Chair

• John Pearce, Policy Chair, Canadian Repair Coalition

Roundtable Participants

• Brad Callaghan, Associate Deputy Commissioner at the Competition Bureau of Canada

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

• Jeremy Patzer, Member of Parliament for Swift Current–Grasslands–Kindersley, Saskatchewan

• Eric Franke, Engineering Specialist, Ontario Department of Agriculture

• Anthony Edmonds, Leader of the Green Party of Nova Scotia

As the concluding session of the Right to Repair convention, the policy roundtable: Jurisdiction, Coordination, and the Next Steps of Right to Repair, provided a meaningful way to reflect on the barriers, challenges and opportunities discussed throughout the previous panels. Rather than focusing on a singular area or issue, panellists examined how governments, industries, communities, and individuals can work together in an effort to confront these barriers to the Right to Repair, as well as advance its initiatives. In doing so, this roundtable brought together many of the convention's broader themes of consumer choice, environmental sustainability, economic competition, community empowerment, and the growing role of software and digital technologies. In doing so, it reinforced this idea that the right to repair extends far beyond the ostensibly simple act of repairing a device. Rather, it emerged as a broader conversation of how Canada can foster greater national resilience and autonomy in the face of growing global uncertainty.

Throughout the previous panels, legislative protections emerged as a fundamental component of advancing the right to repair. However, as highlighted during this roundtable, legislative action does not emerge on its own. As Mr. Jeremy Patzer, Member of Parliament, stated: “It is our job to set the framework.” In this sense, Governments and our elected officials play a crucial role in establishing the legislative framework and consumer protection necessary to advance the right to repair. Building on this idea, Mr. Anthony Edmonds encouraged attendees to reach out and engage with elected officials at all levels. He emphasized the importance of doing this, not only when they hold office, but earlier on in the process. He urged attendees to raise these issues with candidates, ask them where they stand on the right to repair, and ensure these conversations are shared publicly. In doing so, candidates become aware that the right to repair is an issue to voters and, as he argued, political action often begins when elected officials recognize that their constituents care about a given matter. 

Furthering this conversation, moderator Mr. John Pearce posed a question asking what major tools or strategies have helped make the right to repair possible for Canadians. In response, Mr. Tom Rakocevic argued that what contributed to some success for the right to repair movement is how it is fundamentally non-partisan in nature. He emphasized that “it does not matter what your political stripe is, rather,  are you for Canadian businesses, or are you for opportunity.” This reflected back to the earlier panel on Repair and a Resilient Canada, where Dr. Anthony Rosborough highlighted that the right to repair “reflects a broader national conversation, about dependency, self-reliance, and the need to build more capacity within Canada.”  Further, Mr.Rakocevic argued that these concerns of self-reliance and affordability resonate with Canadians across the political spectrum, making it easier to push for right-to-repair legislation.

While throughout discussions, success was highlighted with efforts to push legislative action, Mr. John Pearce was quick to note that there have also been instances where these efforts have not succeeded. This led him to raise a question of what right to repair advocates can do to help fight and win against these corporations that are opposing such efforts. In response, Mr. Brad Callaghan reflected on a few things that they, at the Competition Bureau, have been doing to help combat this. He emphasized this adoption of plain language, explaining that for a long time, they had difficulties communicating with the experts who were really involved in this area, due to language alone. He explained that this was connected to a broader determinant of expanding the swath of Canadians who had interests in the Right to Repair movement. Mr. Edmonds had previously mentioned a similar idea, where he emphasized that the right to repair is one of those concepts that, once individuals know what it encompasses, they are likely to support it. Adopting plain language into drafts of bills and modifications to acts effectively allows individuals to better understand what these fundamental documents aim to do. 

Building on this, Dr. Kevin Taylor further reinforced this need for strong legislation, reflecting on one that he had previously passed. He mentioned that while it was a strong and incredible first step, the ideal result would have encompassed more. He passed the first procurement policy for the right to repair in Canada.  He used the example of how the FDA has regulations in their language that its legislation lacks. It states that if a device is reusable, then it has to be repairable, and requires training mechanisms, service material, as well as service parts. Reflecting on this, he emphasizes that this caveat would have advanced the policy, demonstrating the need for stronger legislation.

Chair John Pearce encouraged attendees to look beyond Canada’s borders when considering the future of the right to repair. “Look south of the border at California, Texas, and New York. Internationally, Australia, the European Union, and the fact of the matter is, Canada is very behind.” He illustrated how these jurisdictions and countries have been advancing in the right to repair, and although Canada has made its own strides, when speaking to policy makers, he warns that “we can not afford not to do this, to not provide the same benefits,” connecting back to building a more competitive, strong economy, as Mr. Callaghan touched on earlier. Further, he urges attendees to consider that “there is no government that can’t do something.”  For him, the question ultimately comes back to ensuring that Canadian families, consumers and businesses are not left behind as other countries and jurisdictions continue expanding the right to repair. To this point, Mr. Eric Franke highlighted the importance of sharing the stories behind the movement. The stories of consumers, families and businesses who are directly affected by the restrictions on the right to repair. This, for him, is what ultimately keeps the movement moving forward.

As the final session of the 2026 Right to Repair Convention, the Policy Roundtable served as a fitting illustration of how the right to repair is ultimately a collective effort. Throughout discussions, panellists emphasized the importance of advocacy and cooperation among local businesses, consumers, and governments. While legislative reform, as emphasized throughout the panels, is crucial in advancing the permanent presence of the right to repair, the roundtable stressed the importance of continued advocacy and public engagement. Panellist stressed that sharing the stories behind these issues is often what brings Canadians together. In doing so, it reinforces the idea that the right to repair extends far beyond the act of repairing a product. Rather, it comes down to a question of consumer choice, competition, resilience, and beyond this, a fundamental question of Canada’s capacity to remain self-reliant in an increasingly uncertain world.