DeepDive: Enshrining the right to repair: Making life affordable for consumers at no cost to government 

DeepDives is a bi-weekly essay series exploring key issues related to the economy. The goal of the series is to provide Hub readers with original analysis of the economic trends and ideas that are shaping this high-stakes moment for Canadian productivity, prosperity, and economic well-being. The series features the writing of leading academics, area experts, and policy practitioners. 

Amidst the federal election and a period of heightened economic uncertainty, the political parties are in search of low-cost yet high-impact policy ideas that expand consumer choice and encourage innovation. Legislating a “right to repair” is one such idea.

The right to repair refers, in the simplest terms, to the ability, or the right specifically, to repair your own property and not be forced to solely rely on the manufacturer. This includes but is not limited to phones, laptops, cars, and even farm equipment.

The right to repair should be understood as a political and policy movement that has emerged around the world in the past several years in reaction to efforts from manufacturers to restrict consumers from fixing their own products. Take, for instance, John Deere tractors. They’ve relied on software that can lock farmers out from carrying out repairs outside of authorized John Deere technicians. These types of constraints can limit competition and increase consumer costs.

Right to repair laws aim to grant people greater ability to access the tools, parts, and information necessary to fix their devices, vehicles, and appliances without being limited to the manufacturer itself. As Aaron Perzanowski, a University of Michigan law professor, has put it: “If you bought it, you should own it. And if you own it, you should be able to fix it.”

Several jurisdictions have begun to enshrine this principle in law. The European Union, for instance, has introduced right to repair rules as part of its Circular Economy Action Plan. Several U.S. states, including New York, Minnesota, Colorado, and California, have similarly enacted right-to-repair laws.

Canada has been a bit slower to move on these issues. The province of Quebec has been the national leader on the file. In October 2023, the province enacted Bill 29 to combat planned obsolescence and enhance consumer access to repair options, particularly in the automotive sector. There has otherwise been mostly limited progress at the federal level and across the other provinces.

This should be understood as a missed opportunity to expand consumer choice and encourage innovation in Canada’s economy. At a time when both issues are top of mind, it seems like a no-brainer for Canadian policymakers.

The purpose of this DeepDive essay, therefore, is to set out a primer on the right to repair, including the case in favour of enacting it, its policy background in Canada, and a case study of the automotive sector.

The key takeaway is that federal legislation that builds on the Quebec model would be a major step towards strengthening the protection of consumers in an age of digital technology. An early focus could be the automotive sector, which has previously made progress on these issues, but for which new federal legislation may be necessary.

What is the right to repair? 

In an era of increasing technological dependence, Canadians face growing barriers to repairing their own devices, appliances, and vehicles. Manufacturers often restrict access to repair manuals, specialized tools, and replacement parts, establishing a “vendor lock-in” and effectively forcing consumers to rely on authorized service providers or purchase new products altogether.

Right to repair laws, in basic terms, enable people to overcome such restrictions. The goal is to restore the balance between consumers and users of durable goods and their manufacturers by sweeping away artificial barriers to fixing broken products. In particular, they typically aim to prohibit companies from forcing customers to only use their repair services by giving people and independent repair shops access to:

• Repair manuals—Instructions on how to fix a product.

• Spare parts—The ability to buy replacement parts instead of replacing the whole item.

• Diagnostic tools and software—The same tools that manufacturers use to figure out what’s wrong.
• Freedom to fix—The right to bypass software locks that prevent repairs.

The case for enshrining the principle of the right to repair is fourfold:

1. Consumer Empowerment and Cost Savings: A key motivation is consumer empowerment. Breaking free from restrictions on the parts of manufacturers or authorized dealers to fix their products expands consumer choice and lowers costs. Research from the United States, published by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), estimated that right to repair legislation could save the average American family $382 per year—or roughly $40 billion annually. Those cost savings come primarily from the savings associated with competitive repair markets, and extending the lifespan of a product, rather than having to throw it out and buy a new one. The same is true in Canada. As an example, if forced to go to the dealership, Canadian families can pay as much as double the price that they would at their local repair shop.
2. Environmental Benefits: Canada churns out over 35 million tonnes of garbage per year, with e-waste accounting for a significant portion of that waste. According to a comprehensive study from the University of Waterloo, published in 2023 in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, Canada generated approximately 954,000 tonnes (or 0.954 million tonnes) of e-waste in 2020, which is forecasted to rise to 1.2 million tonnes by 2030. The environmental benefits here are that the ability to fix products at a more competitive price creates incentives to expand the lifespan of a product, thus reducing e-waste. From a mass perspective, large appliances account for 36 percent of Canada’s e-waste (by mass), so the potential for waste reduction, at least for appliances, is considerable.
3. Boost for Small Businesses: Simply put, independent repair shops and technicians get a lifeline. When manufacturers lock down repairs, these shops are locked out, losing a revenue stream. Legislation to enshrine the right to repair opens the door for them to compete, potentially creating jobs—especially in rural areas where authorized dealers might be hours away.
4. Innovation and Competition: Those who advocate for the right to repair argue that forcing manufacturers to share resources could spark creativity. Third-party developers might tweak software or build better tools, pushing the market forward. Some argue this levels the playing field against corporate giants.

Right to repair laws have garnered opposition from major manufacturers, who argue that allowing third-party repairs could compromise product security, intellectual property, and safety standards. Yet first, it’s important to note that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has submitted a report on anti-competitive repair restrictions to Congress in 2021, clearly stating that “there is scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions.”

Second, even if these concerns may be valid to varying degrees, they’re far from insurmountable. They can be addressed through balanced legislation that ensures repairs are performed safely without undermining consumer rights. For instance, manufacturers could be required to provide software updates that don’t compromise security while still enabling independent repair.

Fundamentally, though, these concerns are outweighed by the benefits for consumers. The evidence from the PIRG report and other analyses (including from the Federal Trade Commission) demonstrates that rebalancing the relationship between consumers and manufacturers here can produce meaningful upside for the former with only minimal downside for the latter.

At a time when Canadian households are feeling squeezed and policymakers are interested in using competition policy to address affordability concerns, right to repair legislation should therefore be understood as a useful policy instrument to strengthen consumer protections.

History of the right to repair in Canada

Although Canada has been somewhat slower to move on these issues than some peer jurisdictions, the right to repair debate here has evolved considerably over the past decade over concerns about consumer rights, environmental sustainability, and the growing complexity of technology.

Most of the legislative conversation about the right to repair in Canada started in the early 2010s, mirroring conversations and movements in both Europe and the United States. As smartphones, appliances, and even farm equipment became more advanced, they also became more reliant on software and proprietary systems, which caused friction in what can be called “the local repair shop” model. Manufacturers selling products in Canada began to restrict access to parts, tools, and even repair manuals citing IP concerns, safety concerns, or the need to protect their business model. And with those restrictions came consumer frustration, because a consumer base traditionally used to having the freedom to choose how to fix their own property was upended.

One of the earliest flare-ups in the debate was in the agricultural sector in 2019. Farmers started to raise concerns when companies like John Deere locked down equipment with digital restrictions (digital lockouts), forcing farmers to rely on only authorized dealers for repairs. Farmers at the time argued that not only was this a significant inconvenience, but that it could impact that with downtime during crucial times like planting or harvest seasons. As a result of the industry’s strong reaction, equipment manufacturers and dealers promised more access to diagnostic tools, but many farmers at the time saw this as a half-measure that did not fully address their concerns.

Although this farming example is just one case, it’s representative of a broader trend across the economy given the growing reliance on technology for everyday items like phones, appliances, and cars.

One of the first efforts to legislate the right to repair was in Ontario in 2019. Then-Liberal M.P.P. Michael Coteau tabled Bill C-72, specifically focused on the repair of electronic products. It set out the following:

Right to repair

54.2 (1)  At the request of a consumer or consumer electronics repair business, a brand holder shall provide them with the most recent version of the documents, replacement parts, software, and other tools that the brand holder uses for, or provides to others for,

  (a)  diagnosing, maintaining, or repairing the brand holder’s branded electronic products; or

  (b)  resetting an electronic security function of the brand holder’s branded electronic products if the function is disabled during diagnosis, maintenance, or repair.

Documents for free

(2)  The brand holder must provide the documents for free unless the consumer or business demands paper copies.

Printed documents at cost

(3)  If the consumer or business demands paper copies, the brand holder may charge them a fee, but the fee must not exceed a reasonable estimate of the costs of providing paper copies.

Parts, software, tools at fair price

(4)  The brand holder may charge the consumer or business a fee for providing the replacement parts, software and other tools, but,

  (a)  without any price discrimination between the consumer or business and any other person; and

  (b)  at a net profit percentage that does not exceed a reasonable estimate of the net profit percentage that the brand holder earns for diagnostic, maintenance, or repair services, if the brand holder sells those services.

The bill was ultimately defeated by the Ford government, with critics arguing that it lacked coordination with the federal government, which is responsible for copyright.

In April 2019, Quebec M.N.A. Guy Ouellette tabled his own private member’s bill, Bill 197, to codify the right to repair. Although the legislation was defeated, it laid the groundwork for Bill 29, which was tabled by the government and passed into law in May 2023.

Bill 29 has three components:

1. Ban on planned obsolescence: The bill, as of October 2023, bans manufacturing or selling goods with techniques that deliberately reduce the operating life, as well as outlaws practices that make repair harder, like restricting access to diagnostic data.
2. Warranty and good working order: The bill establishes a standardized warranty period for specific goods, ensuring that they function for a reasonable time based on price and use.
3. Right to repair: The bill requires, in a phased approach, manufacturers to provide replacement parts, repair services, and diagnostic information for a “reasonable time.” By October 2025, the bill applies to appliances like dishwashers and electronics, as well as automobile data. It also introduces a lemon law for cars.

Bill-29 also boosts fines: between $3,000 and $75,000 for companies that violate warranty or repair rules and up to $175,000 for false information, with doubled penalties for repeat offenses. It also adds monetary administrative penalties of up to $3,500 per day, enforceable by the Office de la protection du consommateur.

At the federal level, the push for right to repair legislation shifted in 2021, when the Liberal Party committed to the right to repair in its election platform, with a particular focus on home appliances and electronics.

That same year, Liberal M.P. Bryan May introduced Bill C-272 that proposed to liberalize the Copyright Act’s restrictions on circumventing digital locks. The bill passed through its first and second readings with unanimous support, but it died on the order paper due to the federal election.

Liberal M.P. Wilson Miao then picked the debate back up in 2022 with Bill C-244, a refined version of Bill C-272, which sought to allow Canadians to bypass digital locks for repair purposes, framing the debate through the lens of improved sustainability and consumer empowerment. The bill was narrowed in 2023 and passed into law in November 2024. It must be emphasized that the bill doesn’t mandate that manufacturers supply parts and tools for repair. It simply amends the Copyright Act to allow for consumers to bypass digital locks for repair purposes.

Another important bill in the overall conversation is Bill C-294, which was  introduced by Conservative MP Tracy Gray in May 2022. Bill C-294 addresses a niche but significant issue in Canada’s copyright framework. In particular, it aims to address the interoperability between different software systems. The bill, which became law in May 2024, allows for the circumvention of digital locks when it’s necessary to make computer programs interoperable, such as enabling a third-party app to work with a device’s operating system or integrating software across platforms. This complements broader right-to-repair efforts but focuses on software compatibility rather than physical repair.

The debate surrounding right to repair in Canada is far from over. The 2024 budget included a legislative amendment to the Competition Act that suggests that manufacturers may be required to share repair resources—though the specifics are unclear. The Liberal Party’s 2021 platform commitment is also still outstanding.

Case study: the auto sector 

One of the major successes for Canada’s right to repair movement was the automotive sector. In the 2000s, independent mechanics faced difficulties accessing proprietary diagnostic tools and repair information. The Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard (CASIS) was established in 2009 as a voluntary agreement between automakers and independent repair shops to start to address these issues.

In particular, the CASIS was a voluntary deal between automaker organizations like the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association and Global Automakers of Canada and the aftermarket led by the National Automotive Trades Association. The idea was simple: give independent repair shops reasonable access to the same service info, tools, and training that authorized dealers get.

But the landscape began to shift. By the mid-2010s, vehicles were packing more tech—telematics, wireless diagnostics, electric powertrains—and manufacturers tightened their grip. The Automotive Industries Association of Canada (AIA Canada) started digging into CASIS’s effectiveness around 2017 and found gaps. Some automakers weren’t sharing enough data, especially as cars began transmitting info directly to their servers. Tesla, for instance, never signed onto CASIS, leaving its owners with few options beyond company service centers.

This sparked a push for something stronger. In 2021, the aftermarket auto sector started leaning on Ottawa for legislation. They argued that without access to real-time diagnostic data, independent shops were losing ground, and consumers were paying more—either in towing fees to far-off dealers or higher repair bills. Farmers echoed these concerns based on their own frustration with John Deere tractors and other technology issues that couldn’t be fixed without dealer intervention.

Legislative action picked up steam. In February 2022, NDP MP Brian Masse tabled a private member’s bill targeting the auto sector, pushing for mandatory sharing of repair info and parts. It built on CASIS but aimed to modernize it for electric vehicles and connected tech. Though it stalled after its first reading, the pressure kept building, mostly in the form of Bill C-244 and Bill C-294. Although the later bills don’t specifically address the automotive sector, there’s a degree of overlap given the extensive technology in modern cars.

However, as mentioned above, because Bills C-244 and C-294 don’t force automakers to open up their parts or tools. They merely permit consumers to bypass digital locks. Critics have therefore argued that there’s a large gap that needs to be filled with a new federal law. AIA Canada, for instance, is still fighting for amendments to the Competition Act to mandate data sharing rather than rely on voluntary arrangements.

These Canadian efforts for right to repair legislation with respect to the auto sector can draw some inspiration from policy developments in the United States.

The Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair Act, or the “REPAIR Act” (H.R. 1566), was reintroduced in the House in February 2025 during the 119th Congress by Congressman Neal Dunn (FL-02), along with several bipartisan co-sponsors. The bill was also referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by the House of Representatives. The bill reaffirms that critical diagnostic and maintenance data belong to vehicle owners, not manufacturers, and aims to ensure access to the tools, software, and data necessary for vehicle repairs. It has attracted significant support from industry associations, including the Auto Care Association, MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers, CAR (Consumer Access to Repair) Coalition, and Commercial Vehicle Solutions Network (CVSN).

The REPAIR Act ensures consumers and independent repair facilities have fair and secure access to the data, tools, and software needed for vehicle maintenance and repair; prevents automakers from monopolizing key repair information; addresses cybersecurity requirements to protect both safety and data integrity; and upholds essential compliance measures—such as proper calibration of brake systems and ADAS technologies—in line with federal motor vehicle safety and emissions standards.

Research by Hanover Research and Babcox shows that over 60 percent of independent repair facilities face difficulties performing routine repairs due to OEM restrictions, and more than half must send up to five vehicles per month back to dealerships—adding both cost and inconvenience for drivers. The goal of the REPAIR Act is to address these issues, which can limit access to vital repair data and tools and, in turn, lead to higher expenses, fewer service options, and longer wait times for vehicle maintenance.

The legislation seeks to reduce costs for consumers and repair shops by allowing the use of aftermarket parts without violating design patents after a specified period. It could form the basis of a Canadian law that seeks to update and codify the spirit of the CASIS in federal legislation.

Key takeaways 

At a time when Canadians are concerned about affordability and choice, federal right to repair legislation that builds on experiences and models elsewhere around the world seems like a low-cost yet high-impact policy to strengthen consumer protection.

One option would be to start with legislation targeting the automotive sector, as it constitutes one of the largest expenses for Canadian families. Previous private members’ bills have nodded in this direction. Recent bills in the U.S. Congress may represent models for Canadian policymakers to draw on.

The key point, though, is that in an age of digital technology, well-designed right-to-repair laws can restore the balance between consumers and companies by sweeping away artificial barriers to fixing broken products.

Enshrining the Right to Repair should not be a novel or controversial idea: it will protect the consumer’s choice to choose where they get their products repaired, putting more money in their pocket at a time when they are struggling with the growing costs of their daily expenses.

This article is made possible by LKQ and readers like you. Donate today.