Industry and Technology Committee on March 12th, 2026

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

I'm going to follow up with you, Mr. Reuss, about a comment you made earlier on Chinese EVs when they're entering other markets. You've sort of indicated with your tone and your language that what happened to those countries was not a good situation in some ways. I'm sure you're aware that Volkswagen, a German company, has had to pause production of one of its German EV plants amid weaker demand, while at the same time Chinese automakers have been gaining a share in Europe. BYD's EU sales in particular rose sharply by nearly 250% in the first eight months of 2025 compared to the same period of 2024.

Again, we're seeing a German EV maker—a long-time auto manufacturer—power down in some ways, while Chinese EV imports in Europe are powering up. Can you just elaborate on some of the experience that you're aware of?

[Tim Reuss]

On the business practices that I was referring to, let me give you one concrete example. We made sure that the manufacturers understood that if they have a dealer network in Canada, certainly what we would want is that each contract is going to look exactly the same, whether a dealer sells 100 vehicles or 1,000 vehicles. That was news to them.

In other countries, they've instituted contracts that are dependent on the dealer size. No, that's not business practice in Canada. The contracts have to be exactly the same. Yes, the name of the owner and the location of the dealership might be different, but the contractual conditions have to be exactly the same for everybody. We have NADAP, which is our national automobile dealer arbitration program in Canada. It is used by dealers and manufacturers to resolve things if they have disputes—not necessarily going the legal route each time. Brands and dealers have the right, and we strongly support them, to build dealer councils, which means a group of dealers will negotiate things on behalf of dealers with a manufacturer.

It's things of that nature that might not have been common for them in other countries—not necessarily Europe, but more South America and in certain Asian countries in the Asia-Pacific. We've had good conversations externalized on what it means to do business in Canada and so far we're being listened to.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Ma, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes, please.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you to the panel for being here.

Mr. Reuss, representing the dealers, you mentioned earlier that you would want the new EV manufacturer or shipments coming into Canada through dealers like the people you represent. What are your thoughts on the current one that doesn't use dealers and sells directly? How should we address that?

[Tim Reuss]

There are a certain number of manufacturers, specifically Tesla, Lucid and Rivian, that don't use dealers. They have what's called a direct-to-consumer model. Even though you might see, let's say, a dealership or a store that's owned by their corporate entity, any and all profits go straight up to corporate headquarters. There is no involvement with a local community.

As you all know, in your local communities, you might be buying from Jane or John Doe, who happens to have a franchise by X or Y brand in your location. That owner is anchored in their local community. You will, a lot of times, find their names on local schools, hospital wings, hockey rinks, etc. Why? It's because they're tied into the community. This is what our members do. There are 3,400 across Canada in small towns and rural towns. This is why—and it's been proven—it's the best and most efficient way to go into markets. Interestingly enough, the Chinese manufacturers who are thinking of coming to Canada also realized that this is the fastest and most efficient way to get into the marketplace.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

An extension to that question is this: With electric vehicles, maintenance demands certainly go down significantly. What is the industry working on to remediate that and move forward with that?

[Tim Reuss]

One myth is that our members don't like EVs because they don't produce as much on the back end—on the service side. That is patently untrue. Coming back to the early example from Norway that Daniel was mentioning, we had one of the largest Norwegian dealers come to Canada two years ago and explain to our members what it's like to live in an EV normality, where a majority of the market has gone to EVs. Guess what? There are other revenue sources they might not be thinking of. One example is tires. EVs eat tires. They're a lot heavier. They have a higher torque.

There are other revenue sources and other things EVs require that an internal combustion engine does not require. Therefore, the other piece is this: Since these are highly complex vehicles, in the beginning, not everybody will be trained to properly service them, so more of those vehicles will come to them instead of going to other, let's say, after-market workshops that are not dealership-owned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Witnesses, I very much appreciate your testimony here.

Colleagues, just before we break, I want to draw your attention to a very important milestone birthday for Mr. Bardeesy. I don't want to give it away, but it starts with a five and ends with an even number that's on the lower side of the decade. I wish a happy birthday to Mr. Bardeesy. His staff has been so kind as to provide some cupcakes in celebration of that. I'm told to let people celebrate.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

One member who's a little older said, yesterday, that he remembers 50 fondly and that Mr. Bardeesy should embrace this stage of his life.

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

It's been 50 years of clean vehicle emissions standards and 50 years of cupcakes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you to the witnesses. We appreciate it.

Colleagues, we're going to suspend for five minutes. We'll turn it over to our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we'll get going with the second hour of our panel of witnesses.

Joining us virtually today is David Shipley, chief executive officer and co-founder of Beauceron Security.

From the Canadian Charging Infrastructure Council, we have Travis Allan, president and chief executive officer. From the Electric Vehicle Council of Ottawa, we have Raymond Leury, president.

Welcome to all. You each have up to five minutes for your introductory remarks. Following that, we will go to the same line of questioning we had in the previous panel.

Mr. Shipley, I will turn the floor over to you.

[David Shipley, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, Beauceron Security]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

When we talk about electric vehicles and cybersecurity, we need to start with a simple truth: The issue here isn't the power plant; it's the connectivity. Whether a vehicle runs on gasoline, diesel or electricity, modern cars are increasingly computers on wheels connected to the Internet. If a vulnerability in a smart phone crashes an app, it's inconvenient. If a vulnerability connected to a car is exploited, it can be deadly.

We have already seen what happens when those computers on wheels are insecure. In 2015 security researchers remotely hacked a Jeep Cherokee while a journalist from Wired was driving it on a Missouri highway. They cut the transmission, leaving the vehicle unable to accelerate while travelling at highway speed. In further testing, they demonstrated the ability to control the steering and disable the brakes. That vulnerability forced the recall of 1.4 million vehicles.

Little has improved since then. Recently, a cyber-attack hit a Russian company that provides Internet-connected vehicle alarm systems used across multiple car brands. The attack knocked the company's infrastructure off-line. Thousands of drivers suddenly could not unlock their cars, start their engines or disable their alarms. Some even reported engines shutting down unexpectedly while driving.

The threat to connected vehicles is not hypothetical. It is not in the past. It is a clear and present danger.

Connected vehicles also collect enormous amounts of sensitive information. They capture precise location data, telemetry about how we drive, and often audio and video recordings from inside and outside the vehicle. A connected car is no longer just transportation; it is also a rolling surveillance platform. China banned Tesla vehicles from its military bases and sensitive political gatherings for good reason.

In the wrong hands, a vulnerable connected car can also be a weapon. That creates real risks—risks from nation-states seeking intelligence; risks from cybercriminals stealing vehicles or exploiting owners; and, increasingly, risks from intimate partner violence, where connected vehicle apps can be used to track victims. Some countries have begun to recognize this risk. Poland, for example, is considering restrictions on Chinese-made connected vehicles entering military bases because of espionage concerns. Those concerns are legitimate. China's national security laws can compel companies to co-operate with intelligence services.

But we should also be honest about history. The Snowden disclosures showed that western governments have also pressured companies to compromise technology in the interests of those states. China did not invent that playbook; they studied it. Governments are not the only concern. Investigations have shown employees at major automakers sharing sensitive images recorded by vehicle cameras. Regulators have also taken action against manufacturers accused of collecting and selling drivers' location and behavioural data.

To be clear, this is a privacy issue. It's also a consumer protection issue. Increasingly, it's also a public safety and national security issue. Connected vehicles are also a risk in Canada's auto theft crisis. Vehicles that rely on wireless connectivity and poorly secured communications become easier for criminals to locate, unlock and steal. The risk doesn't stop with manufacturers. Aftermarket entertainment systems, telematics devices and security systems introduce vulnerabilities as well.

The reality is that we're not going back to a simpler time, one where we don't have Internet-connected features, but there is a way for us to do this in a much safer way. I would like to make four recommendations.

First, every Internet-connected vehicle sold in Canada should include a physical connectivity kill switch, not software, but physical, a clearly identified fuse or hardware switch that allows the owner to disable the vehicle's Internet connection. If a widespread vulnerability emerges, and one day it will, Canadians should be able to disconnect their vehicles immediately.

Second, Canadians deserve a “connected car bill of rights”. Drivers should know how long manufacturers must provide critical security updates. If you paid for the car, you should control the data. Drivers' data should not be sold or shared without meaningful consent. That consent should not be coerced by threatening to disable features in a vehicle someone already owns.

Third, Canadians deserve a strong right to repair. If a manufacturer abandons software support for a vehicle, owners and qualified technicians must be able to maintain and secure those systems themselves. Cars last decades. Connectivity should not expire after a few years.

Finally, security must become a baseline regulatory requirement for connected vehicles sold in Canada, security by design with independent testing and responsible disclosure. We would never allow a car on Canadian roads with known defective brakes. We should not allow cars on Canadian roads with known defective cybersecurity. The Jeep hack was a warning shot. The Russian cyber-attack disrupting connected vehicles shows what happens when those kinds of warnings are ignored.

My question for the committee is easy. Will Canada act now or wait for the first cyber-attack that shuts down cars on Canadian roads?

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Allan, we'll turn the floor over to you for up to five minutes.

[Travis Allan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Charging Infrastructure Council]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Travis Allan. I'm the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Charging Infrastructure Council. We represent Canada's EV charging industry.

I'd like to start with my top message. We see Canada's new automotive strategy—which has a thoughtful blend of incentives, greenhouse gas regulation and capped allowances of new globally leading EVs allowed into Canada—as a national job strategy. The charging sector is ready to deliver on its part.

To realize the value of this strategy and to deliver on our national EV targets, I would suggest that the committee focus on two key areas. First is the need to implement clear, credible greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. Second is calling for the recapitalization of the highly successful zero-emissions vehicle infrastructure program, ZEVIP, which is run by NRCan, beyond 2027.

While many have identified the important local job benefits to southern Ontario from our automotive policy, I want to note that this is actually a Canadian issue. We see this as a broader Canadian job generator because when we look at our members and survey them, they tell us that between 50% and 65% of every dollar spent on installing EV charging stations across Canada goes to local civil and electrical trades—which means great jobs—as well as to utilities.

We estimate that a typical ultra-fast charging station is around $125,000 per port to deploy in Canada.

We've conducted preliminary analysis on the release of the Canadian automotive strategy and specifically on the targets of 75% ZEV sales by 2035 and 90% by 2040. Our preliminary modelling suggests that this could lead to over $4 billion of public fast-charging investment alone in Canada, to say nothing of the private charging investments.

The key issue here is that these regulations need to be credible and sufficient to meet Canada's objectives. In that case, we know the charging industry can deliver. Paren recently reported that, despite uncertainty, Canada's charging industry added 1,925 new fast-charging ports in 2025, which is a 28% increase year over year, reaching 8,804 total ports.

Analysis from the CCIC indicates that Canada's public fast-charging deployment growth has risen 25% year over year in each year since 2020. That is despite several headwinds we're all familiar with over that period.

The big question that our members face is this: Can we predict how many people will be driving EVs over the next decade? A typical ultra-fast charging site can cost upwards of $500,000—even a million dollars—because it usually involves multiple ports. Charging companies are accountable to sophisticated capital providers. These include lenders and investors who need to see an economic return. That's why they closely analyze projected traffic and numbers of EV adoption over the eight-year to 12-year period that they are typically looking at in order to deploy charging stations.

This cycle means that regulatory certainty today can help deliver billions of dollars of infrastructure investment for tomorrow. If we don't have credible standards, if we don't have standards that allow us to do this modelling, that can severely interfere with the ability to leverage that private capital to deploy.

The other really important issue is making sure that all Canadians get to take advantage of the cost and use benefits of electric vehicles. That means looking at areas that have low charge reports deployed per capita—which we call underserved—and looking at areas of multi-unit residential buildings like condos, strata and apartments.

While the CIB's program, which will get $1.5 billion, will play a key role in areas where we know we're going to have a lot of EVs, the ZEVIP, which is run by NRCan, plays a very important role for these other regions. It is specifically designed and has been very successful at deploying in low-density areas and also in multi-unit residential buildings. It's a real focus for our industry to get that redeployed beyond the 2027 funding cycle.

I will pause there, but I look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Allan.

Mr. Leury, the floor is yours.

[Raymond Leury, President, Electric Vehicle Council of Ottawa]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.

EVCO is a volunteer-led, non-profit organization that was founded almost 50 years ago. EVCO is not affiliated with the industry, so we're truly an independent voice that brings a pragmatic view based on science and economics. I'm here to represent the voice of ordinary Canadians and EV owners across the country.

The electrification of transportation and, indeed, much of the rest of the economy is inevitable for economic reasons. It's simply cheaper to run on electricity. It's an economic argument. Either Canada leads on electrification or we are led. Being led means that the Canadian auto industry will continue to shrink and become irrelevant, with many lost jobs. We are already seeing an auto industry wherein vehicle assembly has declined from $2 million in 1997 to $1.3 million in 2024. The U.S. administration—as mentioned before—is worsening the problem by actively trying to shift jobs to the U.S.

Leading, however, would mean expanding an auto industry and providing good jobs for hard-working Canadians. It also means other opportunities in adjacent industries, as illustrated by electric aircraft for Harbour Air in B.C. and other projects across the country. The U.S. has decided they will be followers. That gives us a unique opportunity to be leaders here in North America.

Transitions are hard, and incumbents resist change. Kodak invented digital photography, but they still went bankrupt. In my IT career, I've lived through a number of different transitions, all of which were challenging. I know how difficult and gut-wrenching it can be to face a transition with an uncertain future and my job at risk. We can't forget to support the workers and the communities that will be inevitably affected.

There are many examples of the auto industry telling us that policy will damage or destroy the industry. Seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters and many other technologies faced significant resistance. The role of policy is to create predictability and a level playing field that allows adoption to proceed and society to benefit.

The EVAP will help stimulate demand and improve affordability. There are clear signs that manufacturers have responded by reducing prices and increasing incentives to allow their vehicles to fit under the $50,000 maximum price. The corresponding tailpipe emissions regulations are crucial to getting the supply we need to meet that demand.

OEMs are shipping EVs where they are compelled to ship them. Here in Canada, that means B.C. and Quebec, the only two provinces with EV sales targets. Until very recently, it was impossible for an Ontario resident to buy Toyota's only EV, the bZ4X. Toyota would only ship to B.C. or Quebec. Another example is Ford. The last consumer EV that Ford introduced—a full five years ago—is now the discontinued F-150 Lightning. Ford currently has only the Mustang Mach-E on offer. How can they seriously claim that they're having difficulty meeting ambitious targets when they don't have product to meet a target?

Meanwhile, in Europe, in addition to the Mach-E, Ford has the Puma Gen-E, the Capri and the Explorer. They're able to meet European targets. Cadillac's Canadian sales in Q4 2025 were 50% electric. Yes, one in every two cars sold by Cadillac in Canada in Q4 2025 was electric. Speaking of GM, they have 10 different EV models on offer in North America. Ford has one. This supply problem is why we need a strong EV policy. We need manufacturers to bring product to Canada.

Canada has many opportunities tied to electrification. Heavy-duty vehicles are emerging and now account for over 50% of sales in China. PACCAR, the manufacturer near Montreal, already offers class 8 electric trucks in Europe. They could sell them here. I already mentioned that battery improvements for electric aircraft mean that electric short- and medium-haul flights will be feasible in the near future. Canada has an extensive aerospace sector that could seize the opportunity. The sourcing and processing of materials needed for batteries, as well as the manufacturing of batteries and battery packs, are other areas where Canada could and already does leverage strengths.

Canada should be bold and look to the future to seize the moment so that we can all benefit from electrification.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

We will begin our first line of questioning.

Colleagues, I'll let you know right off the bat—given that we have 30 minutes tacked onto the end of this meeting for other business—that it's quite unlikely that we'll have those final two spots. We will play it by ear.

Madam Dancho, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

My questions are for Mr. Shipley.

You're the CEO and co-founder of a cybersecurity software firm out of New Brunswick. In your opening remarks, you outlined a number of national security and public safety concerns over Chinese electric vehicles entering the Canadian market. I'd like to expand on your opening remarks with my line of questioning.

On the national security side, the Liberal government is allowing Chinese EVs to gain a foothold in the Canadian market, with 49,000 under the reduced tariffs structure annually. It begins this year and will rise to 70,000 annually by 2030. You alluded to China's national security law allowing the government in Beijing to access data from Chinese-owned companies, including electric vehicle companies there, for example. In the past, you have made public comments relating this to the same rationale as Canada banning Huawei and to our 5G capabilities. I would also mention TikTok on government devices.

Can you elaborate on how that same logic would apply to Chinese electric vehicles entering the Canadian market?

[David Shipley]

It comes down to willingness and intent. If you have a country whose interests can, at times, be hostile to ours and they have the capability, it's a question of whether they want to or not.

The one thing I would say that should be more concerning is that it's not just their own manufacturers that they can compromise. The Chinese nation-state hackers have been running amok through telecommunication networks in Canada, the United States and the western hemisphere, as far as espionage goes. They can be everywhere.

The bigger point I was trying to emphasize as well is that if we don't secure other vehicle manufacturers, they're going to hack them too. It's not an issue that's just exclusive to the Chinese brands, and it's not even an issue exclusive to nation-states themselves. There are the corporate interests that may or may not align with Canada's national interests.

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

We have issues from Iran, Russia and North Korea and other actors. It's not solely from Chinese bad actors located in China that we receive those threats, but, in particular, there are threats from their auto data, as you outlined, whether it's audio, video or precise location according to GPS. A good example you mentioned is the fact that the Chinese government itself has banned Tesla from its defence and sensitive meetings for this exact rationale.

Are you concerned, for example, that we are bringing in Chinese EVs that the defence minister may be driving, or the CSIS director or others? Would that be a concern for Canada?

[David Shipley]

I would follow Israel's example on this. They recently stopped deploying Chinese-made vehicles for senior military officers for these concerns. Poland, as I noted, is considering bans on Chinese vehicles too.

This is the great game: every country plays it. Everyone spies on everyone else. If you have the capability, why wouldn't you? We have to be concerned about it, but I think we need to be concerned about manufacturers from every jurisdiction around the world, and we lack the capacity to give Canadians the assurance that we know what's going on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

I think the issue, in particular, though, is that China is an adversarial nation. If we compare it with European auto markets, that is, with European cars in Canada, and also American ones, those countries are not our adversaries in the same way as China is, which is using its soft power by exporting Chinese EVs to foreign markets. With a little foothold, they blow open the door in those markets and those markets are then flooded with those EVs in a very short order.

I'm concerned that, let's say in 10 years, we'll have millions of Chinese EVs. You've outlined this, that they have the power to shut down or remotely lock these vehicles, let alone pull all of the data back to the headquarter facility—perhaps in China, for this example I'm using. You're aware, I'm sure, that in Norway, they proved that Chinese EV buses driven far underground in Norwegian mines could be remotely shut off by the Chinese company that made the buses.

Again, we're talking about worst-case scenarios, but the country has to be smart when we're talking about bringing in, basically, rolling computers that Canadians live their lives in, and which Chinese automakers will be flooding the streets with in the next number of years and decades.

Could you comment on that?