Debates of June 11th, 2026

Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Public Safety; and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Science and Innovation.

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #154

Strong and Free Elections Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are leaving for what we hope are greener pastures. I imagine most of them are heading to committee meetings. Hopefully they will go well. There are not many meetings left before the session ends.

I would like to say a few words about Bill C-25. Since we are nearing the end of the process having debated it in the House and discussed it at length in committee, I am not going to leave people in suspense. The Bloc is going to vote in favour of Bill C-25, which has moved forward with relative consensus in both the House and in committee. Everything went smoothly, that much is true. Furthermore, once I have outlined the bill's objectives, I will highlight its strengths. I will save the less positive aspects for last, because there are some.

Bill C-25 amends the Canada Elections Act and addresses various issues.

More specifically, it seeks to prevent large numbers of candidates from registering, as the protesters from the longest ballot committee have done. The hope is that we avoid ending up with ballots featuring 290 candidates that have to be unfolded like road maps and clog up the ballot boxes. We have worked to find solutions to prevent this from happening again.

The bill also aims to strengthen the integrity, security and transparency of federal elections, but once again, there are a few minor pitfalls that I will address later. The bill seeks to update the electoral framework to address the risks of disinformation, foreign interference and cybersecurity. These issues were not yet as prominent during the last review of the Canada Elections Act.

The bill also seeks to formally change the names of certain electoral districts. I will take the liberty of going over the changes affecting my colleagues. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will now have a much easier riding name to remember. She will become the hon. member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. The member for Jonquière's riding name will get a little longer, but it will make his constituents happy. He will now be known as the member for “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. The Bloc Québécois already has the maple capital in one of its ridings. Now we officially have the blueberry capital too.

The member for Rimouski—La Matapédia is heading in the opposite direction of the future member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. From now on, he will be the member for “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. That name includes every single RCM in his riding.

As I was saying, the goals of the reform introduced by Bill C-25 are broad and entirely legitimate, but in our view, they have not been fully achieved. I said we would be generous, so we will talk about the positives. One of the changes to the Canada Elections Act is the end of anonymous donations. The new version of the act will no longer allow it.

It used to be allowed. People may not know this, but it used to be possible to make a donation completely anonymously, including through prepaid credit cards or cryptocurrencies that are impossible to trace. The new version of the act states that, should a member of Parliament happen to receive this type of donation, the money would be returned to the donor or destroyed if the donor could not be identified.

This prevents funding from being received from obscure sources, such as donations from foreign entities. Attempts are being made to interfere with our elections. This is one aspect of the bill that helps counter this interference, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly common. Just look at the work carried out by Justice Hogue, who chaired the foreign interference commission.

There are also stricter guidelines for nomination contests. In the wake of what is known in Quebec as the brownie scandal, we expected to see an equivalent measure put in place at the federal level, because Quebec had already quickly stated that it would close this loophole allowing fundraising for certain people in an electoral process, including leadership candidates and nomination contestants.

In stronghold ridings, the question is not so much who will win the riding as who will win the nomination contest. If a party is contributing money to a nomination contestant, there is a reasonable expectation, in some cases, that they would then become the member of Parliament.

That was not covered, but Quebec acted swiftly. We were happy to see the federal government follow suit. We were prepared to introduce a bill to that effect, but everything we were prepared to introduce was included in Bill C-25. We applaud the initiative.

As for the work that is also being done on disinformation and other forms of interference, we know that interference can be done through social media and online publications, among other things. The bill already prohibits deepfakes, which mislead people and cause them to unduly vote against a candidate or favour a candidate by manipulating the content of a post or publication. We have seen examples of members of Parliament being victims of deepfakes that encouraged people to invest in certain products, which was completely misleading. Therefore, the bill prohibits creating or disseminating AI-generated content that falsely claims to be authentic and is in fact intended to deceive voters about a political actor or even the electoral process itself.

We are also banning disinformation specifically regarding the electoral process. Unfortunately, among our neighbours to the south, we are seeing more people growing to distrust the integrity of the process. Bill C-25 addresses exactly that. It aims to expand existing provisions to further crack down on the publication of false or misleading information regarding voting procedures, such as voter eligibility, the various candidates and the nomination process. For example, a publication urging people to vote the day after the election would be subject to penalties now provided for in the bill.

Bill C-25 also addresses issues related to hacking. There are new offences related to hacking and the unauthorized use of a computer, among other things.

One of the issues that has interested us greatly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is the idea of preventing a large number of candidates from running. We know that the right to run for office is a fundamental right, but unfortunately we have seen in the past that this right has been used to subvert democracy. It was a highly militant act to attempt to break the record for the longest ballot.

Every member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed on the importance of addressing this issue, to the extent that we even moved a motion to conduct a study in committee specifically on the longest ballot. Most of the recommendations that emerged from that study are reflected in the bill. For example, it is now impossible for an official agent in a riding to serve as the official agent for multiple candidates. The longest ballot committee had a single official agent for 290 candidates. This is nonsensical considering the fact that legitimate candidates are meant to compete against one another.

Bill C-25 also establishes a new offence intended to deter individuals from encouraging voters to sign multiple nomination forms. We know that approach taken by the longest ballot committee involved group signing sessions where everyone would gather together and sign numerous nomination forms in a single sitting.

The bill also makes it an offence for a candidate to provide false or misleading information on their nomination forms or to encourage people to sign unidentified nomination forms. One of the things the committee pointed out was that, in order to recruit candidates, their nomination forms are already provided for them. Blank forms are already signed and given to them so that they can apply.

Various offences have also been added in this respect, but something has been added that we do not agree with. I am referring to prohibiting a voter from signing more than one nomination form. I talked about group signing sessions earlier, when a hundred or so forms are signed in a single sitting. That is one thing. However, a voter may legitimately want to or wish to sign more than one nomination form. Adding this limit, in our opinion, does not solve the problem. That is what the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, confirmed. The CEO does not have sufficient resources to cross-reference the data between the nomination forms to see whether there are indeed multiple signatures. In any case, candidates would not de disqualified on that basis.

Canada's Chief Electoral Officer has been very clear on this point. Allowing multiple signatures would not disallow certain candidates, in part because it would be impossible to determine which signature was obtained first in order and then establish which ballot is valid or invalid. This therefore places an unnecessary burden on the voters—not on the candidates—as they must limit themselves to signing only one nomination form. In our view, this also runs counter to the principle of the ballot secrecy.

If a voter is limited to a single signature, they might legitimately conclude that they are indirectly supporting a candidate and that, since they can sign only one nomination form, they will sign the nomination form of someone they are interested in. This could harm candidates from smaller parties. Indeed, if a candidate from a small party or even an independent candidate has to inform people that they can sign only one nomination form, that person may want to reserve their signature for someone from a larger party. It becomes difficult for someone from a smaller party to get signatures.

This could be seen as undermining ballot secrecy, but perhaps individuals who have not yet made up their mind might want to support two candidates running against each other so that they can make a more informed decision between the two later on. They might then want to sign two nomination forms, which would now be prohibited under the new legislation, which, as I mentioned, does not compel them one way or another. It might be a deterrent, but given the other offences created, particularly those targeting individuals who induce others to sign more than one nomination form, in this case the offences would apply to a voter. In certain cases the voter might mean well by signing more than one nomination form, and in any event, the various candidates would be accepted. That was the part that bothered us.

I also spoke about the fight against foreign interference. There is no denying that when it comes to elections, what really matters is money. Deepfakes, bribes and misinformation were all looked at. When it comes to fundraising, an attempt was made to address the matter of foreign funds, but the issue has only been partially dealt with, because it is still possible to circumvent the intent of the bill. I will explain what I mean.

Under the new legislation, a third-party entity that might want to promote an idea during an election campaign without being a political party may do so only with Canadian funds. So far, so good. However, we were told that for smaller entities, it becomes a bit complicated to sort out which funds are exclusively Canadian and which of their own funds come from various sources. To avoid complicating matters by requiring such entities to maintain separate bank accounts, the idea was to allow third parties to use up to 10% of their funds, regardless of the source of those funds, in order to participate in an election. It is worth mentioning that the Conservatives did a good job on this issue.

The problem is that for a third-party entity with vast resources, 10% can amount to a significant sum. For example, if several small entities were to join forces and raise a fund of $200 million, $20 million could still be spent without the source of the money being identified. We would have preferred to maintain the principle that only Canadian funds can be used to campaign in an election on behalf of a third party, rather than having this loophole that ultimately allows donations from outside the country to be accepted without additional scrutiny.

We are also disappointed that parties will no longer be required to provide five days' notice of a fundraising event and post it on their website. The report submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada would remove the exact addresses of those participating in the fundraising event for entirely valid security reasons, and I understand that. However, virtually all information about the donors is removed. We would have liked to at least retain the location and time of the event, as well as the postal codes of those who attended.

All of this comes in the wake of what happened with Wealth One Bank. There was a fundraising event in the Papineau riding that Chinese stakeholders had participated in. In the days that followed the fundraising event, the 46 donors from the Toronto area who had participated in it secured federal approval for the creation of their chartered bank, giving them the right to operate in Canada.

It was a form of pay to play. As a result, in 2018, the government created more transparency surrounding fundraisers by requiring the names of attendees to be disclosed. However, these provisions have been removed from the bill, which we believe is an unwarranted step backward when the goal is more transparency.

Another shocking irritant is the fact that the Liberals voted against our recommendation. The bill removes the requirement to return funds to donors when a violation occurs in the filing of the report within 30 days of a fundraising activity. For example, someone might neglect to file a report. It would then never be known who attended a fundraiser. The party would be fined, which it could pay out of the funds raised at that very event. This means that there is no deterrent to committing a violation when people hold a fundraiser, because they could reimburse themselves using the funds collected during that event if the rules are not followed. That is something that the Liberals removed from the original legislation. We tried to restore it through an amendment, but unfortunately it did not pass. That was certainly disappointing.

As I also mentioned, we would have liked to see more transparency in the reports. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois tried to achieve this. Unfortunately, their efforts went nowhere.

Another issue was raised, and that is privacy. We know that this is a very sensitive issue these days. Our digital identity is becoming increasingly prevalent and increasingly important. Governments must follow suit and ensure that organizations collecting sensitive information protect it adequately.

Bill C-25 takes a small step in the right direction by requiring parties to adopt formal privacy policies. However, it does not go any further, and that creates problems. The idea that parties will self-regulate when it comes to protecting privacy is flawed. For example, different parties will likely have different policies, and there is no federal framework to ensure consistency among them. This is essentially self-regulation, which is problematic.

Furthermore, last June, we passed Bill C-4. This bill allows political parties to be exempt from privacy protection measures implemented in Quebec and the other provinces. For example, a province may adopt a rigorous data protection regime that it wishes to impose on organizations such as federal political parties. This is precisely what British Columbia did, and that is what prompted the decision regarding Bill C-4. However, Bill C-4 exempts federal parties from the application of these measures.

We wanted to reinstate this requirement in the new version of the Canada Elections Act, but it was not included. Several witnesses told us that, pending a national federal privacy policy for political parties, ensuring that parties are at least subject to provincial regulations was the lesser of two evils. If a province has strict regulations, one can assume that the parties will comply with them. At the very least, in the meantime, while we wait for a genuine national policy, this would help unify data protection systems, rather than letting the parties regulate themselves.

I see that my time is almost up and that I have just a few seconds left. I just want to point out that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill even though it could have been improved more than it was. This is a little like someone telling us they are going to repaint the house, but they end up painting just one room and dirtying the floor in the process. It is better than it was, but it is not perfect.

Anyway, we will vote in favour of the bill even though it is somewhat disappointing, unfortunately. We hope that, in the near future, we will have an opportunity to revisit those shortcomings and fix them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting when the member was talking about the longest ballot issue. I am in full agreement on how we are moving forward with the official agents, because it makes absolutely no sense at all to have a multitude of candidates being represented in one riding by one official agent. That is a positive.

The area that caught my interest was her explanation of getting the nomination form signed. When I go to the doors, I will often say it does not mean they are supporting me. All it means is that I am able to get my name on the ballot. Generally speaking, people of all political stripes are very sympathetic to that. I am somewhat concerned about the Bloc's looking for an alternative to it.

Because Elections Canada has a mechanism to enable party feedback, has the Bloc party's representative provided that sort of feedback on the issue? If not, maybe that is something they could review in the future.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the parliamentary secretary's question, it is important to remember that the measure has still not been adopted. In fact, it does not exist until the bill receives royal assent.

We made these recommendations in committee proactively and asked the Chief Electoral Officer some questions directly. Who better to answer our questions than the Chief Electoral Officer himself? He confirmed that, in any case, there is no way to implement an enforcement mechanism to prevent someone from signing more than one nomination form.

He told us very openly that he hoped this measure would act as a deterrent, but that, otherwise, we could not hope to solve the problem with this measure alone. Our argument is that all the other measures, such as the single official agent that the parliamentary secretary mentioned and the sanctions imposed on those who encourage someone to sign multiple nomination forms, would be enough.

In other words, there is no added value in the requirement to have a single signature, although there are several disadvantages.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech, which was clearly very well researched. I also want to congratulate her, not only on her new role, although she has been in that role for a while, but also on a wonderful year, both personally and professionally. In fact, all our colleagues I talk to about are very happy for her. Everyone is pleased with the work done by my colleague.

Speaking of election laws, as parliamentarians we are in an extraordinary conflict of interest, since that is our job. That is our job and the reality we face. Our organizations, meaning political parties, are directly affected by the rules we adopt.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on her party's experience over the past year. This is a unique situation, not unlike the well-known 50%-plus-one debate, where a single vote made a difference and the courts were called upon to rule on it.

Can my colleague share the lessons we, as a society, were able to learn from this event?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk for his kind words. First of all, I really appreciate it. He is a colleague that I hold in high regard.

There is a lot in that question. I think that many people have learned a number of lessons, sometimes different ones. However, the one that is perhaps the most objective and applies to all parties, and even more so to the public, is the idea that every vote counts. I think that is the lesson everyone has learned.

As for the rest, the methods used, all parties have been able to draw various lessons. However, I am sure that, as they knocked on doors, all parties had to remind people that every vote can make a difference.

We saw a very concrete example of this during the last election, and it is something that will probably set a precedent for the future. We need to remind people that, even if they may sometimes think otherwise, their vote can have a significant impact.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague.

I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday.

My question is very simple. I am surprised, even disappointed, when we talk about loopholes for foreign funds. When we seek impartiality and transparency, what are the consequences of not being able to block money that we cannot detect?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She hit the nail on the head. The problem of interference stems from an inability to identify the source. One thing became clear in committee, and that is the fact that, unfortunately, we will always be one step behind. Hostile foreign actors will always have vast resources at their disposal that allow them to find legal loopholes.

The problem is that when we are aware of these loopholes and choose not to close them, we become partly responsible for our own misfortune. I gave some examples, including allowing a third party to use up to 10% of its own funds to conduct activities during an election campaign. A third-party organization could have $200 million in the bank from its own funds, which could come from the United States, China, or anywhere. That still amounts to $20 million that it can use with impunity, rather than having to go through a separate bank account where only Canadian funds would be used.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are a bit disappointed that the Liberals voted against some of our amendments. I think that will affect how we will vote.

I would like to know what the Bloc Québécois member thinks of some of these amendments, particularly those aimed at strengthening the security of ballot boxes, as well as the measures designed to close loopholes that allow third parties to advertise on behalf of one party or another.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question in excellent French. I am very grateful for that.

As for the funding loophole, I previously talked about it when I was answering my colleague's question.

In terms of the security of the ballot boxes, this was a Conservative amendment that was very interesting on the substance, but not as interesting in form, in our opinion, because it wanted to include something very specific into the Elections Act to protect ballot boxes. If memory serves, I remember, for example, that the clause provided for the use of a three-point locking system, along with video surveillance. This is something that, in our opinion, should be in the regulations instead, which allow for much more flexibility.

Including the principle of the security of ballot boxes is something that could have been done by amending the act. However, very specific proposals were made, for example, with regard to using a three-point locking system. In five years, that may be a completely outdated technology. We would then be stuck with an election law that is no longer up to date, which would impose on the party something that no longer works and that cannot be changed other than through a legislative amendment. However, in that context, the regulations would have allowed for more flexibility.

It was a really great idea. The way it was carried out might have warranted a different approach. That is why we voted against it. It was not the principle that we took issue with, but rather the way it was handled.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would expand on something. We have talked about deepfakes, which she made reference to, and social media, and the potential harms. Does the Bloc have anything to suggest that goes beyond what is in the legislation?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I only wish I had other suggestions. The questions were put to the witnesses. We were coming back to the idea that technology advances so quickly that we are always lagging behind, which is why it is perhaps important to review the legislation on a regular basis.

The law's current provisions serve a legitimate purpose, but I still get the sense it will never be enough. That is why it is so important for members and political actors not to add fuel to the fire by spreading disinformation, which, unfortunately, is often used to feed deepfakes.

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-267, An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when someone's refrigerator breaks down, they call a technician. If he says that the part is no longer available, that the documentation is missing or was never available, or that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance, that person is forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that could have been, and should have been, repaired.

This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called “planned obsolescence”.

Devices are deliberately designed not to last, not to be repairable and to force replacement. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member.

I have checked with the clerks at the table. Debate on the member's bill has already taken place. This is the second hour, and he will have the right of reply only at the very end of the second hour.

I believe I will resume the debate. If other members wish to rise and participate, they may do so. As for the member, he will have his right of reply at the very end of the second hour of debate.

The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is also a pleasure to be speaking today about Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances.

In a former Parliament, I served as the critic for the environment for the Conservatives. One of the big criticisms I had of Liberal policies was about the Liberals' promise, in one of their platform pledges, that they would make all home appliances Energy Star. One might think that Energy Star sounds like a very good thing. If everyone had Energy Star appliances in their homes, they would have access to the lowest electrical usage machines available in Canada or in North America for laundry, dishwashing and all things.

However, many people do not know that, first of all, Energy Star is an American designation that essentially says that to be Energy Star, a product has to be among the top 25% most energy-conserving products out there. Someone might ask what is wrong with that. The first thing it does is it raises prices, because energy-reducing technology costs more. It usually uses advanced technology and chips, which also costs more.

Essentially, if a person is a private citizen of low income, like a pensioner, is someone who is starting out or is a single mother, and suddenly their dryer, washer or dishwasher blows out and they have to go to the local store, they would only get access to a quarter of the inventory out there, with the most expensive products only. This would push people into used ones, and perhaps that is not a bad thing, but only wealthy Canadians would probably be able to afford to buy new.

Now fast-forward to this bill. I will quote the preamble:

Whereas Canadian households bear significant costs when they have to replace electronic products and essential home appliances prematurely;

Whereas consumers increasingly depend on electronic products and essential home appliances in their everyday lives;

Whereas product durability and repairability help protect consumers, reduce household expenses and boost the competitiveness of a responsible economy;

Whereas transparency about the useful life of products and the support available for them fosters a fairer and more competitive market;

And whereas Parliament considers it desirable to establish a national framework for products marketed in Canada in order to promote minimum standards of durability and repairability;

These are all noble things, and I am happy to see the Liberal Party, or at least one member, recognize that we should all be focused on affordability. This exactly opposite to their approach in previous iterations. The Trudeau government was trying to raise standards to make things more costly. Now this particular member is doing a U-turn.

Where have we seen this before? It is in other environmental areas, such as the carbon tax. Many of the people who are currently sitting in the Liberal Party used to say that Conservatives should support a carbon tax, which would save Canada, lower our emissions, stop forest fires, and everything else. During the 2021 election, a minister of the Crown said to me that I had a “moral failing” for failing to support their increased emissions targets, which were going from 40% to 45%.

Because I would not support that increased goal, they said I had a moral failure, yet now the same Liberal Party members of Parliament have done a U-turn, and so much so that even the former Quebec lieutenant has said that he does not feel that he can be effective in that caucus anymore and has simply said, “I'm out.” It is very interesting to see these changes, and I am sure that some members opposite would understand why some of us feel like we have political whiplash because of the quick changes.

It is really important for us to point out a couple of things. First of all, this particular bill tries to push manufacturers on the aspect of durability. One thing we have to bear in mind is that none of these manufacturers are here in Canada. We are very integrated north-south. In the North American market, almost all of the manufacturers for washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are in the United States. Obviously, some come from places like Korea and whatnot, but the fact of the matter is that this particular bill is trying to push manufacturers to do things differently when they are not here in Canada. Therefore, there is, first of all, that disconnect in the approach that is taken.

The second thing I would say is that the Liberals always seem to believe they have an outsized influence on these things. If a manufacturer is in the United States, who are they making their products for? They are not making Energy Star products specifically and marketing only them. They are selling to a wide variety of people.

One of the biggest challenges here is that if we are asking to make things more durable, industry will say this makes them more expensive. How does that work? Well, if something is more durable, perhaps it requires more steel. If something is more durable, perhaps it uses less plastic. To make something more durable, perhaps it has to use a more expensive alternative refrigeration system. Again, these are important questions to be asking, because, essentially, asking for something to be more durable and wanting it to be cheaper are contradictory concepts.

This is being placed in a far-removed conversation, because they are not Canadian manufacturers and the manufacturers do not consider Canada to be their primary target. In fact, we benefit here in Canada by having access to other markets because the economies of scale in places like the United States give us cheaper products. If we were to suddenly say to them that they have to do these things, when they are not our manufacturers and are not manufacturing things with the Canadian market in mind, that conversation would not go anywhere.

This bill states this in the “National framework” component:

The Minister must, in consultation with the representatives of the provincial governments responsible for consumer protection

This is an interesting part, because provinces can, if they choose, set a level playing field when it comes to things like warranties. Warranties are consumer protections, so it makes sense that there would be some discussion here, but would a foreign manufacturer listen to Prince Edward Island? I do not know. I do not think that would be the case, because, while I respect the members who come from Prince Edward Island, it has a small population.

It is one of those curious aspects of our Constitution, to wax eloquently about our Constitution for a moment, that at the founding of our country, we gave authority to deal with these large manufacturers to the provinces. The provinces can enforce basic standards of contract, which include things like warranties. However, the federal government would be expected here to create, through the Minister of Industry, a framework that would affect things all across the country and a group of companies that are not Canadian.

I am opposed to this particular bill, but I do look forward to hearing the arguments of other members on it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges of the fast pace of modern life is to avoid living in a bubble. It is important to understand what happens before consuming a product and what happens after. The lemon in my glass grew somewhere, and it will end up somewhere. In the case of my phone, people had to work in mines to extract the material needed to produce it, and it will eventually end up somewhere. Sometimes we forget that, but we must not forget it. We need to be aware of that, for the sake of the planet.

Last weekend, I was in the Magdalen Islands. We were hauling lobster traps. For six hours, we were at sea off Havre-aux-Maisons, catching lobster after lobster. Later when I sat down to a lobster dinner, I knew where it came from and what it took to put it on the plate. I think that gave me a broader perspective on things.

The image that I want to start my speech with is that of a mine. My riding is rich in resources. The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region is often referred to as a resource region.

On Sunday morning, I visited Quebec's only salt mine, which is located in the Magdalen Islands. Last summer, I was in Murdochville, where I visited the copper mine.

We cannot forget what a mine entails. Of course, we need minerals to function. We need them, but when mines are opened, it scars the environment. It creates a hole, and there will be tailings. It is a necessary evil, but even when done according to best practices, the fact remains that it has an impact on the environment. We need to keep that in mind when talking about an iPhone or a Samsung, or when talking about a washer or a dryer. We need to remember that mines were opened to provide us with the materials to make these products.

The other image I want to illustrate is that of landfills. My colleagues may have already seen pictures. These days, landfills are enormous, with birds flying overhead and machinery piling up the waste. Every time we fill a landfill, we destroy habitats. No one would want to live there. Again, it is a necessary evil. Anyone living in a modern society has to consume goods.

Yes, mines are necessary, and we have no choice but to have landfills. What we are saying today is that the time between the two needs to be as long as possible. Eventually, the mine in Murdochville will start up again. Between the moment a piece of copper comes out of it and ends up in my phone, and the moment I throw it in the landfill, that time needs to be as long as possible. If I can extend the lifespan of a product, that allows me to open fewer mines and fill fewer landfills.

That is our challenge. It is about extending the lifespan of the goods we consume. Why is this important? In 2019, there were 53 million tonnes of electronic and household appliance waste. What does 53 million tonnes of electronic waste represent? It represents 350 Queen Mary 2 cruise ships.

That is 53 million tonnes per year. Every year, 53 million tonnes of ore are mined. Mines have been opened for this purpose, and all of it will end up in landfills. That is a huge amount. Furthermore, waste from electronic devices and household appliances generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Globally, by 2030, these emissions will total 852 million metric tonnes.

There is no denying that we live in a society that engages in economic activity. We need goods to generate growth and provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Nevertheless, we must be aware of the impact of our economic activity. According to a 2019 UN report, only 17% of all the electronic waste we produce is recycled at this point. That means we have a big problem and we need to do something about it.

What we are seeing is that consumers need a little help. In a Canada-wide survey, Equiterre found that only 19% of respondents chose to have their household appliances repaired.

The remaining 80% of respondents throw them out as soon as there is a problem. As for electronic devices, only 26% of respondents get them repaired. That is still not enough.

Consumers have a role to play in this. We need to make sure that we develop the instinct to keep things that are old. However, businesses also have a role to play. My colleague gave a speech earlier that focused mainly on a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Personally, I do not subscribe to that school of thought at all.

In Quebec, we passed the Consumer Protection Act, which was a major innovation in the 1970s under the René Lévesque government. It is working. As a consumer, we can take action against a company when it fails to provide a product covered by a warranty of proper functioning and quality.

It is therefore possible to act and we must do so. We cannot just wait for companies to regulate themselves. Of course, businesses want to make products at the lowest cost. The point of obsolescence is to generate economic growth. A company that manufactures a dryer that lasts seven years instead of 25 would likely sell many more over the life of a single consumer, so there is a clear economic benefit there.

This is where the government must step in. I want to return to the image I have created for my colleagues: that of mines being opened and landfills being filled. The government must act as an arbiter to guide businesses. Currently, repairing an item like a vacuum cleaner or a dryer often costs more than buying a new one. Then there are cases where items simply cannot be repaired, which is even more frustrating.

This tactic on the part of a business is understandable in a capitalist society, but the government must step in to ensure that as few mines as possible are opened and as few landfills as possible are filled. We must act to protect the environment, because we sometimes seem to forget that not all of the planet's resources are renewable. At some point, there will be no more minerals, and that point must be delayed as long as possible.

Indigenous people often remind us of the need to think of the next seven generations. That is the very least we can do. We must therefore find a way to use our resources.

We must also respect consumers. When someone buys a product that constantly breaks, even if the initial price is lower, they are not better off if they have to replace it every five or six years. That is what we are talking about today: finding a way to protect the planet, respect consumers and support repair shops.

Back home in Saint-Siméon de Bonaventure, there is a little shoe repair shop called Le Petit Cordonnier, run by Guillaume Poirier, whom I really like. Whenever I have old leather shoes that are a bit worn out, I take them to him. He also patches up my Blundstones. He has even repaired a sail for my sailboat and re-upholstered the seat on my motorcycle. There is a real cost-saving aspect to all of this.

However, we must encourage companies to act more responsibly and ensure that our products last as long as possible. In 2023, Quebec demonstrated strong leadership by passing a law that amended the Consumer Protection Act, which, among other things, strengthened the legal warranty of proper functioning and ensured the availability of replacement parts.

Bill C-267 is interesting. It would give the Minister of Industry the mandate to develop a plan to establish a framework with the provinces to promote product sustainability, foster transparency, and better inform the public.

This is nothing revolutionary, but it is a step in the right direction. As long as this is done in a way that respects Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. That is why we will vote in favour of the bill at this stage so that it can be studied in committee.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the first hour of debate on this bill. Bill C-267 aligns with our government priority to remove barriers for Canadians to repair their products and devices. It would give Canadians the flexibility to choose the best options for maintaining and repairing the devices and equipment they own in a competitive marketplace.

The right to repair is about ensuring that consumers have more options and better information on how to repair the products they purchase, whether through authorized manufacturer service, through independent repairs without voiding warranties or even by repairing themselves. This includes access to spare parts, tools, skilled labour and repair information, which needs to always be balanced against health, safety and intellectual property considerations.

In June 2024, our government launched a federal public consultation on the right to repair through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. It focused on home appliances and consumer electronics and included durability, repairability and interoperability. The feedback will help shape our federal approach, including with tools that could improve Canadians' ability to repair products and keep them in use longer.

Our government is empowering consumers to repair their own electronics and appliances. For instance, recent amendments to the Competition Act prevent manufacturers from restricting access to essential tools, parts and diagnostic software. In addition, recent amendments to the Copyright Act allow Canadian individuals and independent repair shops to bypass digital locks when repairing products.

The right to repair is widely supported across the country as well, with more than 75% of Canadians expressing support for federal right-to-repair legislation, according to a 2019 survey commissioned by OpenMedia. One-third of respondents to the study also claimed that they had faced prohibitively expensive repair for a product they owned, forcing them to instead buy a new one. However, a 2022 report by Equiterre found that only 18.6% of Canadians surveyed had repaired their last broken household appliance or electronic device, despite having an interest in extending the lifespan of their products. According to the report, this gap is largely explained by structural barriers rather than a lack of willingness.

Many Canadians perceive that products are not designed to be repairable, which discourages them from attempting repairs themselves altogether. In addition, the high cost of repairs often makes replacing items more economical. Additionally, the difficulty in locating reliable repair services, obtaining spare parts and accessing quality information on repairs further complicates the process. I believe Bill C-267 would have positive impacts by offering more opportunities for Canadians to repair their devices and helping enhance competition for independent repair shops.

By encouraging repair, Bill C-267 would also contribute to reducing the electronic waste produced in Canada. A United Nations report found that in 2019 alone, Canada produced 757,000 tonnes of electronic waste, as was outlined by my friend. This includes fridges, coffee machines and smart phones, to name a few.

Internationally, several governments have already taken concrete steps in this direction. The European Union recently adopted a right-to-repair directive requiring manufacturers to ensure repair access and availability of extended guarantees. The EU is also implementing new rules on product eco-design to support durability and repairability from the start. Several U.S. states, as well, have passed their own right-to-repair laws, focusing especially on access to manuals, tools and spare parts.

In terms of the useful life of a product and labelling, countries such as France, Sweden and others have put practical measures in place. In 2025, France began using the durability index for TVs and washing machines, replacing the previous repairability index. This index, required by antiwaste laws, rates how easy products are to repair and how reliable they are on a scale from zero to 10, among other guidelines.

The goal is to help consumers choose products that last longer and are easier to repair, reducing premature disposal. The rating includes factors like access to repair guides and spare parts, resistance to wear and ease of maintenance. Stores must clearly display the index near the price both in person and online, provide detailed scores upon request and also provide full rating details freely and promptly.

In other countries, product longevity is reflected through their legal warranty frameworks as well. For example, Sweden set a three-year minimum. Norway set five years for products expected to last more than two years. England, Wales and Ireland set six years, while the Netherlands and Finland use a more flexible approach based on a product's average lifespan. These examples show that countries can and do provide consumers with clearer information through labelling or embed expectations around product life in law.

Currently in Canada, there is no official source that provides information on the reasonable minimum useful life of products. This makes it difficult for consumers to know what to expect and to assert their rights regarding product longevity and repair. In Canada, the right to repair falls mainly under provincial jurisdiction, as it involves property, contracts, product sales and consumer complaints. However, the federal government plays a role through its responsibilities regarding copyright, competition and trade.

That is why provinces and territories remain essential partners in advancing the right to repair. As was mentioned, Quebec's Bill 29, for instance, directly targets planned obsolescence and obliges manufacturers to make available the tools and information required to maintain and repair goods. Saskatchewan's Agricultural Implements Act is another example of local legislation supporting repairability. These initiatives show the importance of finding a balance between innovation, consumer rights and supporting local economies.

In short, the right to repair demonstrates the critical need for a collaborative approach bringing together the responsibilities of all levels of government and stakeholders. Bill C-267 would allow the government to work with provinces and territories, where appropriate, and consumer advocacy groups to develop a national framework to promote durability and repairability, thus demonstrating to Canadians, through this collaboration, that ensuring the consumer's right to repair is important to members of the House.

Our goal should be to build a future where repairability is not just ideal but a fair and practical reality for everyone in Canada. I look forward to further discussions on the bill.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. The legislation proposes a federal framework to improve product durability, repairability and transparency for consumers. It sounds really good.

Everyone has stories about appliances and their longevity, or the lack thereof. I bought a second-hand freezer 35 years ago. It is still humming away in our basement. It needs some defrosting. It has almost become a member of the family. I do not know how many more years it has, but it will probably outlive us. There is also my microwave. It is 23 years old today. It celebrated its birthday. About 10 years ago, it had a little problem. It started sparking. My wife, whom I have been pretty impressed with, has come up with some fixes for our dryer and our microwave, and we did a little patch. Guess what? They are still working after all these years.

Those are some good stories about appliances, but not all appliances in our household have happy stories. Take our stove. It did not have a knob, like they used to. I guess some of them still do, but the one we had did not. It had a plastic top. Anyway, one of the little plastic pieces behind broke. It was about 50¢ for the piece, so I thought it would be no problem to get this little repair job done. I thought it was going to keep up with my freezer, but it apparently needed a whole new control panel. They did not make the replacement for that little piece, and a new control panel would have cost almost the same as buying a new a stove. That was a frustrating and expensive experience. Toasters nowadays seem to be just as useless, compared to half a century ago. The list goes on and on.

There is a history of planned obsolescence. Have members ever heard about the Phoebus cartel? I had never heard about the Phoebus cartel before I did the preparation for this speech. It was made up of the world's major light bulb manufacturers. In 1924, we had Osram, which I had never heard of, and Philips, which I have heard of, as well as GE and others. These companies secretly agreed to cap bulb lifespans at about 1,000 hours. They were at about 2,500 hours at that time. They fined members whose bulbs lasted too long. They saw, rightly, that having bulbs that never went out was not good for business.

There is a light bulb in my riding. It was part of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford's riding until the last election. It is in the Ruskin Dam. That light bulb is almost 100 years old. It has not gone out in 100 years. That is amazing. If we had light bulbs like that, we could almost put them in our will.

Planned obsolescence is not new. In the 1920s, GM introduced the annual model year. Alfred Sloan pioneered dynamic obsolescence. He restyled the cars every year so that the previous year looked aged. This is what happened to the Model T. That sank it for Ford and the Model T. It was about fashion.

We see present-day obsolescence in software updates, incompatible chargers, glued-in batteries and printer cartridges with kill chips. This is frustrating. I would agree that the industry can do better. We can get products that last. Canadians would welcome this. I just ordered a fourth shaver a couple days ago from Amazon. They used to last a decade or more. This is what we are seeing.

We need to dig a little deeper into this bill. What would it actually do? It would force the minister to make a bureaucracy. It would force the minister to make a national framework. Liberals love the words “national framework”. The framework must address the minimum useful life and labelling, the repair via accessible parts, tools and information, replacement part availability periods, technical documentation, software support duration, consumer education and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. It is a massive bureaucratic undertaking. I can see the Liberals being gleeful about this bureaucracy.

Frameworks are nebulous and vaporous. What does it mean to have a national framework? It means 50 full-time bureaucrats talking and talking. Maybe it is 500 or 5,000. I do not know. The minister must confer with the provinces on possible future legislation, industry obligations, inspections and penalties every 18 months and must report to Parliament. There would be report after report, more bureaucracy and more expense to the taxpayer.

We have seen this playing out over and over again. We were recently discussing Build Canada Homes, which is a fourth bureaucracy. The Liberals have a terrible record. My staff tell me how hard it is becoming to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency, immigration and the government. It is getting slower and slower. It is hard.

We need to also consider the prices for appliances that were stable and have been declining for many years. It is true that refrigerators, washers and dryers were simpler and easier to repair, and parts were more robust and less dependent on electronics. They were also heavier, with more metal components. Now, electronic control boards, sensors, touch screens and smart features introduce more failure points. Manufacturers are also feeling the pressure to keep prices competitive, which leads to lighter construction and lower-cost components. Before we run headlong into bureaucracy and regulations, we need to also recognize that modern appliances use much less electricity and water. That is a significant cost savings. They have more features and conveniences, and they meet stricter environmental standards. The trade-off has been lower purchase prices and better efficiency versus durability and ease of repair.

This is another issue to keep in mind. Canada is a small market, compared to Europe and the United States. As it was mentioned previously by my colleague from British Columbia, most of the manufacturing is done in other countries. That is a problem, because they are not going to bend for Canada. Basically, what will end up happening is there will be a reduction in the number of products for Canadians. This will certainly increase costs for Canadian consumers, who the Liberals are saying they are trying to help. At the same time, the Internet has made it easier than ever for consumers to see how long things last, based on honest reviews. They may be honest. We may have to pick through them.

The Conservatives are opposing this bill. Why? It is because it moves away from previous Conservative-supported right-to-repair measures. Bill C-294, which we supported, would have made it easier for Canadian businesses and innovators to create products that work with existing technologies, giving consumers more choice and encouraging competition. It was a common-sense measure that would have supported innovation, helped grow our economy and benefited Canadians without taking away copyright protections.

This bill, despite its title, does not display common sense. This bill would present risks around federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals do not have a problem with that. It would introduce the potential for increased regulatory burden on businesses. The Liberals do not have a problem with that, either. It would risk consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products in the Canadian market. It sounds like a great idea, but there are a lot of problems and pitfalls in this bill.

The Conservatives will be voting against it, and I encourage the government to go back to the table and follow the Conservatives' plan.