Abdelhaq Sari
Bourassa, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, people are coming out of the woodwork every day claiming to be AI experts. Some have contacted me, others have tried to meet with me and, recently, someone insisted that I read his book. I thought to myself, “Oh no, not another one!” I decided to take his advice anyway and read his book. Well, I followed his advice.”
“Most of all, the environment and our planet will benefit, because each appliance repaired rather than discarded represents a resource conserved and one less piece of trash. Repair is an integral part of Quebec and Canadian culture.”
“That is what Bill C-267 proposes: a response that is both simple and ambitious—a national framework for sustainable and repairable electronic products and essential devices. It is not a rigid regulation; it is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdictions.”
“It makes a lot of sense because it provides that things can be repaired instead of merely replaced, that we can be informed instead of being unaware, and that we can work together instead of imposing anything. (1830) [ English ] I think of the families in Bourassa and across the country who are watching what we do here today.”
“The European Union introduced a right to repair directive in 2024. The United Kingdom passed its legislation back in 2021. In the U.S., over twenty states have taken action with bipartisan support. Apple, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool are already adapting these standards to their other markets. This means a minimal burden for Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-267 . Someone's refrigerator breaks down. They call a technician, who says that the part is no longer available, that the repair manual is missing or was never available and that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance.”
The complete record
Every one of 360 lines we hold for Abdelhaq Sari, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“It reminds us that AI must also be human-centred. I call on the House to recognize Mr. Chenel's contribution to the public debate on AI and to encourage dialogue among the political, business and innovation communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, people are coming out of the woodwork every day claiming to be AI experts. Some have contacted me, others have tried to meet with me and, recently, someone insisted that I read his book. I thought to myself, “Oh no, not another one!” I decided to take his advice anyway and read his book. Well, I followed his advice. The book showcases the extraordinary work of local entrepreneur Patrick Chenel, co-founder of ConqrAI and an AI strategy specialist with over 30 years of experience working with Quebec's biggest companies. In his book AI‑Driven Enterprise , he proposes a concrete framework that focuses on three key dimensions: knowledge management, knowledge sovereignty and human-centred AI governance. At a time when Canada is adopting an AI strategy, that kind of thinking needs to be highlighted.”
“It makes a lot of sense because it provides that things can be repaired instead of merely replaced, that we can be informed instead of being unaware, and that we can work together instead of imposing anything. (1830) [ English ] I think of the families in Bourassa and across the country who are watching what we do here today. The bill is not a partisan project. It is a promise to every household that deserves better: to repair, not replace, to inform, not ignore, and to collaborate, not oppose. That is what I believe, and that is what I ask the House to stand for. [ Translation ] Let us refer this bill to committee, where we can improve it together, hear from witnesses and strengthen it. That is what Canadian families deserve, and that is what this bill delivers.”
“Most of all, the environment and our planet will benefit, because each appliance repaired rather than discarded represents a resource conserved and one less piece of trash. Repair is an integral part of Quebec and Canadian culture. I know several associations and groups in Bourassa, Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec that help people with their repair projects. Today I would like to talk about the community of activists and volunteers who help people with repairs. One example is Wai Chu Cheng in the riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park: She is the co-founder of Repair Café in Toronto, Ontario. This culture is not confined to Quebec or Alberta; it is across Canada. In closing, I am reaching out to my colleagues from all parties, all regions and from every province. This is not a partisan bill. It is a sensible bill.”
“The European Union introduced a right to repair directive in 2024. The United Kingdom passed its legislation back in 2021. In the U.S., over twenty states have taken action with bipartisan support. Apple, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool are already adapting these standards to their other markets. This means a minimal burden for Canada. The benefit for families will be substantial, tangible and real. We may wonder who is going to benefit. First, Canadian families that cannot afford to replace everything once a year will benefit; the repair shops that my colleagues mentioned earlier will benefit; local SMEs, often run by tradespeople and immigrants who are currently denied access by manufacturers to the parts and information they need to perform repairs will benefit.”
“That is what Bill C-267 proposes: a response that is both simple and ambitious—a national framework for sustainable and repairable electronic products and essential devices. It is not a rigid regulation; it is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdictions. It is a flexible framework developed in collaboration with the regions, the provinces, industry and consumer advocacy groups that would finally give Canadians the right to know, the right to choose and the right to repair. In practical terms, the bill sets minimal durability standards and requires the availability of spare parts, technical documentation for independent repair persons, and clear labelling so that consumers know what they are sinking their money into before they spend it. Through this bill, Canada is simply catching up with the rest of the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-267 . Someone's refrigerator breaks down. They call a technician, who says that the part is no longer available, that the repair manual is missing or was never available and that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance. That person is then forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that should have been repaired. This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called planned obsolescence. These appliances are deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable in order to force people to repair them. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year. The solution is a collaborative national framework.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her eloquence and for the way she presented this bill and its various provisions. I would like to highlight a very important aspect of this bill, and that is the support it provides to municipalities and police forces. I would like to ask my colleague if she could elaborate on the issue of victims' rights, expand on her thoughts on that and, obviously, tell us how this bill will provide more protection for survivors of violence.”
“Madam Speaker, AI is fundamentally redefining how Canadians work, learn and build their businesses. Our students want the skills and tools to seize the jobs of tomorrow. Our SMEs want to adopt AI so they can innovate, grow and create good jobs here in Canada. Can the government explain how Canada's “AI for All” strategy will enable Canadians to take full advantage of the economic benefits of this technological revolution?”
“I would also like to commend Richesses culturelles Montréalaises for its invaluable support of this cultural initiative and for its commitment to supporting initiatives like these that bring various Canadian cultures closer together. I hope that Dr. Nacim Haddad receives a level of recognition that matches his talent.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dr. Nacim Haddad, whom I welcomed today at my Hill office. Dr. Haddad is an artist, physicist and a keeper of memories. He is at the crossroads of nuclear physics, art and communication, devoting his work to promoting the musical art of Aita. Aita is a traditional musical art form from the Kingdom of Morocco. It carries a collective soul that has been passed down from generation to generation. Through his Ayta World Tour, Dr. Haddad infuses the art of Aita with a contemporary spirit that is worthy of its great history. Dr. Haddad brings together past and present, tradition and creativity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say that the government protects workers and institutions, especially as they relate to what we seek to promote: the French language and francophone culture. We want to keep passing on our history and our culture to your young people, in our own voice and using our own language.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the objective is the same. What we want is to protect our institutions, promote the French language and protect francophone culture. In 2025, our government invested $150 million in CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million over three years in Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million over three years in the Canada Media Fund, $26.1 million over three years in the National Film Board and $6 million over three years in the Canada Council for the Arts. Our government will defend the French language, francophone culture and the essential institutions that protect them. I came today not to orate, but to present numbers and facts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and his interest. I can say one thing: I fully agree with the objective. My colleague and I could discuss the pace we should set and how to proceed. We must also not forget that we are currently in negotiations with another country to the south. We therefore need to figure out how to move forward with our proposals and our approach. This has been said many times, and I reiterate it today: Quebec culture and its francophone identity are non-negotiable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I, too, was having a hard time speaking because of all the noise. I would ask my colleague to repeat his question, because I could not really hear him, even with the interpretation. That said, if I understood correctly, he was asking whether the tax will be broadly applied. I am simply saying that what matters to us is the objective itself, that of protecting our industry, protecting out jobs and protecting our culture. That is the goal. The most important thing is not knowing who will have to pay and who will not, but ensuring a degree of fairness. Obviously, that is what we are aiming for.”
“If we do not fully support this industry, we will not be able to encourage, retain and develop the teams responsible for these productions. As I said, Canada never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada will not start doing that today. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.”
“At a time when countries around the world are in fierce competition to attract production investment and creative talent, now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. Now is the time to modernize our framework responsibly so that it reflects the realities of the digital age, while continuing to support the creators who put Canada on the map. Canada has never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada has never done that, and it will not start today. Before coming to Quebec and Canada, what most attracted me was Canadian and Quebec culture. How do we get to know this culture? Through what means? How do we hear about it? Who is the ambassador for this culture? We discover this culture through Quebec's cultural productions, which are exported abroad, both in English and French.”
“Should international and multinational streaming platforms, which generate significant revenue from the Canadian public, contribute to the Canadian broadcasting and production system, or should the burden continue to fall disproportionately on Canadian broadcasters and companies alone? I believe Canadians know the answer. There should not be an imbalance. It should not be disproportionate. It should be balanced. A modern broadcasting system needs to reflect a modern market. That requires fairness, sustainability and, above all, ensuring that the economic benefits of our system continue to support Canadian jobs. Canadian production and Canadian stories must also be supported.”
“Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries, and our creators develop commercial intellectual property on an international scale. Film and creative studios attract foreign investment. Canada strengthens its position in a rapidly expanding global audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada stronger. It would make it far more dependent, and since we are seeking cultural sovereignty, such a dependence is something to be avoided, especially when we consider the motion under discussion today. The substance of the issue before the House is simple.”
“It is because businesses invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities, and Canada offers all of that. It offers opportunities, infrastructure and, above all, exceptional Canadian talent. The irony is that many of the voices criticizing these requirements today will celebrate the Canadian industry's success without ever acknowledging the policies that made it possible. We cannot separate our success from the public policy framework that has supported this growth. When domestic production shrinks, jobs disappear, creative workers leave the industry or leave the country altogether, and Canada becomes dependent on content produced abroad, without maintaining its own creative industrial base. This is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience.”
“Young people tend to go directly to online content rather than broadcast content. That is a very important distinction to make, because historically, only broadcasters were required to contribute. Imposing obligations on one group but not the other was not sustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming, while foreign platforms that generate significant revenue in Canada are exempt from this requirement, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will inevitably crumble. This framework is neither unique nor radical. In fact, we see the same thing happening all over the world. European countries have adopted similar requirements, and despite these obligations, major global platforms continue to invest heavily in these markets. (1320) It is fair to ask why that is the case.”
“These are technicians, artists, producers, actors, videographers, translators and many more. The economic impact is much broader because it goes far beyond the film set. When a production comes to a community, for example in Montreal, hotel rooms are filled, visits to local restaurants increase and local workers are hired. It also generates interest in tourism and economic development for the area. Entire local economies benefit from a vibrant production sector not just in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, but also in rural, northern and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established by the Online Streaming Act is so important. The world has changed considerably since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Canadians are consuming more and more content online. This is especially true for young people.”
“These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production industries in the world. The motion before us today disregards that reality. It portrays contributions to Canadian programming as a burden or penalty. However, these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property and economic activity across the country. Let us be clear: Platforms are not being asked to throw their money away. They are being asked to invest in some of the best productions in the world. They cannot claim that the programming produced here is unworthy of their services. The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good, highly skilled jobs filled by Canadians in every region of the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise to express my clear opposition to the motion. I oppose it because I want to defend a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and our country's economic prosperity. Despite the rhetoric evident in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, this debate is not about a so-called streaming tax. It is about whether global streaming giants, which derive substantial revenue from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the ecosystem that they benefit from every day. There is nothing radical or new about this. For decades, companies that participate in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation of Canadian programming.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. What we presented today is completely in line with Justice Arbour's recommendations and the testimony we heard in committee. Once again, we are a responsible government. We are a government that wants to make room for anyone who wants to file a complaint. We are a government that believes every member of the military should receive equal justice for themselves and everyone who works with them and where every member should also feel that justice to be equal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I fully understand my colleague's point, but the fact remains that we do not want to remove that possibility. Once again, there is a difference in understanding on both sides of the House. I can simply say that the civilian courts have the skills, understanding and experience in this regard. Furthermore, once again, we want to work with all parties on all sides to ensure that complainants are given every opportunity to make a complaint.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not share my point of view, and our understanding of the matter differs, as he pointed out. I would like to thank him for that. In this matter, what we are saying is that someone in the same chain of command could harm a complainant's career. We want to maintain that independence. We want to give that freedom to the person who wishes to file a complaint. We want the person to have that freedom, that comfort and that peace of mind once the complaint is filed. We are always open to suggestions, but as I said, we do not necessarily share the same understanding on both sides.”
“Today, we have a real opportunity, an opportunity to transcend partisan lines, an opportunity to turn our commitments into action, an opportunity to send a clear message that dignity, security and justice are non-negotiable. Behind every reform are individuals, women and men who have chosen to serve this country with courage and dedication. They deserve more than our gratitude. They deserve a safe environment, a fair system and an institution that reflects the values they uphold. That is precisely what we have a responsibility to build here.”
“It recognizes that certain functions need to be performed outside the chain of command to ensure their integrity. Integrity is the very foundation of any trustworthy institution. I will even repeat that statement by saying that integrity is the sine qua non of any trustworthy institution. A strong military is not only defined by its ability to defend our borders; it is also defined by the respect it affords to each and every one of its members. It is also defined by its ability and, above all, its willingness to evolve. In conclusion, refusing to change means accepting that the same injustices will persist. We have a collective responsibility here to reject that.”
“To those who cite the unique nature of the military context as a reason to maintain internal jurisdiction, I would say that, when it comes to serious criminal offences, especially sexual offences, the highest standards of independence and expertise must prevail. The civilian system has these capabilities. It has the necessary resources and specialized training, and, above all, it has the experience required to handle these cases with the sensitivity and rigour they require. A strong chain of command is not about absolute control. It is about trust. Trust is built on justice, actual justice and perceived justice. Transparency is also important for building trust. Above all, responsibility and accountability are essential. Enshrining recommendation five in law does not weaken our military institutions; it strengthens them.”
“(1710) Imagine what it is like for someone who has to report an assault in a context where their career, performance reviews and professional future depend directly or indirectly on the very organization that is handling their complaint. This is not just a procedural matter. It is a matter of fundamental trust, and without trust, there can be no justice. By transferring these cases to the civilian system, we are introducing a crucial institutional distance and ensuring genuine independence, which strengthens the credibility of the process and sends a clear message to victims that their voices matter, their safety is a priority and their cases will be handled with all the rigour and impartiality they deserve.”
“Among its recommendations, recommendation five stands out for its scope and the clarity of the message it sends to all of Canadian society. Some might wonder why the transfer to civilian courts is so fundamental. The answer is simple, but it touches on the very essence of what we mean by justice. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done independently and impartially. However, in a system where the chain of command plays a central role in every aspect of a service member's professional life, there exists a structural perception of a conflict of interest whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not. For a victim, this perception alone may be enough to discourage any reporting.”
“The Liberal government has chosen to take action, not with symbolic gestures, but with a clear and measurable commitment to bring about lasting change. This has resulted in the strengthening of independent report mechanisms, improved support for victims, greater transparency in disciplinary processes and a renewed commitment to accountability. Let us be clear, however, that changing an institutional culture cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires time, consistency, and above all the political courage to challenge structures deeply rooted in an institution's history—in this case, the military. It is in this context that Justice Arbour's report marked a turning point. This report did not merely identify the flaws, it charted a course forward, a demanding but necessary one.”
“As introduced, Bill C-11 removes the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual assault offences and gives that jurisdiction to civilian authorities. This is not a new approach. It is in keeping with the interim directive adopted in December 2021 based on Justice Arbour's interim recommendation. Since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been shifted to the civilian justice system. The directive has proven its worth. Bill C-11 enshrines it in law and makes it permanent. Any attempt to undermine or undo the progress made over the past five years would constitute an unacceptable step backwards and a direct affront to the victims and survivors who have had the courage to speak out.”
“This testimony is not an exception to the rule. It is the rule, and it points to a systemic problem. Ad hoc solutions are not enough to address a systemic problem. What it takes is a profound, thoughtful, courageous and coherent transformation enshrined in law. That is exactly what Bill C‑11 proposes, supported by recommendation 5 of the Hon. Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice. Bill C-11 proposes significant amendments to the National Defence Act. It aims to modernize a military justice system that, in some respects, has failed to keep pace with the changing values and expectations of Canadian society. Basically, it strengthens accountability, reinforces institutional independence and ensures compliance with the standards of fairness that Canadians expect.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill that means a great deal to me, a bill focused on issues that transcend partisan divides. Bill C-11 , the military justice system modernization act, is a practical, structured and too long-awaited answer to realities that we can no longer ignore. I am rising to speak to an issue that affects the public trust, the dignity of the women and men who bravely serve their country and the very integrity of our institutions: a profound and lasting cultural transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces. For too long, members of the armed forces, especially but not exclusively women, have carried a silent burden. Courageous testimony has brought to light disturbing realities: sexual misconduct, abuse of power, a climate of fear and, at times, a sense of persistent impunity.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I am reaching out to my colleagues in the House, from all political parties and all regions, and asking them to vote to send this bill to committee, where we will be able to study it, improve it, hear from witnesses and make it stronger together. Repairing instead of replacing, informing instead of ignoring, collaborating instead of imposing: that is the spirit behind this bill. That is the spirit I am bringing to the House today. [ English ] This should not be a partisan issue—”
“Every day, in the riding of Bourassa, in the streets of Montreal North or Ahuntsic, I meet ordinary folks who are facing tough choices: seniors who have to choose between getting their fridge repaired and buying a new one; young families going into debt to replace a phone that could have been repaired; small business owners losing contracts because they cannot get the parts they need. This bill sends them the message that we see them, we hear them and we are taking action. This is not a partisan or ideologically motivated bill. It is a common-sense bill that is based on the reality of Canadian families, supported by a global movement and built on collaboration.”
“First and foremost, it will benefit Canadian families. Second, it will benefit small repair businesses, those local shops that are often run by immigrants who come to this country. They are often craftspeople or tradespeople who are currently being deprived of access to parts. Third, it will benefit the environment. For every device that is repaired instead of replaced, a natural resource is preserved. Fourth, it will benefit the industry itself. This framework will deliver a more transparent market, clear standards and a level playing field for all manufacturers. I will end where I began, by talking about Canadian families.”
“I am talking here about major manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Whirlpool and Apple. They have all announced programs to provide access to spare parts under international regulatory pressure. That means that adapting would impose very little burden on these large manufacturers here in Canada, since they are already meeting these requirements elsewhere. (1730) [ English ] This bill is not ahead of its time; it is catching up. [ Translation ] I want to be very clear: This bill is not an end in itself. It is not an objective we want to achieve. It is a serious starting point. It provides a legislative foundation that will help move the debate forward and that will allow us to hear from experts, consumer groups and industry stakeholders so that the bill can be strengthened in committee. Who will benefit from this bill?”
“This EU directive requires manufacturers to make spare parts available, to provide technical documentation to independent repair people and to not impede repairs through software updates. Since 2021, the United Kingdom has been imposing similar requirements regarding the availability of spare parts for several categories of household appliances. In the United States, more than 20 states have passed or are in the process of passing laws on the right to repair with remarkable bipartisan support. Both Republicans and Democrats see this as a matter of consumer freedom and local economic competitiveness. In practical terms, this means that large international manufacturers that sell their goods in Canada are already adapting to these new standards in their other markets.”
“This national framework will have to be tabled in both chambers of Parliament within the next few months. Five years later, its effectiveness will be reviewed and a report will be submitted to Parliament. [ English ] It is a measured, transparent approach that respects parliamentary processes and would give the government the tools to act without presuming solutions before consulting all stakeholders and parties. [ Translation ] Canada is not starting from scratch, as I mentioned earlier. It is part of a global movement that has been gaining momentum over the past few years. In June 2024, the European Union adopted a directive on the right to repair, which covers a wide variety of appliances, including smart phones, tablets, washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators.”
“Specifically, here is what the bill provides. It mandates the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework, in consultation with his provincial and territorial counterparts, that includes measures focused on minimal product durability, ensuring that appliances last a reasonable amount of time; repairability, so that consumers can have their appliances repaired using readily available parts, tools and information; the availability of spare parts, to ensure that manufacturers do not stop making them prematurely; access to technical documentation, so that independent repair technicians can work their trade; software support, so that updates are not used to render appliances that are still in perfectly good working order obsolete; informative labelling, so that consumers know how long their appliances will last before they buy them.”
“(1725) [ English ] In addition, there is a phenomenon that specialists call planned obsolescence, with devices deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable, to force replacement. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented reality recognized by regulators around the world. [ Translation ] I want to be clear about the nature of this bill, what it is proposing and what it is not proposing. This is not a rigid set of regulations being imposed on the industry from the top down. This is not a government telling manufacturers what to do in minute detail. It is certainly not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. This bill establishes a national framework that is flexible, progressive, collaborative and based on extensive consultation with the provinces and territories, industry and consumer advocacy groups.”
“There is a fundamental asymmetry of information between manufacturers, who know everything, and consumers, who know almost nothing. This asymmetry comes at a high cost to Canadian families. On top of that is a phenomenon that experts refer to as planned obsolescence. It means that devices are deliberately designed to not last and to not be repaired, in order to force consumers to replace them. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a well-documented reality, recognized by regulators around the world, one that is currently being addressed through legislation in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada must act, and that is exactly what Bill C-267 proposes.”