Now is your chance to advocate for a farmer-first right to repair in Saskatchewan! In December 2025, the Law Reform Commission posted a call for public response to its Implementing a Right to Repair in Saskatchewan: Consultation Report. The NFU has created this guide to help you with your answers to the consultation questionnaire. The questionnaire can be found at the link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/33JGF58
Submit your answers to the survey by February 28, 2026 to have your voice heard!
For farmers, the right to repair is increasingly important as the farm machinery sector continues to consolidate. Farm equipment is getting more expensive, while repairs cost farmers more and more each year. New technologies and proprietary parts make on-farm and independent repair increasingly difficult, jeopardizing farmer autonomy. Highly consolidated farm equipment manufacturers use their ability to control access to repairs to expand their monopoly power and profitability. Making farmers dependent on dominant machinery companies also makes it impossible for other manufacturers to provide alternatives that may be less expensive or more suitable. A right to repair would give farmers the ability to access the proper tools and information to complete repairs and more choices when seeking repair services.
Key concepts for this survey:
Repairability – Repairability refers to the ability of a product, system, or device to be fixed or restored to its working condition after it has stopped working. The repairability of a product can be measured by a number of factors, including: ease of disassembly to repair or replace parts; cost of repair; length of time to receive a spare part or repair service; the freedom to choose a favorable repair option that is not necessarily tied to the after-sale services offered by the original manufacturer.
Interoperability – Interoperability is defined as the degree to which software systems, devices or applications can connect or communicate with each other in a coordinated manner without effort from the end user. Interoperability works on multiple levels. The first level is the interoperability between electronics and parts in the same device, allowing the device to function properly. Interoperability can also permit the interaction between two different pieces of equipment or software, possibly from different manufacturers. The ability to connect a baler and a tractor from two different manufacturers without losing functionality is one example of interoperability.
Durability – Durability simply refers to the ability of a product or material to withstand wear, pressure, or damage over time. Durability of products has diminished with the rise of ‘planned obsolescence’, a phenomenon in which manufacturers intentionally design products with low durability so that consumers need to pay to replace them more often.
Technological protection measures – Technological protection measures (TPM) or “digital locks” are technologies which prevent users from performing particular tasks or accessing data on their machinery. TPMs are defined in Canada’s Copyright Act as a legitimate method of copyright protection. TPMs are often identified as a barrier to repair, preventing farmers and independent repairers from accessing software error code data or preventing them from accessing repair information.
Parts pairing – Parts pairing is the practice of tying serial numbers of specific parts to a machine using software tracking. If a part is replaced and not linked back to the machine through an authorized software link, the machine loses its functionality. Parts pairing forces farmers to buy authorized parts and use authorized repair services. Parts pairing limits repairability.
The NFU has provided some suggestions for answering the questions in the survey, which can be found below. The Government of Saskatchewan has asked that only legal professionals answer the section on right to repair and the Agricultural Implements Act (AIA), which governs the sale, warranties, and dealer obligations to consumers buying new farm equipment – we are suggesting that farmers answer this section anyway, as they are the group most impacted by the AIA.For more information on what a substantive right to repair could look like in Canada, please see the draft right to repair bill created by the Canada Repair Coalition:
https://www.canrepair.ca/what-is-the-right-to-repair
Page 1: Demographics
1. What type of respondent are you?
Please select the appropriate category for you. You are allowed to select multiple categories.
Those selecting “Legal Professionals” are asked to answer an additional page of questions (Page 4), which heavily pertains to the Agricultural Implements Act.
For farmers responding to this survey, the NFU encourages you to answer the questions on Page 4 anyway. Farmers are most affected by the AIA and should provide their experiences and opinions on the effectiveness of the Act.
Page 2: Right to Repair Description. Select “Next” at the bottom of Page 2 to continue the survey.
Page 3: Questions for all Respondents
2. What types of products are most challenging to have repaired independently or by owner?
Your answer to this question should include personal challenges in repairing specific products or in seeking independent repair.
For agricultural equipment specifically, farmers can use answers in their response:
- Software components of farm equipment which require proprietary diagnostic equipment to resolve software errors
- Digital locks and technological protection measures (TPM)
- Proprietary parts which require authorized repair services to supply and replace
- Products which require authorized repair services that are not easily accessible due to geography or lack of suppliers
3. What is the source of the challenges or impediments to repair?
Your answer should include examples of specific machinery or appliances that are difficult for you to repair.
For agricultural equipment specifically, farmers can use these examples in their response:
- Lack of adequate and accessible repair information.
- Use of proprietary parts in farm machinery which are only supplied through authorized dealers and which require authorized repair services.
- Access to authorized repair as the only option for agricultural equipment and timely repair services.
- Consolidation of authorized dealers and repair services.
- Inability of independent repair services to access authorized parts and repair tools for agricultural equipment.
- Increasing costs for repairs to agricultural equipment.
- Voiding of warranties if seeking independent repair services.
- Parts pairing.
4. Please select all that apply. Should right to repair legislative provisions apply to:
- Digital electronic goods
- Household appliances
- Motor vehicles
- Agricultural implements
- Powered wheelchairs
- None of the above
- Other (please specify)
Select the first five categories.
Rationale: Right to repair legislation should apply to all consumer, industrial, and agricultural products and equipment. The goal of a right to repair is to create general access to tools, information, and repair services.
5. Are there any types of products that should be explicitly excluded?
Here is an answer that you can use in your response:
Answer: NO. All products should be included in right to repair laws. Right to repair laws should be consistent and cover all types of products to ensure that consumers and all industries have the same guarantees.
6. Should there be a price threshold for products to be covered?
- Yes
- No
Answer: NO.
Rationale: Price thresholds would use retail prices to determine whether or not products of a certain price would be able to be repaired. This could restrict the right to repair to certain categories of products, such as consumer electronics and household appliances. The aim of right to repair legislation should be to create the same rules and guarantees across products.
Agricultural machinery, for example, is costly for farmers. The right to repair agricultural machinery should not be determined by price.
7. Should manufacturers have to provide information to consumers about the repairability of products?
- Yes
- No
Answer: YES.
Rationale: Manufacturers should have to provide information to consumers on the repairability of products. Farmers should have a clear understanding of the tools, information, and potential costs associated with repairing their equipment before they buy it.
8. What repair related materials should manufacturers be required to provide?
Answer: Your answer should include examples of repair materials that would help you in completing your own repairs.
Here are some suggestions of repair information to include in your response:
- Electronic repair manuals.
- Printed repair documentation, made available by the manufacturer at a reasonable cost.
- Tools adequate to complete repairs, made available by the manufacturer at a reasonable cost.
9. How long should manufacturers be obligated to provide repair related materials?
Answer: Here are some answers you can use in your response:
- Under right to repair legislation, manufacturers should be obligated to provide repair related materials to consumers for the duration of the farm equipment’s manufacturing lifespan, plus an additional ten year guarantee, which is included under the current Agricultural Implements Act
- The Government of Saskatchewan should also require manufacturers to licence generic parts and software to third-party providers to make or use.
10. Should there be an exemption from the obligation to provide replacement parts, repair services, or repair information if the manufacturer/retail seller inform the consumer in writing they do not supply them?
- Yes
- No
Answer: NO.
Rationale: The purpose of a right to repair is to increase the repairability of products. Repair information, parts, and tools should be readily available to farmers and consumers at a reasonable cost. An effective right to repair would be jeopardized if right to repair legislation allowed manufacturers to avoid their obligations to supply repair related materials simply by giving a written notice.
11. Should there be an exemption from the obligation to provide repair related materials if the manufacturer provides an equivalent or better replacement product at no charge?
- Yes
- No
Answer: NO.
Rationale: There should not be an exemption to provide repair related materials if the manufacturer provides an equivalent or better replacement at no charge, unless the repairs are not provided in a timely manner where access to repair affects a business. Manufacturers should be obligated to provide an equivalent or better replacement cost at no charge if they have failed to uphold their obligations to repair the appliance. A replacement for a non-functioning farm implement or machine under warranty could be provided instead of repair where the repair is time-sensitive and lack of repair could impact their livelihood. Replacement of a farm implement or machinery instead of repair is provided under the AIA.
12. Should there be an exemption for parts that could potentially be dangerous to repair or make a product dangerous if installed incorrectly?
- Yes
- No
Answer: YES.
Rationale: There should be a limited exemption for parts that could potentially be dangerous to repair or make a product dangerous if installed incorrectly. Groups advocating for the right to repair have identified communications equipment for emergency services, and public utilities and communications as exemptions to right to repair legislation.
13. Should manufacturers be shielded from liability for any damage or injury caused to a product, person, or property as a result of repair, diagnosis, maintenance, or modification performed by an owner or independent repairer?
- Yes
- No
Answer: YES.
Rationale: Manufacturers should not be liable for any damage or injury to any electronic products or household appliances caused by a repair business or consumer, which occurs during the course of repair, diagnosis, or maintenance and is not attributable to the manufacturer other than if the failure is attributable to design or manufacturing defects.
Select “Next” to continue with the survey.
Page 4 – Questions for legal professionals
Questions 14-17 pertain to the Agricultural Implements Act. If you are a farmer, we strongly encourage you to answer these questions, even if you are not a legal professional.
14. Should agricultural implements be excluded from the right to repair legislative provisions?
- Yes
- No
Answer: NO.
Rationale: Agricultural implements must be included in right to repair laws. Repairs are becoming more expensive for farmers. In 2024, Canadian farmers paid $4.5 billion in machinery repair costs. A right to repair could help create lower cost options for farmers There are few choices for farmers seeking machinery equipment. Current laws do not provide enough support for local independent repair options.
The increasing complexity of farm machinery, especially new digital tools, are not properly covered by existing laws.
Farmers do not have reliable access to the proper tools or information to complete and must pay a lot of money to authorized dealers to get it.
15. What will the impact on the AIA be if agricultural implements are included in right to repair provisions?
Background: Saskatchewan’s AIA provides three major guarantees vis-a-vis repair of agricultural equipment:
- Guaranteed warranty and repair for the first season of use
- Emergency replacement of parts if machinery fails during its season of use for 10 years after the purchase of a farm implement or machine
- Dealer option to provide payment or a temporary replacement to equipment instead of timely repair if repairs cannot be made due to conditions beyond their control
Here are some answers you can use in your response:
- The Agricultural Implements Act would be greatly improved if agricultural implements are included in the right to repair provisions.
- The existing guarantees under the AIA are relevant to the right to repair including guaranteed warranties, emergency parts repair, and the dealer’s option to provide a temporary replacement instead of timely repair. The current AIA, however, does not provide enough protection to farmers.
- The AIA would become more useful to farmers in conjunction with the right to repair legislation. New right to repair laws must consider the following protections given to farmers under the AIA:
- Ensuring emergency repair obligations are still included in right to repair legislation
- Expanding dealer obligations in providing authorized repair tools to independent repair shops without waiving warranties and responsibilities set out in the AIA
- Extension of the base warranty set out in the AIA and inclusion of laws requiring that repair services and parts are provided an affordable rate, and in addition of “timeliness” stipulations
16. Is the AIA working as intended given the particular needs of this sector?
- Yes
- No
- If no, please explain.
Answer “If no, please explain” and provide an explanation in the box below the question.
We encourage farmers to include examples of challenges or barriers to seeking timely and affordable repair services under the current AIA.
Here are some ideas you can use in your answer:
- Repair costs are a growing operating cost for agricultural producers.
- Increasing consolidation of authorized dealers limits availability of choice and timeliness in repairing agricultural machinery.
- Use of proprietary technologies including parts, software components, and TPMs are not covered by the AIA.
- The guaranteed warranty of the current AIA is too narrow to provide a substantial right to repair.
- Older farm equipment is not covered by AIA. Right to repair laws should cover older equipment to ensure that farmers do not have to buy new equipment to maintain their guarantees under the current AIA.
17. Does the AIA adequately address the repair issues producers have?
Answer “If no, please explain” and provide an explanation in the box below the question.
We encourage farmers and producers to include examples of challenges or barriers to seeking timely and affordable repair services.
Here are some ideas you can use in your answer:
- The current AIA does not adequately address the repair issues of producers.
- Repair costs are a growing operating cost for agricultural producers.
- Increasing consolidation of authorized dealers limits availability of choice and timeliness in repairing agricultural machinery.
- Use of proprietary technologies including parts, software components, and TPMs are not covered by the AIA.
- The guaranteed warranty of the current AIA is too narrow to provide a substantial right to repair.
Questions 18 – 24 relate to amendments and requirements in The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act.. Questions 25 – 27 relate to the authority of the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority (FCAA) under The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act. If you don’t have expertise in these areas, leave them blank. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click: “Next“.
Page 5 – Tell Us More
28. Is there anything else you wish to share about implementing a right to repair in Saskatchewan?
We encourage farmers to answer this question however they’d like.
Scroll to the bottom of the page and click “Done“.
