Debates of April 30th, 2026

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

[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.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, you are looking well and it is great to have you in the chair.

I want to talk about a principle most Canadians would consider common sense: If someone owns something, they should be able to fix it. Canada has already done meaningful work on this file. Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 removed copyright barriers that were being used to block repairs on digital devices.

The member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, a close friend of mine, introduced Bill C-294 specifically because he understood what those restrictions were doing to agriculture, mining, construction and forestry industries in Saskatchewan. He named them explicitly.

Those bills were real, they targeted action and they deserve credit.

I want to thank the member for Bourassa for bringing this bill forward. He has identified a genuine problem and put in the work to bring it here. The frustration behind this bill is legitimate. Canadians should have better options when the products they own break down, but this bill is not the right answer and I will explain why. When governments get the right to repair right, they act where the need is greatest. They create actual rights, not frameworks and not consultation processes, but rights.

In 2023, Colorado became the first American state to pass an agricultural right to repair law, the Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment Act. It guaranteed farmers and independent mechanics access to the software and repair materials needed to fix tractors and other agricultural equipment. That was a law. It created real rights in one day.

The Federal Trade Commission then filed an antitrust lawsuit against John Deere in January 2025, alleging the company had monopolized the repair market by withholding diagnostic tools. Earlier this month, a class action lawsuit against John Deere settled for $99 million, with a 10-year commitment to make diagnostic tools available to farmers and independent shops.

There are now 16 states that have active agricultural right to repair legislation. American farmers running John Deere equipment now have legal tools their Canadian counterparts do not. This is a competitive disadvantage baked into the regulatory gap.

Prairie producers are already carrying cost pressures their American competitors do not face in the same way: industrial carbon pricing, fertilizer costs, higher fuel costs and input costs that cannot be passed down to a buyer who sets the price on global commodity markets. Canadian farmers are price-takers. They absorb every additional cost at the farm gate. This is one more structural disadvantage stacking up.

My riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan is bigger than Switzerland. It is five square kilometres bigger than Switzerland, with 41,290 square kilometres of agricultural land, rural communities and some of the most productive grain and canola in Canada. Across the entire riding, there are three authorized John Deere service locations. Colorado figured out how to give its farmers real options. This bill would not give the farmers in my riding any.

I want to be clear this is not a criticism of equipment dealers. They serve their customers well and are part of the communities I represent. They play a vital role. The problem is the software lock. A farmer near Craik or Tugaske cannot hand their local mechanic the diagnostic tool they need because the manufacturer controls access to it. If someone has the right software, the repair takes an afternoon. Without it, they wait for the one authorized technician who has the key. In Saskatchewan, harvest windows are measured in days, not weeks. A two-day repair delay is not an inconvenience; it can be a crop.

The agriculture sector made exactly this case during the government's own right-to-repair consultations in 2024. The National Cattle Feeders' Association told ISED directly that farmers face an uncompetitive scenario and are forced to accept the costs and repair schedules of manufacturers. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture called for legislation compelling manufacturers to provide access. Alberta Grains, representing over 18,000 wheat and barley farmers, submitted that producers were so frustrated with repair monopolies that some would rather operate less advanced equipment they could actually fix.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada held its own targeted round tables specifically on farm equipment and interoperability. The sector showed up. The government ran dedicated round tables on the exact gap this bill would leave open, and the bill before the House today does not contain the word “agriculture”.

The bill before us has two problems. The first is what the bill fails to do and the second is what the bill would do.

On the first point, the bill's scope is explicitly for electronic products and essential home appliances, defined as devices intended for regular household use. That definition closes the door entirely on agricultural equipment. A framework covering dishwashers and smart phones but not combines is not a right-to-repair framework for the producers who feed this country.

On the second point, this bill would not just address repairability. It would establish minimum durability standards and a federal regulatory framework over consumer product design and manufacturing. I understand the consumer appeal of that. Canadians are right to be frustrated when products are built to fail, but we need to be honest about what this bill would be. It would be a new federal regulatory layer over a broad category of consumer products on top of provincial consumer protection regimes that are already moving on this file.

Quebec's Bill 29 is active. Ontario is advancing its own legislation. The provinces are acting. Ottawa adding a parallel federal durability standards framework on top of that provincial action is not simplification. It is duplication.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just released its report entitled “Canada's Entrepreneurial Drought”. Canada is in a sustained period where business exits outpace new entries every single quarter. In Saskatchewan specifically, net business creation has been negative for most of the past decade. Regulatory compliance costs Canadian businesses $51.5 billion annually, with nearly $18 billion of that attributed to pure red tape. About 87% of small business owners say that excessive regulation significantly reduces their ability to grow.

This week, leading Canadian industry groups told the Financial Times that federal red tape is costing the country more than Trump's tariffs. Nutrien, headquartered in Saskatchewan, chose to build a $1-billion port in Washington state over Canada's west coast, citing Canadian regulation as a key factor in that decision. This is not the moment to add another federal framework to the pile.

I cannot support this bill. It is not because the right to repair is wrong, as it is not. It is not because the member for Bourassa's concern is misplaced, as it is not. I oppose this bill because it would deliver a new regulatory framework when the provinces are already at work.

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

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Housing

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to pursue a question I asked in question period on February 27. It was right after the British Columbia government came out with its budget. I have to say that I think every British Columbia member of Parliament was shocked. The B.C. NDP government cancelled a very important program: the community housing fund. The reason I raise this in the context of our federal Parliament is that obviously the Canadian government is making many commitments to build many Canadian homes. Housing starts are up. This is discussed, of course, in the spring economic update.

My concern, though, which was not properly addressed in question period, is that, yes, the federal government is providing funding to the B.C. government, but we have a real opportunity here that I hope the federal Minister of Housing will seize. The last statistic I can find since I asked the question, after the B.C. community housing fund was cancelled, is that the commitment from the federal government, out of the funds approved through Bill C-15, the budget implementation act's commitment of $15 billion to the Build Canada Homes agency, was that $170 million was to go to B.C. This is the latest statistic I can find of what is committed from the federal government to the B.C. government. To be clear, that is the total, which includes all kinds of housing: market housing, social housing, co-op housing and so on.

The opportunity here for the federal government is huge. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars that municipalities, local communities and non-profit associations have already spent in getting ready to build great housing. They have bought the land. They have hired the architects. They have cleared the studies. They have done the zoning. They are ready to roll, and suddenly, the B.C. government's decision to pull out of the funding has left thousands of potential homes for British Columbians in peril. There are big question marks now over many projects.

My plea to the government in pursuing this question tonight in Adjournment Proceedings is this: Set some clear requirements. Parties have the land. They are ready to roll. They have done their zoning. They have their permits. The plans are ready. It is just a question of a top-up from the federal government, specifically designed for non-profit housing in British Columbia. As I mentioned before in my question when I asked it in February, there are projects on Galiano Island and Mayne Island, and also in Saanich. The Prince George council member Cori Ramsay, who is the president of the Union of BC Municipalities, is saying the same thing. So many of these wonderful projects are going to fall through the cracks. We are ready to go.

We are looking for the federal government to commit to creating a special funding program, designed for B.C. in this moment and designed to capture those projects that are ready to roll, shovel-ready, but that may fall through the cracks and never get built unless the Minister of Housing, who is a British Columbian, can step up and design a project that gets the money flowing to build these homes for British Columbians.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to building homes across the country: smarter, faster, more affordably and at a pace not seen in generations. We are also investing in the essential infrastructure that is needed to support new home construction and strengthen communities. Through budget 2025, we are making generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing and $115 billion over five years for infrastructure. These strategic investments empower Canadians to get ahead and create lasting prosperity.

The federal government is growing Canada's economy by catalyzing a modern, innovative and more productive homebuilding industry. We are bolstering local economies by creating more jobs right here at home, employing Canadian workers and building with Canadian materials. This is also why the Prime Minister launched Build Canada Homes in September 2025, in order to build affordable homes at scale. This new federal agency leverages public lands, offers flexible financial incentives, attracts private capital and facilitates large portfolio projects. It supports modern manufacturers to build the homes that Canadians need.

We are not doing it alone. The Government of Canada is leveraging its partnerships to get homes built. Provincial, territorial and municipal governments, indigenous partners, and stakeholders across the ecosystem are stepping up at all levels to get shovels in the ground. We are working together to build the homes that Canada needs.

On April 7, 2026, the Prime Minister also launched the build communities strong fund. It will provide $51 billion over 10 years, starting in 2026-27, and $3 billion per year ongoing to support new and renewed public infrastructure. The build communities strong fund will invest in a wide range of infrastructure projects that support economic prosperity, housing, education, health, transit and climate adaptation. In partnership with provinces and territories, this investment will also be leveraged to reduce development charges in jurisdictions where these fees are the highest. This will help to lower the cost of housing construction and get more homes built. A series of 13 projects have been announced so far under the build communities strong fund, furthering public infrastructure projects and priorities across the country.

The Government of Canada is committed to solving the housing crisis and taking a leadership role on housing. We are doing so by removing barriers to construction, reducing risk for home builders and making significant investments in affordable housing. By working closely with builders, we will implement innovative solutions to get the job done.

The Government of Canada will continue to work with our partners to build at an unprecedented speed and scale, from Whitehorse to St. John's and from Grise Fiord to Windsor. These are investments not just in housing, but in people, families and neighbourhoods. Together, we will build homes for Canadians, and we will build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so sorry. That was my first interaction with the newly elected member for Ajax. I congratulate her on her appointment as the parliamentary secretary.

My question in question period, and again tonight, was very specific. There is an opportunity that may disappear, specific to British Columbia and specific to projects that are ready to go. It is an opportunity for the federal government to pick up on a bespoke program, limited in time and designed to capture those projects in B.C. that are ready to roll but may fall through the cracks. While I support the national vision that the hon. parliamentary secretary just described, it does not speak at all, I am sad to say, to the issue I raised at the end of February: the opportunity that is here right now to get non-profit housing built really fast by picking up on the opportunities of ready-to-roll projects that may fall through the cracks before the federal government gets around to trying to rescue them.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Build Canada Homes portal is open and we are encouraging all applicants with shovel-ready projects to submit and to apply. We are looking for projects from coast to coast to coast, including in British Columbia. The Government of Canada is taking a bold new approach and making unprecedented investments in order to increase housing supply across Canada. This includes both affordable housing and supportive housing. Through Build Canada Homes and the build communities strong fund, along with other innovative initiatives, we are making progress on key housing and infrastructure projects.

The federal government is working in partnership with provinces, territories and municipalities, as well as indigenous partners, to remove local barriers that would slow new supply. This includes leveraging infrastructure investments to reduce development charges. We are making it faster and easier for builders to get projects off the ground, including in British Columbia. Together with other levels of government and our partners across the housing sector, we are building homes, creating jobs and growing our economy.

The Economy

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. Last week, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the sorry state of food affordability in Canada and what exactly the government was doing to increase food production in this country. It makes sense to me that if we grow more and produce more food, the price of food should come down. It is not impacted by tariffs that we have seen, nor by inclement weather in other parts of the world, which often affects prices in this country. Unfortunately, the response I got was anything but an answer. The Minister of Agriculture went on to list a whole bunch of programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with food production or increasing it in this country.

Therefore, I would like to give the member across the way another crack at the same question. What exactly is the government doing to increase food production in Canada, and when will the Liberals finally recognize that when regions like mine that grow the food cannot even afford to buy it, the rest of the country is certainly in crisis?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, our government is relentless in its efforts to make life more affordable for Canadians. Many hard-working Canadians continue to face affordability pressures as the cost of essential goods, housing and everyday expenses remains high. This is why our actions have been focused on ensuring Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.

The spring economic update, “Canada Strong for All”, which our government delivered on April 28, includes the next steps toward meeting our objective of building a stronger, more resilient and more affordable country. We recently introduced Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28. It is a key piece of legislation to help ease the sting of higher prices.

Let us begin with the rising cost of food, which is a major concern for Canadians. On June 5, more than 12 million Canadians will receive additional support through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The spring economic update, via Bill C-30, is proposing additional measures to support Canadians even more as they deal with the financial squeeze of food bills. The passage of Bill C-30 would help growers supercharge domestic food production in Canada with tax changes that would allow the immediate expensing of greenhouse buildings. The measure is projected to provide $41 million of tax relief over six years.

The government is also committed to developing a national food security strategy. The strategy would make it easier for Canadians to access affordable and nutritious food and build Canada's resilience and capacity to meet domestic needs. Bill C-30 would amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include the consideration of food security and the cost of food.

Bill C-30 also promises to help address housing affordability concerns. It is clear: The high cost of housing is putting significant pressure on household budgets, especially for younger Canadians. Our government recognizes that many Canadians who have recently purchased their first home or are planning to do so could benefit from a boost to their cash flow. That is why Bill C-30 proposes extending the grace period during which homebuyers are not required to start repaying their homebuyers' plan withdrawals from their RRSPs. The proposed extension is from two years to five years. This change would deliver cash flow relief of up to $4,000 per individual per year over three years, during which time they would not be required to repay the amount into their RRSP.

There is more in Bill C-30. The legislation proposes an important change to the Canada pension plan to ensure Canadians keep more of their money in their bank accounts. The CPP is the cornerstone of Canada's retirement income system, providing stable and predictable pension income to millions of Canadians. To help address affordability pressures faced by so many households, Canada's ministers of finance unanimously agreed in April to reduce the contribution rate for the CPP. The change would lower the contribution rate in the base CPP from 9.9% to 9.5%, effectively January 1, 2027. This 40-basis points reduction to the CPP contribution rate would translate into annual savings of up to $133 for an employee earning $70,000 a year, with equivalent savings for their employer. The change would do this while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the CPP.

As members can see, our government is moving swiftly to improve affordability. We have already accomplished so much, and these are only the latest examples of how we are working hard to lift some of the barriers off Canadians.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is pretty much par for the course with the Liberal government, unfortunately.

The question was specifically about food production, and I am not sure the Liberal member across the way used the two-word phrase “food production” at any point in that entire answer, which is par for the course, even more sadly, for the agriculture minister in responding to my questions during question period. He and his parliamentary secretary are clearly too busy tonight to answer these questions.

It is an important measure that we need to be addressing because this country needs to grow more food to meet our domestic needs, to bring prices down for Canadians, as well as to continue to feed the world, which so many people from my region and across the Prairies do. It is very disappointing that the Liberals have no plan to increase food production in Canada.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know affordability is the single most pressing issue for many Canadians. The government is committed to developing a national food security strategy. This strategy would make it easier for Canadians to access affordable and nutritious food, and build on Canada's resilience and capacity to meet domestic needs.

From the beginning, we have placed people and affordability at the centre of our economic plan because we know the pressures are real and demand immediate action. We believe in a Canada for all.