Bills before Parliament

Critics say

• The bill sets no concrete requirements. Its actual standards would come later, so consumers and businesses cannot yet judge its effects. Critics want specific durability and repair rules written into the law now.
• Stronger durability requirements could raise upfront prices, which may hurt families on tight budgets. Some witnesses questioned whether the bill would drive up appliance costs.
• The bill has no penalties or liability provisions, and it does not itself create enforceable repair rights. Critics say this makes compliance uncertain.

Critics say

• the Bloc Québécois voted against the bill at second reading, arguing land use and flood management are provincial responsibilities.
• Environment and Climate Change Canada already operates national weather and flood forecasting services — critics question whether a separate strategy adds value.
• a PMB can direct the government to create a strategy but cannot allocate the funding or staff needed to implement it effectively.

Critics say

• The bill defines First Nations lands as reserve lands only, which may leave out traditional territories and raise doubts about whether UNDRIP, including Article 25, fully applies.
• Chiefs say they were not properly consulted on this version of the bill, and a treaty table agreed to with the Crown has not yet met.
• Critics say the bill is weaker than the previous version, Bill C-61, and that it lacks true co-development with First Nations, which many chiefs have requested.

Critics say

• Changes to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code would allow the federal government to end legal strikes and lockouts. Critics say the criteria for intervention are too broad, and they call for clear limits, written reasons to Parliament, and an independent mediator. Some unions want section 107 repealed entirely.
• Several First Nations and Indigenous organizations say they were not properly consulted, that consultation was rushed, and that they received too little information about major projects. Some have launched court challenges, and they argue the bill could affect treaty rights and fall short of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Critics argue the bill would weaken environmental protections and favour fossil fuel infrastructure. They cite scientists' concerns about irreversible environmental damage and argue that Canada's climate goals are being undermined.

Critics say

• Sellers cannot realistically judge a buyer's ability or intent. This information is usually not public, and such judgments are subjective. This could lead to disputes, inconsistent decisions and possible unequal treatment of buyers.
• The bill would be hard to enforce. Proving that a seller knew or was reckless about a buyer's future conduct is difficult, and officials from the Coast Guard and Transport Canada raised this concern.
• A signed buyer declaration may give sellers a paper shield without real assurance that the buyer can maintain the vessel. Critics also argue that removing the word "ability" from the amended version weakens the test.

Critics say

• Adding a federal durability framework on top of existing provincial right-to-repair laws risks duplication, conflicting rules and confusion for consumers and businesses.
• Bill S-4 leaves key details to later and requires consultation with provinces and consumer groups but not with manufacturers, who know how products are built and repaired.
• Canada-specific durability rules could raise prices and reduce product choice by diverging from the integrated North American appliance market.

Critics say

• Canadian financial institutions operating globally argue mandatory climate disclosure requirements disadvantage them relative to less-regulated competitors.
• fund managers argue their legal obligation to maximize returns may conflict with mandated climate transition plans.
• Alberta and Saskatchewan, whose economies depend heavily on oil and gas, would see investment outflows if financial institutions restrict fossil fuel financing.

Critics say

• The government says it is already making similar changes through its spring economic update, including amending the statutes of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the pesticide regulator to use trusted foreign science. It argues a separate bill is unnecessary.
• Some ask whether these changes must be written into law at all. They argue that temporary arrangements negotiated with Health Canada and Agriculture Canada could achieve the same goals more flexibly.

Critics say

• Critics question whether the bill's sponsor consulted with fishing industry organizations before introducing it, raising concerns that it may not reflect what fishers actually need.
• Shifting from stock-based to species-based science and management is a significant change whose real-world impacts on fish populations and the fishing industry are unclear without broader consultation.