Industry and Technology Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I now call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you've had a good week so far.

Today, the committee is continuing its consideration of Bill C‑267.

I can confirm that all audiovisual tests have been completed and that everything is in order.

We have three witnesses joining us online today and one witness here in the room with us.

Colleagues, we're going to continue with the study of Bill C-267. Joining us today are the following witnesses.

We have lawyer and analyst for Option consommateurs, Alexandre Plourde.

Welcome, Mr. Plourde.

Joining us online, we have president of the Canadian Repair Coalition, Anthony Rosborough. From the LKQ Corporation, we have Tyler Threadgill, who serves as vice-president and head of North American government affairs, and Derek Willshire, regional vice-president for LKQ Canada.

Witnesses, you will have up to five minutes each for introductory remarks, at which point I will turn to my colleagues, represented by various parties at the table here, to dive further into the matter at hand.

Mr. Plourde, I'll start with you since you're here in person. You have the floor now.

[Alexandre Plourde, Lawyer and Analyst, Option consommateurs]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for giving us this opportunity to provide our input today.

My name is Alexandre Plourde and I am an attorney and analyst at Option consommateurs.

Option consommateurs is a non-profit organization based in Quebec whose mission is to help consumers and defend their rights. As a consumer organization, we receive hundreds of reports each year from consumers who tell us that a product they purchased has stopped working prematurely. The most frequent concerns about product durability consumers share with us cover refrigerators that break down within six months of purchase, computers that overheat after two years and heat pumps that stop working after only a few years. It's therefore entirely timely for the government to address the issue of product durability and repairability and to seek solutions to this challenge, which weighs heavily on Canadians' wallets.

That said, while we support the principle of the bill, we have some reservations about its content. First, this bill does not have any concrete measures that will take effect upon its passage. The bill merely sets out the broad guidelines for a future framework to be developed, but it does not specify the concrete requirements it will impose. Since we do not know the exact content of the proposed framework, it is difficult for us to comment on it. In our view, it would be better to include specific standards regarding durability and repairability in the bill immediately rather than postpone adoption to a later session.

We would also like to point out that certain standards in the potential framework could duplicate existing provisions in Quebec, where the Consumer Protection Act imposes high product durability requirements on retailers and manufacturers. In particular, the act provides for a statutory durability guarantee that requires retailers and manufacturers to ensure that the product a consumer purchases will have a reasonable lifespan. A new performance guarantee also came into effect in Quebec recently. It requires merchants and manufacturers to repair certain types of new appliances free of charge for a fixed period of three to six years, depending on the type of appliance. Quebec's act also prohibits companies from selling products designed with planned obsolescence or from using techniques that make it more difficult for consumers to maintain or repair a product.

It goes without saying that the future framework developed by the federal government should in no way limit the scope of Quebec's consumer protection standards. If the government wishes to create a framework on product durability, it should only establish minimum standards to be followed in Canada, which can then be enhanced by the provinces.

In this regard, we are making several recommendations for additions to Bill C‑267, with the aim of supplementing Quebec's legal framework where it falls short.

First, we propose that Bill C‑267 require manufacturers to make replacement parts for appliances and the information necessary for their repair available for a reasonable period after they are placed on the market, at a reasonable cost. This requirement is already in place in Quebec, but, unfortunately, companies rarely comply with it and can opt out. The current bill therefore provides an opportunity to address this gap in Quebec legislation.

Second, Bill C‑267 should address situations where appliances that are still functional become unusable because manufacturers no longer provide updates to their onboard software. To this end, the bill should require manufacturers of connected devices to provide these software updates for a reasonable period after the appliances are placed on the market.

Third, we propose establishing design standards that facilitate repair and limit device obsolescence, as has been done in Europe. Among other things, the bill could require that batteries in electronic devices be easily replaceable or mandate the use of a universal USB-C port for charging devices.

Fourth, we urge the government to establish a durability rating system for products sold in Canada. This would allow consumers to learn about the durability and repairability of the products they purchase and make informed choices accordingly.

Thank you. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Plourde.

Okay, I'm just going based on who I see first on my screen.

Therefore, Mr. Rosborough, I'm going to go to you, sir, if you're ready.

You have up to five minutes for your introductory remarks. The floor is yours.

[Anthony D. Rosborough, President, Canadian Repair Coalition (CanRepair)]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rosborough. The volume in our room is incredibly low right now. I'm just going to ask you to pause so that we're not taking away from your time. I'll run a quick test to make sure that members can hear you.

Do you want to just try that again, Mr. Rosborough? I'll let you know if it works.

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

Absolutely.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

No, I'm sorry, sir. It's still not fixed. Wait just one moment.

Members, just for the sake of efficiency here and with your indulgence, I'd ask you to use your earpiece if the volume is too low and you need amplification. That way we don't have to suspend and deal with this. We'll ask the tech folks to work on it.

Mr. Rosborough, we can hear you. It's just an amplification issue. I've asked members to put their earpieces in if they can't hear you. We should be good to go.

Sir, I'm going to start the clock now. You'll have five minutes. Go ahead.

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to see that we have our own kind of repair-related beginning to all this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to appear on behalf of the Canadian Repair Coalition or CanRepair.

I'd like to start by saying that CanRepair supports Bill C-267. However, that support is on the basis that we see this as a constructive first step toward a more comprehensive national and federally led approach to the right to repair.

We've provided a written brief with five recommendations for strengthening the legislation. For now, I'd like to focus on three primary considerations from the right to repair advocacy perspective.

The first is that repairability is not simply a characteristic of how a product is designed. It's also a characteristic of the systems and markets that support the product or device throughout its useful life. A product can be designed to be durable, but it can become practically unrepairable when its manufacturer restricts access to replacement parts, diagnostic information, software or the tools necessary to maintain it. We would encourage the committee to make the repair ecosystem—and that includes independent and third party repairers—a more explicit focus of the national framework.

In particular, clause 3 should direct the framework to consider the practical ability of independent repair providers to access the resources necessary to perform repairs, including on fair and commercially reasonable terms. We also call for broader consultation with the people and the businesses who actually perform repairs, rather than limiting mandatory consultation to provincial consumer protection representatives.

Second, we believe that the right to repair is increasingly a matter of national economic resilience and technological sovereignty. In its submission, the Electronic Products Association Canada points out that Canada is overwhelmingly an “importing nation” when it comes to electronic products. As much as we may import many of these products and devices, repair is always local, and repair is always Canadian.

Canadians should have the technical capacity and resources necessary to maintain the technologies on which they depend. We would encourage the committee to build on the domestic resilience aspects of this bill by expanding its practical scope to additional product and device categories—such as the automotive sector, the agricultural equipment sector and other sectors—and requiring the framework to assess the availability of domestic repair and maintenance capacity for these products and high-value goods.

Third, CanRepair rejects the argument made by manufacturer industry groups that repairability, safety, IP protection and cybersecurity are all necessarily competing objectives. We shouldn't confuse protecting genuinely sensitive information with the monopolization of manufacturers' exclusive control over repair through abusive IP or other strategies. The common industry argument here is that consumers are safer the less they know about how products are designed. That stands on very questionable foundations.

Let me be clear: Nobody is calling for unsafe, insecure or infringing repairs. For that matter, repair restrictions can themselves create security and safety risks when products can no longer be diagnosed, maintained or updated properly. We're calling for the standards contemplated in the bill to balance repair access with safeguards that are evidence-based rather than fearmongering.

I'd like to close by calling upon the Government of Canada to renew its prior commitment to taking on a leadership role on the right to repair policy nationally. While no doubt a step forward, this bill is, after all, a framework bill that does not in itself create enforceable repair rights. As you know, Canada has already taken important steps through Bill C-59, Bill C-244 and Bill C-294, but these reforms have only addressed parts of the problem.

Currently, a disjointed patchwork of provincial legislation needs focused coordination and standardization for consumers, repairers and manufacturers alike. Our hope is that Bill C-267 becomes the beginning of renewed federal leadership on this file.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rosborough. I appreciate that.

Mr. Willshire, we'll turn now to you for five minutes, sir.

[Derek Willshire, Regional Vice-President, Canada, LKQ Corporation]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Derek Willshire and I am the regional vice-president, Canada at LKQ Corporation. I'm based in Lévis and I see the challenges we're discussing first-hand every day on the ground.

For most Canadians, a car is not just a luxury; it represents a significant expense. I would go as far as to say it is the second-largest expense after their home or housing. A car plays a vital role, enabling people to get to work, taking kids to school or getting to an appointment. This reality is even more pronounced in rural and remote areas.

For LKQ, the right to repair is a matter of choice, competition and affordability. However, repairing a vehicle is no longer as simple as it used to be. Software and electronic systems now play a central role. If an independent repair shop does not have access to the necessary tools, data or authorizations, consumers inevitably have fewer choices when it comes to having their vehicles repaired. Ultimately, motorists, in this case the consumers, pay the price. According to recent analyses, 63% of independent repair shops do not have access to the tools or data needed to repair modern vehicles. Better access to independent repair could save Canadians up to 30%, or more than $500, on routine repairs.

Bill C‑267 is an important milestone in advancing the right to repair in Canada and reducing costs for consumers. However, we believe it can go further. We support amendments that would clearly incorporate automotive electronic systems, software, diagnostic tools, telematics and safety tools and systems into the framework. Vehicle owners and the repairers they choose should also have reasonable access to the tools, parts, information, software, security authorizations and data necessary to perform these repairs.

Although the bill does not, on its own, constitute a concrete “right to repair” framework, it could serve as a solid and sustainable foundation for future action. We therefore urge the committee to strengthen and move it forward.

Thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Mr. Willshire.

Mr. Threadgill, the floor is yours, sir, for five minutes.

[Tyler Threadgill, Vice-President, Head of North American Government Affairs, LKQ Corporation]

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having me.

My name is Tyler Threadgill. I am the vice-president and head of North American government affairs for the LKQ Corporation.

Our organization supports Bill C-267 because it creates a practical pathway to advance the right to repair in Canada. However, we believe the bill should be strengthened to include automotive repair within its scope.

The automotive sector has changed. Repair is no longer about access to only a physical part. It increasingly depends on software, diagnostic information, telematics, security credentials [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Threadgill, I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to have to pause here. Your connection is breaking up on our end. I'm not sure what it's showing on yours, but based on the movements—

[Tyler Threadgill]

Those inputs are [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

He can't hear me.

Mr. Threadgill, I'm not sure if you can hear me, but you are breaking up quite significantly.

Mr. Willshire, I presume you have Mr. Threadgill's contact information.

Perhaps you can send him a message to let him know there's an issue here. We'll do the same on our end.

Once we've ensured that it's resolved, I'm happy to go back to Mr. Threadgill a bit later to allow him to complete his introductory remarks, but right now, it's interfering with our translation. I'm going to have to make sure that we've resolved that problem.

Mr. Threadgill, if you can hear me, somebody on the IT side will be in touch with you. I'm happy to give you the two and a half minutes to finish your introductory remarks once we've solved the problem.

With that, I'm going to go to members' questions.

Mr. Chambers, we'll start with you for up to six minutes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses.

Mr. Plourde, thank you for your testimony. I noted that at the beginning of your submission, you mentioned you had some general concerns about the fact that the bill doesn't necessarily have concrete protections and that these protections may or may not be decided at a later date through consultation.

Do you want to expand on that a bit?

[Alexandre Plourde]

In our view, this bill lacks concrete details. This very brief bill only contains broad guidelines for a potential framework. We have heard that there could be provisions to address the availability of parts and the useful life of products, but there are no specific details or requirements.

Our proposal is to include measures that will apply to manufacturers immediately.

Laws on repair and durability are currently being enacted around the world. Quebec has done that. Here, the federal government still seems to be in the preliminary stages. We believe the time has come to act and directly implement mandatory measures, bearing in mind that Quebec has provincial measures on product durability and repairability. As such, this is not necessarily about duplicating efforts, but about taking action in accordance with Ottawa's jurisdiction and ensuring that a minimum standard is established that would apply across the country.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much.

Did I hear you correctly? Are you a lawyer by trade?

[Alexandre Plourde]

I am an attorney admitted to the Quebec bar and I work for Option consommateurs.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In theory, do you think it's wise practice for Parliament to create a law that would provide a government or a minister with the discretion to make the law later? As a policy-maker, I'm being asked to vote for a law that.... I'm not quite sure I really know what I'm voting on.

[Alexandre Plourde]

That's pretty much what we're saying. It's difficult for us to take a position at this stage because we don't know how the requirements or content of this framework will look. We would also have really liked to discuss the content and substance with elected parliamentary officials who will have to decide on that content instead of going through a regulatory process where the government may have more discretion to set the standards.

It would therefore have been helpful to have concrete provisions. We have very concrete suggestions regarding the availability of parts, updates and the introduction of a repairability index. These issues have long been the subject of discussion in Quebec and across Canada. In fact, consultations on repairability were held across Canada two years ago.

I think we already have all the elements needed to at least set out a legislative framework that is more comprehensive than the one that's currently on the table.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

If I could follow up on the index, my initial impression is that the level of transparency would fall squarely within federal jurisdiction for labelling, as an example. Would you agree with that assessment?

[Alexandre Plourde]

You're referring to the division of jurisdiction regarding the creation of the repairability index, aren't you?

Everything to do with consumer protection can also have a dual aspect. Several factors affect product durability. Information on durability or repairability can fall under both provincial and federal jurisdiction.

The federal government has jurisdiction over criminal matters, interprovincial trade, competition, copyright, and product health and safety. In fact, all kinds of labelling standards are already in place at the federal level and so yes, we believe there could be federal jurisdiction covering this.

However, what we're saying, and have repeatedly emphasized, is that any standard the federal government wishes to introduce in this bill at this juncture should not limit the scope of provincial standards, because Quebec already has a robust framework in place. Obviously, this factor must be taken into account. Our concern at Option consommateurs is that federal regulations will take precedence over consumer rights in Quebec and this would diminish consumer protection. We therefore urge federal lawmakers to establish a minimum standard that the provinces can enhance and expand upon without limiting the protection already established by the province.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

This is my final question. Do you think it would be appropriate for all of the other provinces to basically adopt Quebec's model? Do you think that's the right one that might work across the country?

[Alexandre Plourde]

I can't make such a claim. I'm not familiar with the applicable laws in every province. They should have an opportunity to decide what they want.

However, there are some very interesting provisions in Quebec's law. I don't want to sound overly patriotic, but I'd say that in Quebec, we're certainly pioneers when it comes to consumer protection. There's a genuine commitment in Quebec's consumer protection act to ensuring product durability. These provisions may be of interest to all consumers across Canada.