Bill C-267

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

An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances

This enactment provides for the development of a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances. It also sets out reporting requirements respecting the framework.

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

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

moved that Bill C-267, An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that I have the support of the member for Carleton.

It is with a great sense of responsibility and much hope for the future that I rise today at second reading of my first bill here in the House of Commons, Bill C-267, which seeks to establish a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and home appliances. This the first bill I am introducing in the house, as I just said, and I am proud to table it on behalf of families in Bourassa and Montreal and all Canadians, who deserve better when it comes to their appliances.

Let me start with a simple image. Someone comes home and their dishwasher no longer works. They call a technician who says that the part is no longer available or that the cost of the repair exceeds that of a new device. They are then forced to pay $500 or $1,000, sometimes more, to replace a device that technically could have been repaired. Millions of Canadians experience this situation every year. This is not an accident. It is the result of an economic model that favours replacement over repair and leaves consumers without information, without choice and often without recourse. This bill seeks to change that.

In the example I just gave, maybe the part simply no longer exists, or the information or the repair procedure is not available. It is very unclear. It is getting very difficult for the repair person to do the repair. As I said, sometimes it costs more to repair an appliance than to replace it even if a person would technically prefer to keep it running rather than throw it out and buy another.

This bill would change that.

This bill is about giving consumers more transparency, more durability and more repairability. This bill is important because today, too many Canadian consumers buy appliances and electronic devices without knowing how long they will last, whether spare parts will be available or how long software support will be provided.

This state of affairs is costing our families dearly. It forces people to replace appliances prematurely when they could otherwise be repaired. It also increases the amount of electronic waste, one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world.

Right now too many Canadians are forced to replace products that could and should be repaired. That also contributes to increased electronic waste, which is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world.

As I said, this bill would make a real difference because it calls on the federal government to establish a national framework to inform consumers and improve the durability and repairability of appliances sold here in Canada. This approach is economical, environmentally friendly and pro-consumer. It is economical because an appliance that lasts longer costs less over time. It is environmentally friendly because repairing something rather than throwing it out reduces waste and conserves resources. Lastly, this approach is pro-consumer because it restores a better balance between manufacturers on the one hand and people on the other.

This is good for families, good for the environment and good for a more responsible economy.

I want to talk numbers. I want to talk hard facts. Electronic waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. Every year, millions of tonnes of devices that are still functional or repairable are thrown away. In Canada, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of electronic equipment are thrown away annually, a significant proportion of which could and should have been repaired had the parts, information and support been available.

The problem is not just environmental, nor is it merely an economic issue; it is also a question of fairness. When I say fairness, I am obviously referring to fairness between the manufacturer on one side and the consumer on the other. It is also a matter of purchasing power. At a time when the cost of living is the number one concern for Canadian households and families are struggling to make ends meet, the forced replacement of appliances represents an unfair burden. This is not a luxury. A fridge is essential. A dishwasher, a stove, a television, a computer, a smart phone—all these appliances are now essential to daily life. Our digital economy has also become essential.

Anyone who buys one of these devices today never knows how long it will last. No one knows whether replacement parts will be available in five years' time. No one knows whether the manufacturer will provide the software support after two years. There is a fundamental asymmetry of information between manufacturers, who know everything, and consumers, who know almost nothing. This asymmetry comes at a high cost to Canadian families.

On top of that is a phenomenon that experts refer to as planned obsolescence. It means that devices are deliberately designed to not last and to not be repaired, in order to force consumers to replace them. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a well-documented reality, recognized by regulators around the world, one that is currently being addressed through legislation in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada must act, and that is exactly what Bill C-267 proposes.

In addition, there is a phenomenon that specialists call planned obsolescence, with devices deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable, to force replacement. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented reality recognized by regulators around the world.

I want to be clear about the nature of this bill, what it is proposing and what it is not proposing. This is not a rigid set of regulations being imposed on the industry from the top down. This is not a government telling manufacturers what to do in minute detail. It is certainly not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. This bill establishes a national framework that is flexible, progressive, collaborative and based on extensive consultation with the provinces and territories, industry and consumer advocacy groups.

Specifically, here is what the bill provides. It mandates the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework, in consultation with his provincial and territorial counterparts, that includes measures focused on minimal product durability, ensuring that appliances last a reasonable amount of time; repairability, so that consumers can have their appliances repaired using readily available parts, tools and information; the availability of spare parts, to ensure that manufacturers do not stop making them prematurely; access to technical documentation, so that independent repair technicians can work their trade; software support, so that updates are not used to render appliances that are still in perfectly good working order obsolete; informative labelling, so that consumers know how long their appliances will last before they buy them.

This national framework will have to be tabled in both chambers of Parliament within the next few months. Five years later, its effectiveness will be reviewed and a report will be submitted to Parliament.

It is a measured, transparent approach that respects parliamentary processes and would give the government the tools to act without presuming solutions before consulting all stakeholders and parties.

Canada is not starting from scratch, as I mentioned earlier. It is part of a global movement that has been gaining momentum over the past few years. In June 2024, the European Union adopted a directive on the right to repair, which covers a wide variety of appliances, including smart phones, tablets, washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators. This EU directive requires manufacturers to make spare parts available, to provide technical documentation to independent repair people and to not impede repairs through software updates.

Since 2021, the United Kingdom has been imposing similar requirements regarding the availability of spare parts for several categories of household appliances. In the United States, more than 20 states have passed or are in the process of passing laws on the right to repair with remarkable bipartisan support. Both Republicans and Democrats see this as a matter of consumer freedom and local economic competitiveness.

In practical terms, this means that large international manufacturers that sell their goods in Canada are already adapting to these new standards in their other markets. I am talking here about major manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Whirlpool and Apple. They have all announced programs to provide access to spare parts under international regulatory pressure. That means that adapting would impose very little burden on these large manufacturers here in Canada, since they are already meeting these requirements elsewhere.

This bill is not ahead of its time; it is catching up.

I want to be very clear: This bill is not an end in itself. It is not an objective we want to achieve. It is a serious starting point. It provides a legislative foundation that will help move the debate forward and that will allow us to hear from experts, consumer groups and industry stakeholders so that the bill can be strengthened in committee.

Who will benefit from this bill? First and foremost, it will benefit Canadian families. Second, it will benefit small repair businesses, those local shops that are often run by immigrants who come to this country. They are often craftspeople or tradespeople who are currently being deprived of access to parts. Third, it will benefit the environment. For every device that is repaired instead of replaced, a natural resource is preserved. Fourth, it will benefit the industry itself. This framework will deliver a more transparent market, clear standards and a level playing field for all manufacturers.

I will end where I began, by talking about Canadian families. Every day, in the riding of Bourassa, in the streets of Montreal North or Ahuntsic, I meet ordinary folks who are facing tough choices: seniors who have to choose between getting their fridge repaired and buying a new one; young families going into debt to replace a phone that could have been repaired; small business owners losing contracts because they cannot get the parts they need.

This bill sends them the message that we see them, we hear them and we are taking action. This is not a partisan or ideologically motivated bill. It is a common-sense bill that is based on the reality of Canadian families, supported by a global movement and built on collaboration. I am reaching out to my colleagues in the House, from all political parties and all regions, and asking them to vote to send this bill to committee, where we will be able to study it, improve it, hear from witnesses and make it stronger together. Repairing instead of replacing, informing instead of ignoring, collaborating instead of imposing: that is the spirit behind this bill. That is the spirit I am bringing to the House today.

This should not be a partisan issue—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to move on.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering about the lack of specificity in this bill. One of the things the member talked about is planned obsolescence, or programmed obsolescence. These things are very frustrating to consumers.

I am wondering why he did not bring a bill that would have targeted that specifically through legislation rather than in this broad framework bill, which is like trying to boil the ocean.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very interesting question.

Yes, we want a bill that will help combat planned obsolescence, but that is not all. We also want it to be mandatory to provide consumers with information. When a consumer wants to make a purchase, they should be able to choose between two devices: the one that comes with the most warranties or the one whose replacement parts will be available for the longest time, the one that can be repaired for the longest time.

What he says is true, then, but it is not the extent of it. There are other provisions in the bill.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution. The Bloc Québécois wants to fight planned obsolescence. It is a matter of respect for consumers and for what the planet has to offer us. Right now, we are consuming at a frantic pace, and the planet is having a hard time keeping up with our demand. This bill offers a viable alternative.

I did not hear my colleague mention Bill 29, which was passed unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly on October 3, 2023. Perhaps he did, but I want to hear his thoughts on it. I am proud to say that Quebec was the first jurisdiction in North America to legislate against planned obsolescence. It passed a bill in 2023 containing a number of key measures, including the availability of parts, the warranty of good working order, the ability to choose repair services, and charger interoperability.

What does my colleague have to say about this Quebec initiative, and does his bill have something better to offer Quebeckers?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is not a good question; it is a great question.

Quebec's legislation is inspiring. It prohibits planned obsolescence, but it goes even further. It creates a warranty of good working order, requires replacement parts to be available and also provides for penalties.

That is great, but Quebec is acting as a province, within its areas of jurisdiction. We are acting within ours. Let me be clear: Bill C-267 is not an end point; it is a starting point that we have to work from to ensure that all of Canada, not only Quebec, can enjoy the same standards everywhere, be it Alberta or Quebec. The goal is to have the federal government work within its areas of jurisdiction and offer this option to the other provinces.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear colleague, the member for Bourassa.

I am also proud to give my support to his important private member's bill. My question is, does the member have the government's support for this bill to be accepted and become law in Canada?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see the support of my colleagues today. I can say that not only do I have the government's support, but I also worked with the government on creating this bill.

I would add that it will be studied in committee. There are other stakeholders that I have met with, including Option consommateurs, Protégez-Vous and other people who want to work in committee to make this bill stronger for families, the environment, our SMEs and our industry.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Bourassa for his excellent speech and his very important bill. Can he talk about the stakeholders who have contributed to this bill?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The member for Bourassa has 25 seconds.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, with my remaining 25 seconds, I would like to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Carleton.

Yes, I met with several stakeholders, including Option consommateurs. People want to go further with this bill. It is great that people want to collaborate and work together. I encourage those people to participate in the study of the bill in committee in order to make the bill stronger.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-267. As I mentioned earlier, this bill seems to be trying to boil the ocean. It is a framework bill. It attempts to do a laudable thing, to make it so the products that we buy have a shelf life that lasts a long time and they do not quickly end up in the landfill.

Now, I have a cousin. I have a lot of cousins, but I have a particular cousin who has an expression, and I always think it is interesting. He says, “That is pure landfill.” Basically, he is saying that something is a poor quality product, and if someone purchases it, they might as well just take it straight to the landfill because, by the time they put it to work, it will not do the thing they need it to do or it is poor quality. I always think of that when we talk about this particular bill.

Life is generally a series of trade-offs. Particularly when people are purchasing a consumer product, there are a lot of trade-offs. It is an interesting thing to me. Earlier today we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that, when Liberals see something moving, they tax it. When it is still moving, they regulate it, and when it stops moving, they subsidize it. This is essentially the subsidizing part of that equation.

Over the years, we have seen Liberals pile on requirements, one after the other, whether it be around water use, energy use or products that can be used. Now we see that products do not necessarily last as long as they used to. Take a dishwasher, for example. With all of the energy requirements and all of the water requirements that have gone into them, it seems that, when someone buys a dishwasher nowadays, it does not advertise how well it does the dishes, it advertises how little water and how little energy it uses. I actually want a dishwasher that does the dishes. The other thing is the dishwasher that my mom had seemed to last for 30 years, and the dishwashers I buy seem to last for 10 years. Members can see the issues that we have now.

Here we are. Consumers are frustrated with the fact that they have an expectation that the products they buy do not seem to be lasting as long as they expect them to last, nor can they get the parts for them. This is reality. As the government has layered on regulation after regulation, or this or that code, it has not necessarily been the market that has driven that. It has been regulation. Now we are seeing that the government is going to put a solution for all of these created problems on the back end of it and say, “Oh, now manufacturers have to make sure their product lasts a particular length of time.”

There is another bunch of problems around this as well. Planned obsolescence is something that drives me crazy. I come from the automotive world and am an auto mechanic by trade. With older vehicles that had the 12-valve Cummins, for example, there was no planned obsolescence for it. It outlasted the vehicle they put it in by a factor of three or four. If the car or truck that engine was in rusted away, which would be after about 10 years, that engine was taken out and moved into another vehicle. They can often been seen for sale, and the pickup truck that it is in is very worn out. They take the engine out and put it in another piece of equipment, because that engine did not have planned obsolescence. It was built it to last, and it lasts.

Again, we see more concerns around efficiency and other concerns. On the flip side of it, these other products that do not last long end up in the landfill. That Cummins engine, probably designed in about 1990, is still operating, and because it is so good, it will be taken out of the pickup truck it is in and stuck in another piece of equipment, saving it from the landfill. Members can rest assured, it will continue on.

I have a lot of expectation and no concern, because that technology has been around probably since the 1970s, that the engine will do another 30 years in whatever piece of equipment it is in. Because it is so well built, it is very well supported. There are a dozen companies that support it with aftermarket parts. Because it is so popular and well known, there are a dozen companies that copy it, build other pieces for it, build attachments and these kinds of things. These are all great things.

We see this also with airplane technology. A lot of airplanes are flying around today with 1930s technology in their engines, because the industry figured it out. The progression of aircraft went from 1912 to the 1930s, and that is when it really dialed in on what an airplane engine ought to look like. Since then, only minor tweaks have been made to that. Because of that, there are a host of companies that work hard on creating a product that is well serviced and lasts a long time. It does not ever really end up in the landfill, because they just keep rebuilding it and keep working it over.

The two examples I gave, airplane engines and Cummins engines, are of things that were designed entirely by the market. They were not constrained by a lot of government regulation whatsoever. That reality does exist.

We see the bureaucratic growth of the government. I am going to talk particularly about the appliances the bill is trying to capture. I do not necessarily think there is opposition to putting in place a mandatory minimum on how long they should last, a benchmark for warranty, essentially.

That has been done in the automotive industry. There used to be a regulation on small collision repairs. If someone ran into a pole at less than 30 kilometres an hour, there was a test for that. If that happened and the repair had to be made, it had to cost less than $2,500 or less than $300, depending on where one was in the world. It was helpful that the government made this benchmark saying that as a result of a certain kind of a collision, it should not cost more than a certain amount to repair a vehicle. There is the capability of doing that kind of thing.

I wish the bill had contemplated many of those kinds of things. We can put in law, and the House can be responsible for it, that a certain product should last a certain length of time. We did that with the airlines. We debated whether that was a good idea or not, but we could have done it with this bill as well, saying what the timelines for consumer products ought to be, and we could have built a schedule for that. We can do all that in the House.

However, this bill is much like the Liberals' approach to a lot of things. They get a great idea, such as going to space, or whatever it happens to be, but then they do not put the details in the bill. They do not do the hard work of governing the country. They say to just trust them; they will get the minister on it. The minister will use their pen and decide all the things that need to go into it, working with this or that particular stakeholder.

Parliament is dedicated to building the laws of this country. I understand that a bill to regulate a whole bunch of particular products might be a large bill, but that has not stopped the government before from introducing large bills. That could be, but I do not understand.

Last, sometimes the government gets out of its lane a bit when it comes to provincial jurisdiction. I know that a number of colleagues have raised concerns around provincial jurisdiction, that this bill would perhaps cross some of those lines. We are concerned about that as well. Perhaps the issue should be left to the provinces. I know that in particular when it came to tractor regulations, there was—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The member can talk about it at committee.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, every day, we are reminded of the importance of doing our part to help the environment, but sometimes, in our daily lives, we can feel powerless.

There was a time when a refrigerator would last three generations. I still have my dad's good old Shop-Vac, and it still works. Today, things could not be more different. A person may go through several vacuum cleaners in their lifetime, because their old one breaks down and it is cheaper to buy a new one than to have it fixed. In many cases, it is not even possible to get it fixed. Things used to be made to last. Today, things are made to break so that consumers have to keep buying more. That obviously means more waste is constantly being produced. Our relationship with consumption is at a turning point.

Our economy has long been based on a totally unsustainable linear model of extraction, manufacturing, consumption and, all too soon, disposal. This throwaway cycle is not only environmentally harmful, but blatantly unfair to regular people, who are seeing their purchasing power crumble in the face of products that are designed to break. How many families end up with a huge hole in their budget because one little electronic chip, plastic part or button in their washer is not being made anymore or because their appliance can only be fixed by a licensed technician who charges exorbitant fees?

Bill C‑267, which aims to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and home appliances, has arrived on our desks as a necessary, albeit belated, response to this culture of planned obsolescence.

The Bloc Québécois supports sending this bill to committee. We firmly believe that durability and the right to repair are essential pillars of the green transition. However, our support should not be taken as carte blanche.

Bill C‑267 includes measures to be taken, but those measures are not tangible enough. The bill does not create a national framework on the durability of products and appliances, but rather gives the Minister of Industry a mandate to establish that framework. We are wondering how this framework will align with certain provincial laws. The issue of jurisdiction and respect for jurisdictions is very important.

When I say that this initiative has come a little late, it is because Quebec already has a law that essentially pursues the same objectives: An Act to protect consumers from planned obsolescence and to promote the durability, repairability and maintenance of goods, passed in 2023. Quebec was the second jurisdiction in the world to adopt such a measure, and the first in North America. This demonstrates just how much of a leader Quebec is in many respects, particularly when it comes to the environment. It could be an even more effective leader if it were not held back by the federal government. However, in this case, we are very pleased to be able to say that, once again, through its leadership Quebec has inspired the federal government to pass similar legislation. It is late in coming, but it deserves credit for having been introduced.

What we are discussing today is a national framework. Yes, Quebec has led the way. In 2023, the National Assembly even unanimously adopted this ambitious framework to combat planned obsolescence. In doing so, Quebec also amended the Consumer Protection Act to, among other things, include a guarantee of availability of replacement parts and repair services.

As for Bill C‑267, better late than never, but since it is short on details about the framework that will be established, a question needs to be asked: Will it lift the provincial frameworks up, or will it drag them down?

Quebec's model should be used for inspiration. It represents the minimum level of ambition that the government should be aiming for. The European Union has also been very proactive on this issue. It has pushed many companies to change their ways. For instance, Apple was forced to adopt a universal connector cable, USB‑C. We need to follow suit, but we need to make it worth our while.

It is also important to bear in mind that planned obsolescence is not just for objects, but for software as well. For example, it is preposterous that software can block a certain brand of coffee maker from accepting another brand's coffee pods. It is also all too common to discover that we have bought the wrong type of ink for our printer, because it does not take generic ink cartridges. If the manufacturer has stopped making the cartridges or pods, the printer or coffee maker automatically becomes technological waste. It cannot be used anymore.

While studying Bill C‑267, we will have to see whether a broader investigation into competition is warranted. The abuse of copyright to lock appliances is still a major obstacle to repairs, and copyright is a federal responsibility.

The problem is obvious in the case of modern vehicles, which incorporate numerous technologies and computer programs. Even an oil change requires access to the onboard computer to reset the oil change warning indicator. However, accessing the computer requires bypassing security measures, specifically technological protection measures.

A garage could therefore not legally circumvent or alter the vehicle's software, without the manufacturer's authorization, on the grounds that it was protected by copyright and that bypassing it would constitute a copyright infringement. It quickly becomes clear that, with these technological protection measures, dealerships had a virtual monopoly on car repairs, maintenance and diagnostics.

Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act with regard to diagnosis, maintenance and repair, was passed in the 44th Parliament to address this kind of problem. Obviously, we are wondering whether the government now thinks that Bill C-244 did not go far enough, since it is now introducing Bill C-267. We will try to examine that particular aspect in committee.

The national framework will also need to directly address protection measures that create repair monopolies to the benefit of large manufacturers at the expense of small, local repair shops and the local and circular economy.

Finally, we must be aware of the challenges involved in implementing this and engage in dialogue with the industry and experts. The bill provides for consultations with the provinces, which is obviously the bare minimum. The federal government must act as a partner, not a lecturer, especially when dealing with Quebec, which is already much further ahead in its legislation. Any legislative measure arising from this framework will have to rigidly respect the regime established by Quebec law.

Sustainability is not optional; it is necessary. The important thing is to send a clear signal that the throwaway culture is over. Every appliance we repair means energy saved, mines that do not need to exist and landfills that do not overflow.

Bill C-267 is a step in the right direction. It recognizes that consumers have the right to know what they are buying and the right to keep their goods for much longer. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support referring this bill to committee. Naturally, we will work diligently to ensure that the national framework matches the urgency of the situation and, above all, that it respects Quebec's leadership and jurisdiction in the area of consumer protection.

It is time to give people back control over their own purchases. It is time to legislate for the future, not for the next quarterly report of multinational electronics companies.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, and I want to commend the member for Bourassa for introducing this bill and for speaking so powerfully about this major challenge. I would like to commend him for his speech, in which he outlined the benefits that workers will enjoy if the measures outlined in the bill are implemented.

I want to thank the other participants in the debate, too, including the member for Peace River—Westlock, who I think has a lot of experience and knowledge to share in the very particular matters that this bill covers.

I want to commend the comments made by the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj and the member for Repentigny. I commend the Bloc Québécois for supporting this bill and recognizing the work done by the member for Bourassa. I, too, would like to commend the efforts made by the Province of Quebec and by the people of Quebec to be leaders on this issue.

I also want to thank the member for Scarborough—Woburn, who, in previous parliaments and in Ontario, has been a very strong champion of the right to repair. We are standing on the shoulders, as has been said, of the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and the European Union. Ontario is making steps.

When we think about the idea of the right to repair, it may not be a human right, but repair is fundamental to all that is human, so this piece of legislation is a very human endeavour that puts humans back in control of technology and of the things that are increasingly governing us.

I want to thank our friend from Bourassa for shining a light on this and for making a very strong statement that it will stop; that we are working in the opposite direction, where humans are going to be in control of technology; that we have, as humans, this intimate connection with the things around us; and that we have a right to repair.

It brings to mind a recent book that has come out by Stewart Brand called Maintenance: Of Everything. Stewart Brand has always been on the cusp of the latest thinking about technology, human connectedness and the great ideas of our time. I want to quote from Maintenance: Of Everything at some length because I think it captures the humanity that the member for Bourassa captured so well in his speech and the thing that is driving all of us, and is driving the frustrations behind and benefits from this legislation. The frustrations have been articulated by my colleagues across the way, as well as the benefits that this legislation could bring.

Mr. Brand writes in his book:

Maintenance is what keeps everything going. It’s what keeps life going.

Every living thing spends a great deal of time and toil in maintaining its own life and the life of the systems it depends on. Plants tend the life of the soil they grow in. Beavers maintain their dams and thereby the pond that protects them. Humans maintain their bodies, their vehicles, their homes, and their cities, along with much else. Nearly everything worth maintaining is nested in something larger even more worth maintaining.

But so much of doing maintenance is tiresome. Brush the damn teeth, change the damn oil. They are unrewarding chores—repetitive, boring, often frustrating, and endless. Since that part of maintenance is a pain, we shirk it, defer it, fail to budget time or money for it, let it drop to the bottom of the priority list. That’s easy to do because the necessity of maintenance accumulates invisibly and gradually. Then suddenly one day the thing breaks, the system falters, and everything stops in a turmoil of disruption, expense, and blame.

A number of us have experienced this with our mobile devices. I was just in conversation with my wife, who shared her frustration about the latest mishap with her phone.

I will go back to Stewart Brand:

The apparent paradox is profound: Maintenance is absolutely necessary and maintenance is optional. It it easy to put off, and yet it has to be done. Defer now, regret later.

Neglect kills.

What to do?

What I so appreciate about our moment in the House is that the member for Bourassa has asked, what to do? What to do about this paradox, where maintenance is important? We delay it, but we are nested in even greater systems that are worth maintaining, which, for Stewart Brand, is ultimately the entire earth.

The member for Bourassa's response is that we are going to do something about this. We are going to take inspiration from those who care about maintenance and who have the connectivity to their devices and appliances, as so well described by the member for Peace River—Westlock, harkening back to perhaps a time when there was a more intimate connection between the manufacturers' devices and those who used the devices. Now too often the manufacturers of devices are far away from us. The beneficiaries of the economy in which maintenance is devalued are often outside of Canada, but we can do something about this. We can pass this bill.

As far as I can tell, and it has been articulated by some of my colleagues across the way, the bill would have three main benefits: environmental benefits, customer savings and economic activity.

The environmental benefits of maintenance and the cost of not investing in maintenance are very clear. I have data from Equiterre, which published a survey eight years ago. We have with us in the House the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who has close ties to this very important non-governmental organization. A growing number of electronics and household appliances are becoming obsolete every year. In 2016, 44.7 million tonnes of electronic waste were generated worldwide. Five years later, the increase in the amount of waste was estimated at 17%.

Home appliances and electronics generate 44.7 million tonnes of waste worldwide. This is an eight-year-old figure. Canadians know about this and they are frustrated by this. In fact, too many Canadians and too many people around the world have given up because they assume that we cannot do anything about this.

In a 2018 survey, 86% of respondents indicated that they believe home appliances and electronics are deliberately designed with short lifespans, and 80% of respondents reported that they purchased their devices new. In an economy that has all these devices around, people are having to buy these new devices, specifically electronic devices, because they do not last long enough. The planned obsolescence issues, as noted, are key. In the survey, 61% of Canadians kept their electronic devices for less than five years. When it came to home appliances, it was 45%.

There is something we can do about this. We can attend to the environmental benefits. This piece of framework legislation, and let us bring it to committee as soon as possible, would allow Canadians down the road to have the ability to, we hope, attend to their devices in the way that Stewart Brand described and not send them as quickly to the scrap heap.

Customer savings are clearly key in this time when Canadians are concerned about affordability. Again, we are sending money to device manufacturers and appliance manufacturers, too often, overseas. The member for Bourassa spoke so passionately about the kinds of people he sees every day who are facing choices about what to do with their piece of technology that has broken too quickly. The customer savings that are possible if we implement this legislation successfully, I think, are very promising.

Then there is the economic activity. This piece of legislation could create a new set of industries, a new set of apprentices, and we have learned a bit in the spring economic statement about the upcoming apprenticeship benefits. Imagine a new generation of young workers who are working in shops on their main streets locally, doing this kind of repair at a fraction of the cost that it takes to buy a new device, keeping that money home, creating economies across Canada. Wherever we have a device, whether it is urban or rural, we need someone to repair that device. It brings to mind, for me, in my riding, the Parkdale People's Economy, an effort that really shined a light on how we need to do some of our economic activity differently.

As the member for Bourassa said so clearly, the right to repair may not be a human right but it is fundamental to what it means to be human. Let us bring this legislation to committee. Let us reclaim a bit of what makes us human. Let us say that these technologies, these devices, do not rule us but that we rule them, that we are in partnership with each other and that we can have a better quality of life. We can experience the benefits of being in a community by having a relationship with these devices, with these appliances and with these technologies that is more human and more in line with the rest of the economy and the rest of the community in which we find ourselves.

Pass the bill. Let us take inspiration from the member for Bourassa. Let us take inspiration from Stewart Brand. Let us take inspiration from the European Union, Quebec, Manitoba and elsewhere. Let us send the bill to committee.