for travelling distances. The problem is that we need a lot more for the future, when more cars are going to be on the roads.

From my perspective, the biggest problem we have now is charging in multi-unit residential buildings, MURBs. We at EVCO have worked with about 20 condo buildings to try to figure out a way to get charging in those buildings. It's very difficult to get the first charging stations going, because there's significant investment required in infrastructure that will eventually support every parking space in that facility.

There were some programs in the past. If the government were to have future programs to help with that, it would be extremely helpful.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

I know it's a concern of many urban MPs of different parties that we extend this kind of infrastructure, and how it's financed is an important question. Obviously, our program is going to support a bit with that.

I want to turn now to you, Mr. Shipley. Thank you for your testimony. It's a set of considerations that hasn't yet come to this committee in our previous auto study or in this one. I want to share my appreciation for that. I would—and I think our committee might—appreciate a brief on some of the points you raised.

This government recently brought forward Bill C-8, a cybersecurity piece of legislation. I wanted to ask whether there are specific things in that bill that could assist with these issues. Or do you believe that it's more a question of consumer policy and competition policy for some of the measures that you think are required?

[David Shipley]

Bill C-8 is going to deal with federally regulated industries with respect to banking, telecommunications, energy transmission and federally regulated transportation. Typically, in that transportation context, we've been talking about railways, airports, etc.

The kinds of connected car safety regulation that we need are not addressed within that framework. It's a massive hole legislatively that we have not addressed, not just for us, but in the United States and other places. It's increasingly putting people at significant risk. We focus a lot around the spying side, which is often the occurrence—

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Shipley. I'm running out of time, and I want to put a point on that.

Do you believe that this is an area where the Competition Bureau, for instance, should be more engaged?

[David Shipley]

I think yes, and I think we need that in the consumer bill of rights, so that when people buy a new car, they know for how long it is going to get security updates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the three witnesses, whose remarks are very informative. Once again, we have a very interesting panel of witnesses, and I want to thank them.

My questions will be for Mr. Allan, but first I want to wish a happy birthday to our dear colleague, Mr. Bardeesy. I also want to thank Mr. Shipley for the points he made about safety. That is very worrisome and I think that we as committee members are going to have to take a serious look at this to make sure that the government is doing everything in its power to protect all Canadians.

Mr. Allan, thank you for your presentation. You made two recommendations, one of which relates to predictability. I'll start with the second point, which is about the refinancing or recapitalization of the fund. We're talking about the zero emission vehicle infrastructure program, a program that worked well, to my knowledge. The funding is decreasing significantly and the program could come to an end. So you're asking for it to be replenished, recapitalized.

If I'm not mistaken, the government has just tabled its electric vehicle strategy. Did you expect the program to be recapitalized at that time? Is there still hope, in your opinion?

[Travis Allan]

I'm an optimist, so I'm always hopeful. I think there are certain things that the Canada Infrastructure Bank can do to really make a difference.

For example, there are charging stations in places where the private sector really wants to invest. The problem is in the underserved areas, as well as in multi-unit residential buildings. In those cases, it's better to use the program, and I hope the government will consider recapitalizing it to solve that problem.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you.

I think I understand. The government hasn't refinanced the infrastructure program, but it has put money into zero emission infrastructure through the Infrastructure Bank, which was announced in the strategy. These are loans, however, whereas the program you are asking to be refinanced absorbed part of the costs.

What you just said can be seen in just about every sphere of the economy, from the deployment of electricity for several decades to the cell network and the Internet.

In urban areas where there is a market today, the private sector will be there and the Canada Infrastructure Bank can play its role. In less densely populated areas though, the private sector will not turn to the bank. Those areas won't be covered and we'll have a less efficient network across the country. Is that correct?

[Travis Allan]

I think so.

Both programs actually have an element of repayability. They are very well designed to protect taxpayers. The Canada Infrastructure Bank facility is designed to catalyze private investment through loans that are historically repayable based on utilization, which really solves a problem that many investors have because they're taking what we call utilization risk.

The ZEVIP actually also has elements of recoverable financing as well, depending on the performance of the stations. However, I think you really got to the right point there, which is that in order to use the Canada Infrastructure Bank funding, most borrowers have tended to really concentrate in areas where they know they're going to have large numbers of EV drivers. We're talking suburban areas around big cities in Quebec, B.C. and, increasingly, Ontario. We need to cover the rest of Canada as well.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you. I'd like you to explain to us why it's important to cover less densely populated areas if we want to adopt electric vehicles.

[Travis Allan]

There are two reasons. The first reason is one of connectivity and networks. What we know about consumers is that they will not adopt technologies if they see massive inconvenience at scale. We want to make sure that we have a really solid network for folks who are going to recreational properties or to places of work. We want to have full connectivity.

The other reason is political acceptance. We know that we need to bring all Canadians along. We cannot have a perception where only wealthy people in suburbs around major cities get to save $2,000 a year, and lower-income people or people in rural Canada cannot. I think it's really a twofold issue.