Setting the tone of the convention, Brian Masse, former Member of Parliament for Windsor-West, delivered an opening keynote that broadened the scope of the Right to Repair movement. He positioned this conversation within a larger debate of resilience and autonomy. While for many, repair is often understood as a simple act of repairing a broken product and/or a consumer choice, Mr. Masse challenged attendees to think more broadly about the topic. To consider what is at stake when Canadians lack access to necessary repairs or are denied the ability to understand and maintain the technologies they rely on every day.

Throughout the Keynote, the idea of resilience emerged frequently. However, this idea extended far beyond the act of repair. Instead, resilience was framed as a product of autonomy and access. As a country, we become more resilient when individuals and our local mechanics are able to understand and access the technologies we rely on.

To illustrate this point, Mr. Masse drew upon an example he often returned to. The minivan parked in his driveway could not be repaired by his local mechanic in Windsor, Ontario. Yet he could drive it two kilometres across the river into the United States and get the same repair done at a local repair shop there. While seemingly a simple example, it highlights a much larger issue. If these rights and protections are made available elsewhere, why are Canadians still unable to access them within their own borders? More broadly, he explains that this isn’t a question of whether local repair shops can perform these repairs, as technicians have expressed to him that they are able to fix the vehicles; they're just not allowed to license them. It was the software locks, manufacturing restrictions, and licensing guidelines that prevented the repairs from being legally recognized and approved. As vehicles became increasingly complex, many repairs required specialized tools and diagnostic equipment. Mr. Masse explained that the issue was not a lack of knowledge or willingness to invest in the required equipment, but rather that manufacturers often restricted access to them, limiting who could carry out these repairs.

This was the point at which I found Mr. Masse’s central argument began to emerge.  The conversation was no longer simply about whether a vehicle could be repaired, but about what it means to have access to the tools and information necessary to carry out such repairs, being restricted, despite possessing the knowledge and the willingness to do so. I found this particularly interesting, given the current conversations taking place across Canada regarding its sovereignty and national resilience. Mr. Masse’s argument suggested that resilience is not simply about reducing dependence on external actors, but also ensuring equitable access to tools and information for Canadians. If resilience is built through reducing dependence and expanding access to knowledge and tools, how do we achieve these goals?

For Mr. Masse, a former New Democrat MP, the answer was not rooted in any particular political ideology. Rather, he emphasized that the Right to Repair movement is fundamentally nonpartisan. He noted that one of the movement’s central objectives was to ensure that repair rights receive support from all political parties and remain a consistent policy priority regardless of who holds office. This emphasis on broad political support reflected Mr. Masse’s own belief that fundamental change develops through legislation. Drawing on his own experience, he reflected on his efforts to advance the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard (CASIS), an initiative that required manufacturers to share diagnostic tools and repair information with independent auto shops. According to Mr. Masse, the proposed legislation successfully passed through the House of Commons. However, due to increased pressure, the industries began to shift and ultimately agreed to a voluntary agreement instead. As a result, the legislation was stood down.

While Mr. Masse acknowledged the agreement as a strong step forward and a significant accomplishment for the Right to Repair movement, he was quick to note that it was a “field goal” rather than a “touchdown.” Emphasizing that while meaningful progress had been made, there was still considerable work ahead. As Mr. Masse stated, “law is going to be there for the future.” For him, it was ultimately a question of longevity. Legislation, once enacted, provides lasting protections and accountability that are extremely difficult to dislodge, whereas with Voluntary agreements, it is up to peer pressure to ensure they are upheld. Without that foundation and security, he warns, “when you are not anchored in law, you are then subjected to the changes,” leaving those rights vulnerable to shifting priorities and interests, leading to a lack of stability.

For Mr. Masse, one of the most compelling aspects of the Right to Repair Movement is its ability to bring together people from all walks of life. He urged attendees to discuss these issues in multifaceted ways, noting that individuals are often drawn to the movement from different experiences and concerns. He emphasized that the diverse set of voices and lived experiences was one of the movement's greatest strengths, allowing it to resonate across industries and party lines. While he acknowledged that the fight for repair rights would be a long one, Mr. Masse expressed confidence that the movement is undeniably on the right side of history. His closing message was ultimately one of perseverance; he noted that meaningful change takes time, but every conversation, every effort and every victory is what keeps this movement going.