“I do not support this bill. Forcing appliances to last longer will make them more expensive for Canadians. Most appliances are made in other countries, and Canada cannot easily force foreign companies to follow our rules.”

“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.”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It is true that modern appliances break too easily and are hard to fix. But this bill just creates a costly new bureaucracy and more rules. It will make products more expensive and give Canadians fewer choices.”

“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.”

“I do not support this bill. It adds too many federal rules for electronics and home appliances. These rules will hurt Canadian businesses and raise prices for consumers. Some companies might stop selling affordable products in Canada altogether. The federal government should not step into areas that belong to the provinces.”

“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.”

“I do not support this bill. People should be able to fix their own appliances, but this bill creates too many rules for businesses. It will make electronics and home appliances more expensive and give shoppers fewer choices.”

“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—”