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

Bill C-267, National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-267 would do

The bill would require the development of a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances. It would also set out reporting requirements for the framework. The published material gives no further detail.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Chris Malette, Bay of Quinte

Liberal
“I support this bill. It helps Canadians fix their own electronics and appliances instead of throwing them away. It will lower repair costs, help small repair shops, and cut down on waste.”
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.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I want the House to send this bill to committee. It creates national rules to make appliances and electronics last longer and be easier to fix. This will save families money, help local repair shops, and create less trash.”
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.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 134

  1. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26 11 statements
  2. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Telecommunications 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Sport 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Access to Information 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions The Economy 3 statements
  21. Oral Questions Marine Transportation 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions National Defence 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  24. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  26. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 5 statements
  27. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 34 statements
  28. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  29. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  30. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 2 statements
  31. Oral Questions Firearms 2 statements
  32. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  33. Oral Questions Government Appointments 2 statements
  34. Private Members' Business National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act 8 statements
  35. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 29 statements
  36. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 7 statements
  37. Government Orders Government Orders 11 statements
  38. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  39. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  40. Government Orders Government Orders 19 statements