Chair

• Anthony D. Rosborough, Assistant Professor of Law & Computer Science, Dalhousie University

Speakers

• Kevin Taylor, Co-Chair of Right to Repair Committee for the Canadian Medical & Biological Engineering Society (CMBES)

• Michael Sideroff, Senior Biomedical Engineering Technologist Team Leader (Eastern), Canadian Armed Forces

• Alan Spurway, Clinical Engineer, Medical Device Cybersecurity at Nova Scotia Health

Throughout the panel on Repair and a Resilient Canada, panellists examined repair as not only a matter of individual ownership but also as Canada’s ability to remain resilient in the face of adversity within our current geopolitical climate. Much of this discussion was examined through medical devices and health care systems, which served as a case study for understanding the consequences of repair restrictions on critical infrastructure and public service. Throughout the conversation, the right to repair took a different approach, moving away from this consumer ownership issue to a broader collective responsibility in ensuring a strong, resilient Canada. Further, panellists explored the ongoing tensions between critical public services that require access to tools and parts in order to operate effectively, and manufacturers who continue to restrict such access in an effort to retain control.

Throughout, there was a noticeable shift away from the idea of one singular consumer. In this context, infrastructure and public services remained at the centre stage.

 Dr. Kevin Taylor stated, “By blocking the right to repair, manufacturers are, in an effort to monetize services, knowingly causing safety issues and delays in care.” Often, individuals assume that repairing a medical device that seems broken is a liability and safety concern. However, as Kevin pointed out, these concerns are often misplaced. In many cases, it is the delay in repairing a device, not the repair itself, that poses a greater risk. By leaving critical health care equipment out of service, patient wait time increases significantly, and access to timely care is then reduced. Beyond the immediate impacts on individual patients, these delays can undermine the capacity of healthcare systems to respond effectively during periods of heightened demand or crisis. The FDA further confirmed this when they did an analysis in 2018, where they found that there was no risk for third-party services to repair equipment and further stated that the sustainability of the U.S. healthcare system requires this. Additionally, Mr. Michael Sideroff explained that in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the right to repair is critical. There is limited access to services, and often, civilian teams are unable to travel to locations where they have the medical equipment. As a result, the ability to maintain and repair equipment on site plays a crucial role in sustaining operational readiness and ensuring access to timely care.

Despite the critical and often time-sensitive nature of these sectors, manufacturers continue to prioritize maintaining control over products and repair service, even when this means higher costs. To illustrate this, Dr. Taylor drew on an example in which a hospital experienced significant delays in care after a medical device broke down. When he made a call requesting this small part, they offered a loaner machine instead. Manufacturers were more willing to provide a temporary replacement worth thousands of dollars than to make available a simple, inexpensive part that would allow for repair. While minor, this example illustrated how dependence on manufacturers can create vulnerabilities within critical public services. When access to small parts and the ability for repair is restricted, the consequences extend far beyond the device itself, affecting the ability of Canadian institutions to deliver critical life-altering services. This said, as mentioned by Mr. Alan Spurway, as health care organizations  own these devices, they are able to make modifications to these devices. However, they generally refrain from doing so, as it removes the device from its validated state, transferring responsibility for any subsequent issue onto them. While they are, on a technicality basis, allowed to make modifications to a medical device, the transfer of burden remains a barrier.

At its core, the right to repair in this context was framed as an issue of national resilience. In our current political climate, state of economic uncertainty, and disruptions in our supply chains, Canada’s ability to repair and maintain its critical infrastructure has become increasingly important. When our military and health care services lack necessary access to parts, tools, or information for repairs, the consequences are no longer felt by singular consumers but as a collective.