TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Private Members' Business

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

2026-06-11 Sitting 134 Showing 1–8 of 8

A bill to make a national plan for products to last longer and be repairable. Most MPs spent time discussing barriers to repair and improvement of product lifespan, with some tangents about other economic difficulties.

Official Hansard ↗

Dan Albas

Conservative 5:30 p.m.

“This bill is trying to push manufacturers to make more durable products. That might sound nice, but it will actually make them more expensive. I think it's bad to force higher prices on consumers and meddle with foreign manufacturers. I'm against this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is also a pleasure to be speaking today about Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. In a former Parliament, I served as the critic for the environment for the Conservatives. One of the big criticisms I had of Liberal policies was about the Liberals' promise, in one of their platform pledges, that they would make all home appliances Energy Star. One might think that Energy Star sounds like a very good thing. If everyone had Energy Star appliances in their homes, they would have access to the lowest electrical usage machines available in Canada or in North America for laundry, dishwashing and all things. However, many people do not know that, first of all, Energy Star is an American designation that essentially says that to be Energy Star, a product has to be among the top 25% most energy-conserving products out there. Someone might ask what is wrong with that. The first thing it does is it raises prices, because energy-reducing technology costs more. It usually uses advanced technology and chips, which also costs more. Essentially, if a person is a private citizen of low income, like a pensioner, is someone who is starting out or is a single mother, and suddenly their dryer, washer or dishwasher blows out and they have to go to the local store, they would only get access to a quarter of the inventory out there, with the most expensive products only. This would push people into used ones, and perhaps that is not a bad thing, but only wealthy Canadians would probably be able to afford to buy new. Now fast-forward to this bill. I will quote the preamble: Whereas Canadian households bear significant costs when they have to replace electronic products and essential home appliances prematurely; Whereas consumers increasingly depend on electronic products and essential home appliances in their everyday lives; Whereas product durability and repairability help protect consumers, reduce household expenses and boost the competitiveness of a responsible economy; Whereas transparency about the useful life of products and the support available for them fosters a fairer and more competitive market; And whereas Parliament considers it desirable to establish a national framework for products marketed in Canada in order to promote minimum standards of durability and repairability; These are all noble things, and I am happy to see the Liberal Party, or at least one member, recognize that we should all be focused on affordability. This exactly opposite to their approach in previous iterations. The Trudeau government was trying to raise standards to make things more costly. Now this particular member is doing a U-turn. Where have we seen this before? It is in other environmental areas, such as the carbon tax. Many of the people who are currently sitting in the Liberal Party used to say that Conservatives should support a carbon tax, which would save Canada, lower our emissions, stop forest fires, and everything else. During the 2021 election, a minister of the Crown said to me that I had a “moral failing” for failing to support their increased emissions targets, which were going from 40% to 45%. Because I would not support that increased goal, they said I had a moral failure, yet now the same Liberal Party members of Parliament have done a U-turn, and so much so that even the former Quebec lieutenant has said that he does not feel that he can be effective in that caucus anymore and has simply said, “I'm out.” It is very interesting to see these changes, and I am sure that some members opposite would understand why some of us feel like we have political whiplash because of the quick changes. It is really important for us to point out a couple of things. First of all, this particular bill tries to push manufacturers on the aspect of durability. One thing we have to bear in mind is that none of these manufacturers are here in Canada. We are very integrated north-south. In the North American market, almost all of the manufacturers for washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are in the United States. Obviously, some come from places like Korea and whatnot, but the fact of the matter is that this particular bill is trying to push manufacturers to do things differently when they are not here in Canada. Therefore, there is, first of all, that disconnect in the approach that is taken. The second thing I would say is that the Liberals always seem to believe they have an outsized influence on these things. If a manufacturer is in the United States, who are they making their products for? They are not making Energy Star products specifically and marketing only them. They are selling to a wide variety of people. One of the biggest challenges here is that if we are asking to make things more durable, industry will say this makes them more expensive. How does that work? Well, if something is more durable, perhaps it requires more steel. If something is more durable, perhaps it uses less plastic. To make something more durable, perhaps it has to use a more expensive alternative refrigeration system. Again, these are important questions to be asking, because, essentially, asking for something to be more durable and wanting it to be cheaper are contradictory concepts. This is being placed in a far-removed conversation, because they are not Canadian manufacturers and the manufacturers do not consider Canada to be their primary target. In fact, we benefit here in Canada by having access to other markets because the economies of scale in places like the United States give us cheaper products. If we were to suddenly say to them that they have to do these things, when they are not our manufacturers and are not manufacturing things with the Canadian market in mind, that conversation would not go anywhere. This bill states this in the “National framework” component: The Minister must, in consultation with the representatives of the provincial governments responsible for consumer protection This is an interesting part, because provinces can, if they choose, set a level playing field when it comes to things like warranties. Warranties are consumer protections, so it makes sense that there would be some discussion here, but would a foreign manufacturer listen to Prince Edward Island? I do not know. I do not think that would be the case, because, while I respect the members who come from Prince Edward Island, it has a small population. It is one of those curious aspects of our Constitution, to wax eloquently about our Constitution for a moment, that at the founding of our country, we gave authority to deal with these large manufacturers to the provinces. The provinces can enforce basic standards of contract, which include things like warranties. However, the federal government would be expected here to create, through the Minister of Industry, a framework that would affect things all across the country and a group of companies that are not Canadian. I am opposed to this particular bill, but I do look forward to hearing the arguments of other members on it today.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois 5:30 p.m.

“I took a long time to say I want the government to force manufacturers to make more expensive products that last longer. I think people are too stupid to choose for themselves, so the government should decide for them. I'm voting yes on this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges of the fast pace of modern life is to avoid living in a bubble. It is important to understand what happens before consuming a product and what happens after. The lemon in my glass grew somewhere, and it will end up somewhere. In the case of my phone, people had to work in mines to extract the material needed to produce it, and it will eventually end up somewhere. Sometimes we forget that, but we must not forget it. We need to be aware of that, for the sake of the planet. Last weekend, I was in the Magdalen Islands. We were hauling lobster traps. For six hours, we were at sea off Havre-aux-Maisons, catching lobster after lobster. Later when I sat down to a lobster dinner, I knew where it came from and what it took to put it on the plate. I think that gave me a broader perspective on things. The image that I want to start my speech with is that of a mine. My riding is rich in resources. The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region is often referred to as a resource region. On Sunday morning, I visited Quebec's only salt mine, which is located in the Magdalen Islands. Last summer, I was in Murdochville, where I visited the copper mine. We cannot forget what a mine entails. Of course, we need minerals to function. We need them, but when mines are opened, it scars the environment. It creates a hole, and there will be tailings. It is a necessary evil, but even when done according to best practices, the fact remains that it has an impact on the environment. We need to keep that in mind when talking about an iPhone or a Samsung, or when talking about a washer or a dryer. We need to remember that mines were opened to provide us with the materials to make these products. The other image I want to illustrate is that of landfills. My colleagues may have already seen pictures. These days, landfills are enormous, with birds flying overhead and machinery piling up the waste. Every time we fill a landfill, we destroy habitats. No one would want to live there. Again, it is a necessary evil. Anyone living in a modern society has to consume goods. Yes, mines are necessary, and we have no choice but to have landfills. What we are saying today is that the time between the two needs to be as long as possible. Eventually, the mine in Murdochville will start up again. Between the moment a piece of copper comes out of it and ends up in my phone, and the moment I throw it in the landfill, that time needs to be as long as possible. If I can extend the lifespan of a product, that allows me to open fewer mines and fill fewer landfills. That is our challenge. It is about extending the lifespan of the goods we consume. Why is this important? In 2019, there were 53 million tonnes of electronic and household appliance waste. What does 53 million tonnes of electronic waste represent? It represents 350 Queen Mary 2 cruise ships. That is 53 million tonnes per year. Every year, 53 million tonnes of ore are mined. Mines have been opened for this purpose, and all of it will end up in landfills. That is a huge amount. Furthermore, waste from electronic devices and household appliances generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Globally, by 2030, these emissions will total 852 million metric tonnes. There is no denying that we live in a society that engages in economic activity. We need goods to generate growth and provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Nevertheless, we must be aware of the impact of our economic activity. According to a 2019 UN report, only 17% of all the electronic waste we produce is recycled at this point. That means we have a big problem and we need to do something about it. What we are seeing is that consumers need a little help. In a Canada-wide survey, Equiterre found that only 19% of respondents chose to have their household appliances repaired. The remaining 80% of respondents throw them out as soon as there is a problem. As for electronic devices, only 26% of respondents get them repaired. That is still not enough. Consumers have a role to play in this. We need to make sure that we develop the instinct to keep things that are old. However, businesses also have a role to play. My colleague gave a speech earlier that focused mainly on a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Personally, I do not subscribe to that school of thought at all. In Quebec, we passed the Consumer Protection Act, which was a major innovation in the 1970s under the René Lévesque government. It is working. As a consumer, we can take action against a company when it fails to provide a product covered by a warranty of proper functioning and quality. It is therefore possible to act and we must do so. We cannot just wait for companies to regulate themselves. Of course, businesses want to make products at the lowest cost. The point of obsolescence is to generate economic growth. A company that manufactures a dryer that lasts seven years instead of 25 would likely sell many more over the life of a single consumer, so there is a clear economic benefit there. This is where the government must step in. I want to return to the image I have created for my colleagues: that of mines being opened and landfills being filled. The government must act as an arbiter to guide businesses. Currently, repairing an item like a vacuum cleaner or a dryer often costs more than buying a new one. Then there are cases where items simply cannot be repaired, which is even more frustrating. This tactic on the part of a business is understandable in a capitalist society, but the government must step in to ensure that as few mines as possible are opened and as few landfills as possible are filled. We must act to protect the environment, because we sometimes seem to forget that not all of the planet's resources are renewable. At some point, there will be no more minerals, and that point must be delayed as long as possible. Indigenous people often remind us of the need to think of the next seven generations. That is the very least we can do. We must therefore find a way to use our resources. We must also respect consumers. When someone buys a product that constantly breaks, even if the initial price is lower, they are not better off if they have to replace it every five or six years. That is what we are talking about today: finding a way to protect the planet, respect consumers and support repair shops. Back home in Saint-Siméon de Bonaventure, there is a little shoe repair shop called Le Petit Cordonnier, run by Guillaume Poirier, whom I really like. Whenever I have old leather shoes that are a bit worn out, I take them to him. He also patches up my Blundstones. He has even repaired a sail for my sailboat and re-upholstered the seat on my motorcycle. There is a real cost-saving aspect to all of this. However, we must encourage companies to act more responsibly and ensure that our products last as long as possible. In 2023, Quebec demonstrated strong leadership by passing a law that amended the Consumer Protection Act, which, among other things, strengthened the legal warranty of proper functioning and ensured the availability of replacement parts. Bill C-267 is interesting. It would give the Minister of Industry the mandate to develop a plan to establish a framework with the provinces to promote product sustainability, foster transparency, and better inform the public. This is nothing revolutionary, but it is a step in the right direction. As long as this is done in a way that respects Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. That is why we will vote in favour of the bill at this stage so that it can be studied in committee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Chris Malette

Liberal 5:50 p.m.

“I want this bill to pass so our government can claim it's helping consumers fix their own stuff. We'll make manufacturers give people more options to repair things. That's popular, so it makes the government look good. I went on a lot to say this bill proves we care about the environment too. I really want Canadians to think our government is doing a lot for them.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the first hour of debate on this bill. Bill C-267 aligns with our government priority to remove barriers for Canadians to repair their products and devices. It would give Canadians the flexibility to choose the best options for maintaining and repairing the devices and equipment they own in a competitive marketplace. The right to repair is about ensuring that consumers have more options and better information on how to repair the products they purchase, whether through authorized manufacturer service, through independent repairs without voiding warranties or even by repairing themselves. This includes access to spare parts, tools, skilled labour and repair information, which needs to always be balanced against health, safety and intellectual property considerations. In June 2024, our government launched a federal public consultation on the right to repair through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. It focused on home appliances and consumer electronics and included durability, repairability and interoperability. The feedback will help shape our federal approach, including with tools that could improve Canadians' ability to repair products and keep them in use longer. Our government is empowering consumers to repair their own electronics and appliances. For instance, recent amendments to the Competition Act prevent manufacturers from restricting access to essential tools, parts and diagnostic software. In addition, recent amendments to the Copyright Act allow Canadian individuals and independent repair shops to bypass digital locks when repairing products. The right to repair is widely supported across the country as well, with more than 75% of Canadians expressing support for federal right-to-repair legislation, according to a 2019 survey commissioned by OpenMedia. One-third of respondents to the study also claimed that they had faced prohibitively expensive repair for a product they owned, forcing them to instead buy a new one. However, a 2022 report by Equiterre found that only 18.6% of Canadians surveyed had repaired their last broken household appliance or electronic device, despite having an interest in extending the lifespan of their products. According to the report, this gap is largely explained by structural barriers rather than a lack of willingness. Many Canadians perceive that products are not designed to be repairable, which discourages them from attempting repairs themselves altogether. In addition, the high cost of repairs often makes replacing items more economical. Additionally, the difficulty in locating reliable repair services, obtaining spare parts and accessing quality information on repairs further complicates the process. I believe Bill C-267 would have positive impacts by offering more opportunities for Canadians to repair their devices and helping enhance competition for independent repair shops. By encouraging repair, Bill C-267 would also contribute to reducing the electronic waste produced in Canada. A United Nations report found that in 2019 alone, Canada produced 757,000 tonnes of electronic waste, as was outlined by my friend. This includes fridges, coffee machines and smart phones, to name a few. Internationally, several governments have already taken concrete steps in this direction. The European Union recently adopted a right-to-repair directive requiring manufacturers to ensure repair access and availability of extended guarantees. The EU is also implementing new rules on product eco-design to support durability and repairability from the start. Several U.S. states, as well, have passed their own right-to-repair laws, focusing especially on access to manuals, tools and spare parts. In terms of the useful life of a product and labelling, countries such as France, Sweden and others have put practical measures in place. In 2025, France began using the durability index for TVs and washing machines, replacing the previous repairability index. This index, required by antiwaste laws, rates how easy products are to repair and how reliable they are on a scale from zero to 10, among other guidelines. The goal is to help consumers choose products that last longer and are easier to repair, reducing premature disposal. The rating includes factors like access to repair guides and spare parts, resistance to wear and ease of maintenance. Stores must clearly display the index near the price both in person and online, provide detailed scores upon request and also provide full rating details freely and promptly. In other countries, product longevity is reflected through their legal warranty frameworks as well. For example, Sweden set a three-year minimum. Norway set five years for products expected to last more than two years. England, Wales and Ireland set six years, while the Netherlands and Finland use a more flexible approach based on a product's average lifespan. These examples show that countries can and do provide consumers with clearer information through labelling or embed expectations around product life in law. Currently in Canada, there is no official source that provides information on the reasonable minimum useful life of products. This makes it difficult for consumers to know what to expect and to assert their rights regarding product longevity and repair. In Canada, the right to repair falls mainly under provincial jurisdiction, as it involves property, contracts, product sales and consumer complaints. However, the federal government plays a role through its responsibilities regarding copyright, competition and trade. That is why provinces and territories remain essential partners in advancing the right to repair. As was mentioned, Quebec's Bill 29, for instance, directly targets planned obsolescence and obliges manufacturers to make available the tools and information required to maintain and repair goods. Saskatchewan's Agricultural Implements Act is another example of local legislation supporting repairability. These initiatives show the importance of finding a balance between innovation, consumer rights and supporting local economies. In short, the right to repair demonstrates the critical need for a collaborative approach bringing together the responsibilities of all levels of government and stakeholders. Bill C-267 would allow the government to work with provinces and territories, where appropriate, and consumer advocacy groups to develop a national framework to promote durability and repairability, thus demonstrating to Canadians, through this collaboration, that ensuring the consumer's right to repair is important to members of the House. Our goal should be to build a future where repairability is not just ideal but a fair and practical reality for everyone in Canada. I look forward to further discussions on the bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marc Dalton

Conservative 6:00 p.m.

“I want to sound reasonable, so I'll tell lots of stories about how appliances used to be better. Our party should look like we're on the consumer's side too. But really, this repair bill would make a huge bureaucracy. Liberals love bureaucracy, but we're against that. Never mind the details, just know we're voting no because it would grow government. I'll complain a lot about all the ways it could go wrong, but I won't give a real alternative. I just want my party to look like we tried.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. The legislation proposes a federal framework to improve product durability, repairability and transparency for consumers. It sounds really good. Everyone has stories about appliances and their longevity, or the lack thereof. I bought a second-hand freezer 35 years ago. It is still humming away in our basement. It needs some defrosting. It has almost become a member of the family. I do not know how many more years it has, but it will probably outlive us. There is also my microwave. It is 23 years old today. It celebrated its birthday. About 10 years ago, it had a little problem. It started sparking. My wife, whom I have been pretty impressed with, has come up with some fixes for our dryer and our microwave, and we did a little patch. Guess what? They are still working after all these years. Those are some good stories about appliances, but not all appliances in our household have happy stories. Take our stove. It did not have a knob, like they used to. I guess some of them still do, but the one we had did not. It had a plastic top. Anyway, one of the little plastic pieces behind broke. It was about 50¢ for the piece, so I thought it would be no problem to get this little repair job done. I thought it was going to keep up with my freezer, but it apparently needed a whole new control panel. They did not make the replacement for that little piece, and a new control panel would have cost almost the same as buying a new a stove. That was a frustrating and expensive experience. Toasters nowadays seem to be just as useless, compared to half a century ago. The list goes on and on. There is a history of planned obsolescence. Have members ever heard about the Phoebus cartel? I had never heard about the Phoebus cartel before I did the preparation for this speech. It was made up of the world's major light bulb manufacturers. In 1924, we had Osram, which I had never heard of, and Philips, which I have heard of, as well as GE and others. These companies secretly agreed to cap bulb lifespans at about 1,000 hours. They were at about 2,500 hours at that time. They fined members whose bulbs lasted too long. They saw, rightly, that having bulbs that never went out was not good for business. There is a light bulb in my riding. It was part of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford's riding until the last election. It is in the Ruskin Dam. That light bulb is almost 100 years old. It has not gone out in 100 years. That is amazing. If we had light bulbs like that, we could almost put them in our will. Planned obsolescence is not new. In the 1920s, GM introduced the annual model year. Alfred Sloan pioneered dynamic obsolescence. He restyled the cars every year so that the previous year looked aged. This is what happened to the Model T. That sank it for Ford and the Model T. It was about fashion. We see present-day obsolescence in software updates, incompatible chargers, glued-in batteries and printer cartridges with kill chips. This is frustrating. I would agree that the industry can do better. We can get products that last. Canadians would welcome this. I just ordered a fourth shaver a couple days ago from Amazon. They used to last a decade or more. This is what we are seeing. We need to dig a little deeper into this bill. What would it actually do? It would force the minister to make a bureaucracy. It would force the minister to make a national framework. Liberals love the words “national framework”. The framework must address the minimum useful life and labelling, the repair via accessible parts, tools and information, replacement part availability periods, technical documentation, software support duration, consumer education and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. It is a massive bureaucratic undertaking. I can see the Liberals being gleeful about this bureaucracy. Frameworks are nebulous and vaporous. What does it mean to have a national framework? It means 50 full-time bureaucrats talking and talking. Maybe it is 500 or 5,000. I do not know. The minister must confer with the provinces on possible future legislation, industry obligations, inspections and penalties every 18 months and must report to Parliament. There would be report after report, more bureaucracy and more expense to the taxpayer. We have seen this playing out over and over again. We were recently discussing Build Canada Homes, which is a fourth bureaucracy. The Liberals have a terrible record. My staff tell me how hard it is becoming to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency, immigration and the government. It is getting slower and slower. It is hard. We need to also consider the prices for appliances that were stable and have been declining for many years. It is true that refrigerators, washers and dryers were simpler and easier to repair, and parts were more robust and less dependent on electronics. They were also heavier, with more metal components. Now, electronic control boards, sensors, touch screens and smart features introduce more failure points. Manufacturers are also feeling the pressure to keep prices competitive, which leads to lighter construction and lower-cost components. Before we run headlong into bureaucracy and regulations, we need to also recognize that modern appliances use much less electricity and water. That is a significant cost savings. They have more features and conveniences, and they meet stricter environmental standards. The trade-off has been lower purchase prices and better efficiency versus durability and ease of repair. This is another issue to keep in mind. Canada is a small market, compared to Europe and the United States. As it was mentioned previously by my colleague from British Columbia, most of the manufacturing is done in other countries. That is a problem, because they are not going to bend for Canada. Basically, what will end up happening is there will be a reduction in the number of products for Canadians. This will certainly increase costs for Canadian consumers, who the Liberals are saying they are trying to help. At the same time, the Internet has made it easier than ever for consumers to see how long things last, based on honest reviews. They may be honest. We may have to pick through them. The Conservatives are opposing this bill. Why? It is because it moves away from previous Conservative-supported right-to-repair measures. Bill C-294, which we supported, would have made it easier for Canadian businesses and innovators to create products that work with existing technologies, giving consumers more choice and encouraging competition. It was a common-sense measure that would have supported innovation, helped grow our economy and benefited Canadians without taking away copyright protections. This bill, despite its title, does not display common sense. This bill would present risks around federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals do not have a problem with that. It would introduce the potential for increased regulatory burden on businesses. The Liberals do not have a problem with that, either. It would risk consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products in the Canadian market. It sounds like a great idea, but there are a lot of problems and pitfalls in this bill. The Conservatives will be voting against it, and I encourage the government to go back to the table and follow the Conservatives' plan.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Brad Vis

Conservative 6:10 p.m.

“This bill would grow government. Liberals love bureaucracy, but we're against that. I'll complain a lot about all the ways it could go wrong, but I won't give a real alternative. I just want my party to look like we tried. We should cut red tape, not add more. People should get to pick what they buy. competition is good. But this new rule would mean fewer choices and higher prices for regular families. That's bad. The government shouldn't tell us what to sell or buy. Let people decide for themselves.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this legislation. Bill C-267 is an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. At first glance, the bill may appear straightforward. Canadians want products that last longer, they want affordable repairs and they want to get the maximum value from the products they purchase. These are reasonable goals. However, this bill represents a significant departure from the practical, targeted approach that the Conservatives and the Liberals have previously supported when it comes to consumer choice and the right to repair without imposing broad, regulatory structures. In the last Parliament, there were two bills. We had Bill C-244, from Wilson Miao, and Bill C-294, from the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. Bill C-267, however, takes a different path. Instead of removing barriers and empowering consumers through targeted legislative changes, it proposes to create a broad national framework that would require federal intervention in product design, product durability, repairability standards, information disclosure requirements and supply chain considerations across numerous industries. The difference is significant. Bill C-294 sought to remove obstacles. Bill C-267 seeks to create a new regulatory framework. I cannot help but outline the significance this legislation would have in the context of electric vehicles, based on some of the debate that took place earlier today. Is the government really proposing to tell China how to regulate its battery production when we just conceded 30% of our market share? I do not think so. I think this bill would open up a world of unforeseen problems for Canadian manufacturers. The bill would direct the federal government to develop a framework touching on numerous aspects of product durability and repairability. While supporters may view this as a simple exercise, businesses often experience such frameworks quite differently. Frameworks frequently become regulations, and regulations create reporting requirements. For years, Canadian manufacturers have contended with the surge of low-cost imports. Rather than alleviating this imbalance, existing tariff structures have exacerbated the strain on domestic firms. Many Canadian companies are now forced to absorb things like tariff costs or share them with customers, eroding their competitiveness and limiting access to key markets. At the same time, the slowdown in the housing market is reducing domestic demand, further tightening margins for Canadian producers. The result is a concerning trend of increased import penetration, declining domestic production and the early stages of business closures across the sector. Without intervention, any future growth in the industry will likely be driven by imports, rather than by Canadian manufacturing. This is especially concerning at a time when Canadian businesses are already facing significant economic pressures. Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and small businesses are navigating inflationary pressures, labour shortages, supply chain challenges and increasing operating costs. Adding another layer of federal regulation might satisfy bureaucratic ambitions, but it would not help Canadian consumers or business competitiveness and, ultimately, I do not believe it would help the consumer. In fact, it would risk limiting consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products to the Canadian market. The Conservatives believe the government should focus on enabling competition and innovation, not expanding bureaucracy through yet another framework. Before imposing new obligations on businesses, Parliament should have clear evidence that those obligations would produce meaningful benefits that outweigh their costs. That evidence has not been demonstrated in the bill before us. Perhaps the greatest concern is the potential impact on consumer choice. Supporters of this bill argue that it would help consumers, which is the opposite of what I said. However, regulations often produce those unintended consequences. When governments impose additional requirements on products entering the marketplace, manufacturers face higher compliance costs. Some companies absorb those costs, others pass them on to the buyers, and some simply choose not to offer certain products in smaller markets. Canada is not the largest consumer market in the world. We represent a relatively small share of global demand. If regulatory requirements become too complex or too costly, some manufacturers may decide that offering particular products in Canada is no longer worthwhile. I can only imagine the number of attempts by manufacturers who might try to circumvent any new regulations in Canada as well. The result will be fewer choices for consumers, not more. The result could also be higher prices, particularly for low-cost products that many families rely upon. Canadians are already facing affordability challenges. Many families do not have the luxury of purchasing premium appliances or high-end electronics. They depend on affordable options that fit within their household budgets. If new regulatory requirements increase manufacturing, certification, distribution or compliance costs, those costs will inevitably be reflected in the price consumers pay at the checkout counter. Conservatives believe that consumers are best served by competition. Competition encourages innovation and quality. When consumers have choices, manufacturers must compete to earn their business. One of our primary concerns with this legislation is the risk of federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction as well. Consumer protection, property rights, repair services, commercial regulation and many aspects of marketplace oversight traditionally involve provincial responsibilities. Several provinces have already been examining right to repair measures and consumer protection frameworks that reflect their own economic circumstances and priorities. The federal government should be cautious before establishing a national framework that could duplicate, overlap or conflict with provincial authorities. Canadians are frustrated when governments create multiple layers of regulation that accomplish the same objective while increasing complexity and compliance costs. Unfortunately, Bill C-267 risks doing exactly that. Rather than creating another federal framework and empowering our public service with more tools to look at certain products, we should focus on policies that encourage competition, support innovation and reduce barriers for businesses operating in Canada. Finally, I think we should draw some parallels when we see the public service trying to over-regulate in the Canadian context, and that would be with natural health products. Across Canada, we have natural health food stores practically on every main street. They are a staple of Canada's economy. Small business owners across Canada, for the last number of years, have been decrying the government's desire to intrude and impose new regulatory frameworks that would push their business out of Canada and into online markets. Effectively, with natural health products, the government's approach has essentially meant that businesses are saying they do not have a future in Canada anymore. People are still going to be able to buy the products they were offering locally, when they were paying taxes in Canada, but people will have to buy the products on Amazon from an American supplier, because that is still legal to do anyway. The government needs to take another look at this legislation. It needs to find better ways of ensuring that the electronic products we use do not impact Canadians' health, and focus on those issues, but ultimately leave the choice to consumers as to whether they want to buy a certain product. Instead, this bill proposes a broad framework with uncertain implications for businesses, consumers, provincial jurisdictions and the marketplace as a whole. At a time when Canadians are concerned about affordability, Parliament should be cautious before advancing legislation that risks increasing costs and pushing business out of Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Kathy Borrelli

Conservative 6:10 p.m.

“There's a bill about fixing things. It sounds nice. But if we passed it, government would grow. That bill is long and wordy. It has lots of new rules. That would make things cost more. People should get to pick what they buy. Not have the government tell us what we're allowed to have. We should remove barriers, not add more. I'll say I support families and small business. I'll complain about high costs. But I won't propose anything real. I just hope if I talk a lot, it makes me look good.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, imagine a family standing in an appliance aisle because their washing machine has broken down. They are already dealing with higher grocery bills, higher mortgages, higher rent and higher utility costs. They are looking at the price tags and trying to make the best decision for their household. One model is more expensive but may last longer. Another is more affordable and fits their budget today. That family should have the freedom to make that choice. Bill C-267, despite its good intentions, risks having Ottawa make that choice for them by creating a broad new regulatory framework that could increase costs, reduce options and make essential products less affordable for Canadians. Every single one of us gets frustrated when products break too soon, when repairs are difficult or when replacing an item seems easier than fixing it. Those concerns are real. Canadians should be able to repair the products they own, access reasonable repair options and receive clear information about the products they buy. However, the question before us is not whether durability and repairability are good things. The question is whether Bill C-267 is the right way to achieve them. On that question, Conservatives have serious concerns. Bill C-267 would require the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances offered for sale, distributed or sold in Canada, whether they are made here or imported. That framework would include measures related to minimum useful life, labelling, access to parts, tools and repair information, replacement parts, technical documentation, software support and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. The bill also contemplates future legislative measures, including obligations on the industry, inspection mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance. That is a very broad scope. It goes well beyond simply helping Canadians fix what they own. It opens the door to a new federal regulatory framework over a wide range of consumer products, many of which are already subject to complex supply chains, international standards, safety requirements, warranties and provincial consumer protection laws. Parliament has already taken steps in that direction through targeted right to repair legislation. In recent years, members from different parties have worked to address practical barriers that prevent Canadians from repairing the products they own. For example, in the 44th Parliament, Bill C-244, introduced by a Liberal member, addressed the issue of digital locks by allowing circumvention for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair. Also in the last Parliament, Bill C-294, introduced by a Conservative member, addressed interoperability by allowing consumers and businesses to use third party parts, systems and devices without being blocked by copyright rules. Both bills received royal assent in 2024. Those were targeted changes. They focused on removing specific legal barriers that made repair more difficult. They did not impose broad new federal product standards. They did not create a national framework for minimum product lifespans. They did not open the door to sweeping new rules on labelling, replacement parts, technical documentation and the like, and that distinction matters. Conservatives have supported practical right to repair reforms because they can empower consumers, support farmers, help small businesses and improve competition. As we consider the best policy response, we should focus on measures that remove unnecessary barriers to repair, support competition in repair markets and give consumers better information without imposing rigid top-down requirements that may not fit every product category, or even consumer need. At a time when businesses are already struggling with red tape, tariffs, supply chain pressures and weak productivity, we should not support legislation that could add new compliance costs and uncertainty. Canadians deserve products that are durable. They also deserve affordable products. They deserve repair options, but they also deserve marketplace choice. They deserve consumer protection, but—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 6:25 p.m.

“I want to interrupt. You're making noise.”

Abdelhaq Sari

Liberal 6:25 p.m.

“I want the government to make a plan so appliances don't break as much. People shouldn't have to buy new ones so often. The government should talk with provinces and businesses to make this happen. This would help families, repair shops, small businesses, and the environment.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-267. Someone's refrigerator breaks down. They call a technician, who says that the part is no longer available, that the repair manual is missing or was never available and that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance. That person is then forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that should have been repaired. This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called planned obsolescence. These appliances are deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable in order to force people to repair them. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year. The solution is a collaborative national framework. That is what Bill C-267 proposes: a response that is both simple and ambitious—a national framework for sustainable and repairable electronic products and essential devices. It is not a rigid regulation; it is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdictions. It is a flexible framework developed in collaboration with the regions, the provinces, industry and consumer advocacy groups that would finally give Canadians the right to know, the right to choose and the right to repair. In practical terms, the bill sets minimal durability standards and requires the availability of spare parts, technical documentation for independent repair persons, and clear labelling so that consumers know what they are sinking their money into before they spend it. Through this bill, Canada is simply catching up with the rest of the world. The European Union introduced a right to repair directive in 2024. The United Kingdom passed its legislation back in 2021. In the U.S., over twenty states have taken action with bipartisan support. Apple, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool are already adapting these standards to their other markets. This means a minimal burden for Canada. The benefit for families will be substantial, tangible and real. We may wonder who is going to benefit. First, Canadian families that cannot afford to replace everything once a year will benefit; the repair shops that my colleagues mentioned earlier will benefit; local SMEs, often run by tradespeople and immigrants who are currently denied access by manufacturers to the parts and information they need to perform repairs will benefit. Most of all, the environment and our planet will benefit, because each appliance repaired rather than discarded represents a resource conserved and one less piece of trash. Repair is an integral part of Quebec and Canadian culture. I know several associations and groups in Bourassa, Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec that help people with their repair projects. Today I would like to talk about the community of activists and volunteers who help people with repairs. One example is Wai Chu Cheng in the riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park: She is the co-founder of Repair Café in Toronto, Ontario. This culture is not confined to Quebec or Alberta; it is across Canada. In closing, I am reaching out to my colleagues from all parties, all regions and from every province. This is not a partisan bill. It is a sensible bill. It makes a lot of sense because it provides that things can be repaired instead of merely replaced, that we can be informed instead of being unaware, and that we can work together instead of imposing anything. I think of the families in Bourassa and across the country who are watching what we do here today. The bill is not a partisan project. It is a promise to every household that deserves better: to repair, not replace, to inform, not ignore, and to collaborate, not oppose. That is what I believe, and that is what I ask the House to stand for. Let us refer this bill to committee, where we can improve it together, hear from witnesses and strengthen it. That is what Canadian families deserve, and that is what this bill delivers.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates