OTTAWA — Giving Canadians more legal rights to fix their own broken stuff is harder than it looks, says an internal government document obtained by The Logic, even though it’s widely popular and good for the environment—and the federal Liberals have promised repeatedly to do it.

The government is worried about data privacy, security, intellectual property rights, consumer safety and trade, says the briefing note prepared for the deputy minister of the environment and climate change. The Logic received a copy through an access-to-information request.

Also, some of these things are the provinces’ business, and they don’t agree with each other. Ontario rejected a law on the “right to repair” in 2019, fearing it would be bad for business—reportedly under pressure from big tech companies such as Apple. But Quebec passed a fairly stringent law on the right to repair last October.

Quebec marches now in a parade of jurisdictions with newly passed right-to-repair laws. The federal government promised to join, but hasn’t done so yet.

“Devices and appliances should be easy to repair, spare parts should be readily accessible, and companies should not be able to prevent repairs with complex programming or hard-to-obtain bespoke parts,” the Liberals said in their 2023 budget. They promised to hold consultations last summer, but didn’t. 

The government made a fresh promise in the 2024 budget that it would start consultations this month. The Innovation Department wouldn’t confirm that those are still on schedule. The issue is still on the to-do lists of the ministers of innovation and the environment.

“Further details about the planned consultations will be made public, once available,” wrote spokesperson Cheyenne Daly in an email.

The 2023 consultations were supposed to help the Liberals set a first round of rules, focused on home appliances and electronics, by the end of this year. Daly also wouldn’t say whether that framework is on schedule.

The right-to-repair movement “aims to ensure that consumers and repairers are not restricted in their abilities to perform repairs on goods by ensuring they have access to the tools, parts, manuals and information necessary to conduct repair or offer repair services,” says the Environment Department briefing note. But each of these necessities is its own distinct policy challenge.

“While a ‘right to repair’ could address access to information barriers, cost and design barriers will require a different set of solutions, especially given the network of international supply chains that influence device design and manufacture,” it says.

While the issue remains in limbo, “we’re being locked out from being able to fix or control the things that we own,” said Alissa Centivany, a professor at Western University’s faculty of information and media studies who studies the right to repair. “We can’t sustain it economically. We can’t sustain it environmentally.”

Fixing things is generally better for the environment than throwing them out and buying new, not to mention cheaper. But with complex modern devices—whether it’s a Bluetooth speaker, a dishwasher or a car—manufacturers might refuse to sell parts or allow anybody else to make them. They can restrict how-to instructions to their own staff and authorized repair people. And they can lock devices down with software that checks whether all the parts are originals (think of how some printers won’t take third-party ink cartridges).

Some ground has shifted on the issue in recent years, with farm-equipment giant John Deere agreeing to less restrictive terms for repairs to machinery it makes, and Apple supporting a right-to-repair law in California. (Apple’s Canadian arm did not respond to The Logic’s questions about how its philosophy has changed since 2019).

Traditional automakers in Canada reached an accord back in 2009 on sharing repair information and selling parts; Tesla joined the system in 2023, though smaller players Rivian and Lucid have not. The association representing auto-repair businesses argues the deal needs legal teeth and updating for modern technologies, but at least it exists.

The devices the federal government is currently focused on don’t always need to be complex, Centivany said. It’s a design choice, often for marketing reasons.

“I cannot buy a kitchen appliance that does not have a WiFi connection,” she said. “Why is any of that necessary?”

Touchscreen controls are another expensive, anti-repair gimmick, she said: “We know that buttons and knobs are more robust in terms of technical design than a touchscreen. It’s the most likely part to break and it’s also the most expensive part to replace.”

Centivany has testified to MPs on two right-to-repair bills, both of them from backbenchers, that are creeping through the parliamentary process. Bill C-244 (from B.C. Liberal Wilson Miao) and C-294 (from Saskatchewan Conservative Jeremy Patzer) were both introduced in 2022 and both would amend the Copyright Act. It has clauses forbidding Canadians to, say, break copy protections on DVD movies, but they’re written much more broadly, so as to cover any kind of software locks.

Miao’s bill would allow device owners to circumvent “technological protection measures” in software to effect repairs. Patzer’s would let them do it to make programs or devices interoperable with others—to make a printer accept a third-party ink cartridge, or a car’s computer accept an aftermarket part. Somebody would still have to figure out how to do the circumventing, but doing it wouldn’t be legally punishable.

The government supports both bills, Daly wrote to The Logic.

The appliance and electronics industries did not support them. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers—a U.S. group with a Canadian arm—filed a brief on Bill C-244 saying that “smart” devices need digital locks to keep them from being hacked and unauthorized repairs can be dangerous.

In one case, the association’s brief said, an “unaffiliated servicer” put the wrong type of refrigerant in a fridge. “This caused the unit to explode, blowing the refrigerator doors completely off the unit and significantly damaging the kitchen,” the brief said. Other clumsy work has led to electric shocks, melted components and fire hazards.

Lithium batteries can overheat if they’re damaged or installed incorrectly, the brief went on. They can also zap the unwary or inexpert: “Replacement of lithium ion batteries could pose a number of risks to the user and consumers may not realize these risks exist.”

Electronics manufacturers objected that supplying the necessary technical information to keep consumers safe could compromise cybersecurity and make it easier for bad actors to copy parts the makers invested in developing.

Despite the complaints, both bills have passed through the House of Commons and are waiting for a Senate committee to take them up.

Because they would cover all provinces and territories and be widely applicable, Centivany said, those changes would put this country near the forefront of right-to-repair compared to other jurisdictions.

“I think if Canada can get the two copyright reform bills through the Senate and passed, I might put Canada at the top of the heap,” she said.