Industry and Technology Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask the witnesses to give brief answers, please.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for one minute.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Plourde, you mentioned that because of the areas of federal jurisdiction, there is the possibility for the federal government to look at the patent system and the copyright system, and that this could help with repairability.

Do you have any ideas or amendments to propose to make the bill more concrete? Even if there is already a legal framework in Quebec, we are still held back by not having access, among other things, to these two systems.

[Alexandre Plourde]

The Copyright Act has been amended twice. I think this was mentioned by another speaker. It was to prevent software barriers for repairers. This is an interesting step forward made in recent years at the federal level.

There was another amendment, this time to the Competition Act. It was about businesses' access to repair services. It's based on the refusal to deal, but I don't want to go into too much detail. All this to say that the requirement that was introduced in the form of a right to repair in the Competition Act is very limited. One has to go before the Competition Tribunal, demonstrate that it impacts competition and so forth. It's not really a consumer protection standard.

As such, to do something concrete and practical, the Competition Act may need to be amended. A new right to repair was introduced into the act. It should be given more teeth to make it more easily applicable by consumers. For example, a provision of the act could simply state that the manufacturer must make spare parts available after a product has been put on the market, for X number of years or for a reasonable product lifetime. That is the kind of amendment that could be made.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Groleau, you have two and a half minutes.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Plourde, you're popular today.

[Alexandre Plourde]

I didn't expect to speak this much today.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

You're an analyst and an attorney at Option consommateurs. You said from the outset that the bill lacked concrete details. What do you mean? Do you have any examples? What are your recommendations?

[Alexandre Plourde]

As I told your colleague earlier, this bill contains broad guidelines for a framework, but we don't yet know what this framework will contain and we're kind of in the dark.

In addition, the guidelines duplicate what is found in Quebec. Quebec already has a warranty of good working order that was introduced recently, according to which certain products must have a lifespan of three to six years. We already have a requirement on the availability of parts, although it isn't perfect.

As such, we don't know exactly where this framework is heading. It could be very interesting, or it could be less interesting. It really depends on a government process.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I get the impression that no one is ever held accountable or responsible in this area. I'll give you a concrete example of a citizen, Karine, who wrote to me about a double-door refrigerator. The part between the two doors is no longer available. She bought a high-end refrigerator for $4,000 in 2019. She can't find any available parts. Nothing is available.

No one is held accountable for this. How does that work?

[Alexandre Plourde]

What you're describing to me is, in fact, the most common type of case we see at Option consommateurs. About one-fifth of the cases we receive come from people dealing with premature breakdowns. The refrigerator is, I think, the best example you could give. People call us and say, “Listen, I bought a refrigerator two years ago, and it's no longer working, and yet I paid several thousand dollars for it”.

As we're seeing on the ground, people can have a really hard time asserting their rights. Even though Quebec has legislation that holds retailers and manufacturers liable and requires them to ensure the product has a reasonable lifespan, people often have to fight for years to win their case.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

That's why I've concluded that no one is ever held accountable.

Do you have any recommendations for this bill? We want someone to pay if something breaks. Right now, both parties keep passing the buck, and neither of them pays.

[Alexandre Plourde]

Under Quebec law, retailers and manufacturers are liable. Often, what we see in practice is that they act as if the law doesn't exist. They say people should not have bought the extended warranty, or that the manufacturer's warranty has expired, even though there's a law that applies.

As such, if a framework is established, it's not just the content of the framework that will matter, but its enforcement and the penalties that will be imposed. That's always the case with consumer protection. We can pass the best laws in the world, but consumers face problems if there is no organization responsible for monitoring and enforcing the laws.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Groleau.

Ms. Begum, you'll be the last in this first round. The floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I recognize that you're here, Mr. Plourde. Thank you for your response.

I do want to give Mr. Rosborough a chance to respond. I believe he's online and hasn't been able to respond to any questions yet.

One of the things you mentioned, Mr. Rosborough, was the consultation with local repair shops, and I think that really allows people to have access. A survey that was done in 2019 showed that approximately 75% of Canadians would love to have the access to repair, yet in 2022, when they were surveyed about how many people had actually done that, around 18% or 19% had gone ahead and repaired their last device that was broken.

Would you like to elaborate on how important it is to consult with local repair shops on the framework of this bill, if it goes through? What are some of the issues that currently hinder people's ability to find that access or have the possibility of repairing the device?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

One of the dimensions of the bill that I think others have touched upon is that by focusing on a very narrow range of products, it allows for a fairly narrow conception of how to solve the repairability problem. By focusing on home appliances and electronics, we can characterize the problem as one that can be solved through an engineering or product design solution alone.

My submission on that point was that often repair takes an entire ecosystem of actors. Whether it's the folks who are providing access to parts or the local service technicians who are nearby and can help you, it involves a range of actors that is usually more complex. I think it's convenient that the bill chose a relatively narrow range of products because they're the ones that, relatively speaking, we can address through product design more so than others.

My point was that we include in this consultation, which is meant to be done with provincial consumer protection officials, consultation with folks who have experience with repairing these products and devices. That includes independent and third party commercial repairers on a smaller and larger scale. It also includes, in the case of things like home appliances and electronics, grassroots repair experts.

Across the country, we have a range of repair cafés—you might have heard this term before. These are community repair events where folks come and bring items they have that need repairs or that they need assistance with. There's an enormous source of information, data, knowledge and expertise that we can learn from through those community resources as to what the real repair impediments on the ground are. We don't learn this through aggregate statistics or surveys in the same way we do through qualitative conversations with the people who are seeing this.

My suggestion was that we engage not just consumer groups, advocacy groups and consumer protection experts but also repair experts. There's a whole field of expertise to draw on for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Begum.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our first round. I'm going to suspend for five minutes as we turn over.

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for your insights today. We appreciate your making yourselves available.

We'll come back in five minutes, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

We're back in session.

Colleagues, we're resuming our study for the second hour. We have new witnesses with us.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses we have with us here today.

Alissa Centivany, associate professor, is here online. We have Maxime Dorais, co-executive director, Union des consommateurs. We also have William Courchesne, lawyer, analyst, consumer protection policy and regulation, Union des consommateurs. Here in the room with us is Rémi Moreau, managing director, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

Colleagues, witnesses will have up to five minutes each for their introductory remarks. I am going to have to reduce the amount of time for each member asking questions. This time what we'll do is we'll shave it off the top for each person, and we'll make that up by the end.

With that, Monsieur Moreau, you are here in the room with us, so I'll turn the floor to you, sir.

I'm never quite sure whether someone is English-speaking or French-speaking just by their name.

I'm going to assume that you are capable of both. The floor is yours for the next five minutes.

[Rémi Moreau, Managing Director, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today as part of your study of Bill C‑267.

My name is Rémi Moreau, and I am vice-president and managing director of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Canada, or AHAM Canada. We represent more than 150 companies that manufacture 90 per cent of the major appliances, small appliances and floor care products shipped for sale in Canada.

Our industry employs nearly 25,000 people, supports another 15,000 jobs across the country and contributes approximately $7.8 billion to the Canadian economy each year. Appliances are at the heart of our homes.

Our members have long been committed to providing safe, efficient and repairable products that meet consumers' expectations. We share the repairability goals behind this bill. Our concerns are about how to achieve them.

Number one, our industry already supports repair. Our members make instructional materials available so that consumers can safely do simple repairs themselves. Our members make close to 75% of replacement parts available to consumers. The rest are parts for complex repairs or repairs that pose a real safety risk to someone without proper training. When an in-home service request is made for a major appliance, manufacturers successfully repair more than 90% of the products.

Consumers also have choice. Statistics Canada counts more than 3,400 businesses in personal and household goods repair across the country, many of them small, family-owned operations. Many manufacturers also give independent servicers access to parts and repair information.

Number two, safety must come first. Appliances are complex machines. They use high-current electricity, natural gas and propane, high-speed motors and sealed systems. Many now contain flammable refrigerants or lithium-ion batteries. A repair done incorrectly can cause a fire, a gas leak or an electric shock, often inside someone's home. Unauthorized access to firmware can also disable critical safety functions or leave a connected appliance vulnerable to hackers. Any durability or repair framework must put consumer safety and security first.

Number three, Bill C-267 would duplicate existing efforts. Provinces already regard this area as within their jurisdiction. Quebec and Manitoba have passed right to repair laws. Alberta and Saskatchewan are well into consultations. Ontario and Nova Scotia have seen bills tabled. At the federal level, Bill S-4 would expand energy efficiency standards to include durability. Adding another federal framework on top of all this creates risk of duplication, contradiction and confusion for consumers, retailers and manufacturers. It would also impose a new regulatory burden on businesses at a time when the government has made reducing red tape a priority.

Number four, the framework would benefit from manufacturer input. The bill would set standards for minimum useful life and parts availability but leaves the details to be defined later. It requires consultation with the provinces and consumer groups but not with manufacturers, who know best how these products are designed, built and repaired. At a minimum, the bill should require manufacturers to be consulted.

Number five, Canada-only rules raise cost and reduce choice. Canada and the United States have built an integrated North American appliance market supported by aligned regulatory frameworks. Even a small deviation in standards or testing requirements can force manufacturers to redesign products, duplicate testing or meet conflicting requirements for the same product. Those burdens add cost and complexity, but they do not deliver a better appliance. At a time when affordability is top of mind for Canadian families, harmonization is one of the most effective tools we have to keep appliances' prices down. Canada-specific requirements for useful life labels, guarantees or parts availability risk higher prices and fewer products on Canadian shelves.

Part guarantees also have practical limits. A modern appliance relies on hundreds of components, often from 50 or more suppliers. Manufacturers cannot always predict which part will fail or control disruptions in their suppliers' operations. Mandating guarantees would require much larger inventories, which would raise costs and risk waste from parts that are never used.

Number six, durability and energy efficiency must be balanced. Manufacturers must meet mandatory energy efficiency standards by law. Major appliances are about 50% more energy-efficient today than in 2000, according to Natural Resources Canada. That progress depends on advanced technologies, such as variable speed motors, electronic controls and sensors, which can be more complex to repair than older, simpler designs. An older appliance that still works may look like a durability success story, but it can be using far more energy at a real cost for consumers and the environment.

In closing, AHAM and its members support the goal of providing Canadians with repairable products. To achieve that goal, however, any approach must put safety first, avoid duplicating existing provincial and federal initiatives, remain aligned with the North American market and include manufacturers in consultations.

We are ready to work with the committee, the government and all stakeholders to make that happen.

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Moreau.

Mr. Courchesne, I'm going to go to you next for up to five minutes.

[Maxime Dorais, Co-Executive Director, Union des consommateurs]

I'm going to start.

Mr. Chair and hon. members, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Maxime Dorais, co-executive director of the Union des consommateurs. I am accompanied by William Courchesne, who is an attorney and consumer protection analyst with the organization.

I would like to point out that our participation in these proceedings is made possible in part by funding from the office of consumer affairs, which the government has announced will soon be abolished. This program has enabled us to publish a comprehensive study on connected cars and repair issues, which Mr. Threadgill has just discussed with the committee.

I would like to thank hon. Xavier Barsalou‑Duval for inviting us to appear before the committee to share our comments on Bill C‑267.

Allow me to briefly introduce Union des consommateurs. We represent 16 consumer advocacy associations, primarily in Quebec but also in Ontario. Our mission is to promote and defend the rights of Canadian consumers, with a special focus on low-income households.

In addition to conducting research and raising public awareness, particularly through the media, Union des consommateurs initiates class-action lawsuits to support consumers and advance their rights. For example, you may have heard about Air Canada, which appeared before the Supreme Court last Friday.

The organization supports the bill's overall objective. Electronics and essential household appliances represent significant expenses for households, particularly those with modest incomes. The manufacture and sale of appliances that last longer and can be repaired when they break down should be encouraged. That, in itself, is the starting point. Durability and repairability are economic, environmental and consumer protection issues.

I now turn the floor over to my colleague William Courchesne.

[William Courchesne, Lawyer, Analyst, Consumer Protection Policy and Regulation, Union des consommateurs]

Good afternoon.

Members of the committee, although we strongly support the principle behind this bill, as my colleague indicated, we would like to draw your attention to a few points that, in our view, deserve clarification as the future framework is developed.

First, the concept of useful life must be clarified. More specifically, it is important to define “functional appliance”. An appliance may continue to operate while offering significantly reduced performance or losing certain important features. Take the example of a phone whose battery no longer holds a charge properly or a television whose picture quality has deteriorated considerably. The framework should specify the criteria for determining whether an appliance is truly functional from the consumer's perspective.

Second, useful life should include the period during which an appliance can reasonably continue to be used through proper maintenance or repair. The first breakdown should not automatically mark the end of an appliance's useful life. Such an approach would be consistent with the goals of sustainability and repairability pursued by the bill.

Third, we recommend that the federal framework fully recognize the right to repair. This includes the availability of replacement parts at a reasonable price and access to diagnostic tools, software updates, and the technical information necessary for repairs and consumers' ability to choose their own repair provider.

Fourth, we believe that Canada should draw on international best practices to establish a repairability index and a durability index. Consumers currently have limited information to compare devices on these aspects before making a purchase. Uniform and transparent indices would promote more informed choices and encourage competition regarding the quality, durability and repairability of appliances.

Lastly, we believe that the future federal framework must serve as a baseline standard for protection without undermining existing provincial initiatives. Provinces must be able to continue to adopt more protective measures when necessary.

In conclusion, Union des consommateurs supports Bill C‑267 and calls on the committee to ensure that the future federal framework is ambitious, focused on consumers' needs and robust enough to ensure appliances last longer and can be repaired and consumers have the information they need to make informed choices.

That concludes my remarks. Thank you for your attention. I'll now turn the floor back to my colleague.

[Maxime Dorais]

I'd just like to say a few words in closing to caution the committee about pressure from the manufacturing and retail industries, which will likely be numerous and persistent during the development and implementation of the new framework. In fact, that has already begun, as we've just heard.

We've seen that of late in Quebec, with threats of massive price hikes and doomsday scenarios involving loss of profitability and closures, all in response to what is entirely and simply normal, namely, durable products that can be repaired, rather than what we're seeing today, namely, poorly designed products that are more fragile and difficult, if not impossible, to repair. This may be done deliberately by manufacturers so that the only possible solution is to buy new appliances, or so that manufacturers can generate higher profit margins, particularly through the sale of extended warranties. Ultimately, public trust is undermined, and this serves as a selling point for these extended warranties, which, by the way, are sold at a very high price.

I therefore urge the committee to stay the course despite the headwinds from the industry, because the priority is to protect consumers who, as we have said, must get their money's worth.

Thank you for your attention. We can now answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Courchesne and Mr. Dorais.

Ms. Centivany, the floor is yours for up to five minutes.