Government Operations Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Order please.

Good morning everyone and welcome to the 29^thmeeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. This morning we will be continuing our consideration of the programs and activities of the Canadian General Standards Board.

Joining us today are several witnesses who accepted our invitation to appear before the committee on this subject. They will each have 10 minutes to make their opening remarks. The committee members will then have an opportunity to ask questions.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Boag and Mr. Morel who are here on behalf of the Canadian Fuel Association.

Thank you for coming to appear before the committee. You have the floor.

[Peter Boag, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Fuels Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Members of the committee as well, good morning. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to participate in your study on the programs and activities of the Canadian General Standards Board.

I am the president of the Canadian Fuels Association. Gilles Morel, my colleague here, is our director of fuels. He is really the lead interface with our organization and members and the Canadian General Standards Board.

By way of background, our association represents the petroleum refining sector in Canada. Those are the businesses and companies that refine, distribute, and market petroleum products across the country. In essence, they are the manufacturing component of Canada's oil and gas value chain, the companies that convert crude oil into transportation fuels, amounting to about 75% of industry output, but also a broad range of other products, including home heating oil, asphalt for roads, and petrochemical feedstocks that are essential components to hundreds of consumer goods that Canadians use and rely on every day, from plastics to textiles to pharmaceutical products.

Canada has 18 refineries located in eight provinces, with an overall capacity to refine two million barrels of crude oil per day. They contribute collectively $5.6 billion in direct GDP, and employ 17,500 Canadians in communities across the country from Come By Chance, Newfoundland, to Burnaby, British Columbia.

Getting the fuel from the refinery to wholesale and retail customers is accomplished through a complex network comprising transportation assets, including pipelines, trucks, trains, and ships; 21 primary distribution terminals; 50 regional terminals; and some 12,000 retail sites.

The transportation fuels in particular that our members produce are a vital component of Canada's energy system: 30% of the energy that Canadians consume is for transportation. That is close to 90 billion litres a year of such fuels as gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel. These are the fuels that keep our economy moving and enable our high standard of living. With our vast geography and dispersed population, it should come as no surprise that Canadians are among the highest per capita users of transportation fuels in the world.

To complete the value chain to our ultimate consumers and the more than 22 million vehicles that are on the road today, it requires a robust product quality system supported by relevant and appropriate standards. For many decades the Canadian fuels industry has worked in close collaboration with the Canadian General Standards Board to develop and maintain petroleum standards that define the performance requirements of petroleum products that meet consumers' expectations. Standards also play an important role in government procurement activities and product trading within Canada and internationally.

The CGSB process, while fostering harmonization with international or North American standards, ensures that Canada's unique circumstances, including climate and geography, are reflected in the standards. For example, properties of fuel that are directly affected by climate condition, such as winter operability, are determined from 40 years of daily weather data obtained from the vast network of hundreds of meteorological stations managed by Environment Canada.

There are currently five active petroleum committees within the CGSB that manage a total of 32 standards in the areas of test methods, aviation fuels, middle distillates, gasoline, and alternative fuels. Just last week the test methods committee conducted its 120th meeting, representing over 60 years of continuous activity and partnership between the industry and government towards the development and adaptation of test methods.

Each year approximately 50 experts from industry, government, and the users community participate directly in the semi-annual petroleum committee meetings and working group sessions. In recent years, industry contributed over $1 million in various testing programs aimed at addressing the specific concerns and approving and developing new test methods that are now broadly used and recognized internationally.

The CGSB standards continue to evolve and are becoming an integrated part of the regulatory systems in Canada and most provinces. The Canadian fuels regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, petroleum products regulations, and alternative fuel legislation enacted by many provinces in Canada have adopted or referenced the most recent CGSB standards.

So what's next?

There is no doubt in my mind that CGSB has an important role to play today and in coming years. As Canada's economic prosperity is closely linked to its trading activity, reliance on the appropriate set of standards adapted to its specific circumstances will continue to be necessary. The CGSB process offers a unique window that facilitates the development of standards via processes that recognize the diversity of interest, ensure a balanced stakeholders' participation, and deliver standards that are harmonized with ISO systems and procedures.

In closing, we're convinced that the standards are a critical success factor in a strong economy, and our industry's continued support via the work of volunteers, as well as its financial contribution to CGSB, is a demonstration of our commitment well into the future.

With that, I'll close, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We are now going to hear from Mr. Michel Comtois, who is here on behalf of Laboratoires Micom inc.

You have the floor for a maximum of 10 minutes.

[Michel Comtois, President, Micom Laboratories Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

My name is Michel Comtois and I am the president of Laboratoires Micom inc., in Dorval. Our company was founded 15 years ago. Prior to that, I worked for 12 years in another laboratory. I have therefore been working with the CGSB for 25 years. As in a marriage, I have seen the best and I have seen the worst.

I work with the CGSB in three capacities.

First, I am a CGSB client. Since the establishment of my current company, as well as during my previous career, the board has been my laboratory certification services provider. The services have been necessary in order to guarantee that the laboratory's quality control procedures are up to standard.

I also provide services for the CGSB. The CGSB has a list of approved products that is used for advanced product assessments so that potential buyers can then purchase these products without worrying about their reliability or their compliance. It is somewhat like buying a hair dryer at the store. You are not going to be concerned about whether or not the hair dryer is dangerous if you can see that it has been certified by the CSA Group. Laboratories and organizations have made sure that the product is safe for the user.

We provide laboratory services to the CGSB, who is therefore our client.

Furthermore, over the past 25 years, I have sat as an expert member on a number of technical committees that set CGSB standards. These committees deal, for all intents and purposes, with all CGSB standards, whether they apply to office furniture or to other products such as latex gloves and ink or recycled cartridges.

I was a member of the ISO/TC 136 committee. I was the head of the Canadian delegation that dealt with ISO standards for office furniture. We represented the Canadian position.

I have divided my remarks into three main parts. The CGSB also provides inspection services but I have never been involved in that. I therefore do not feel that I am in a position to speak to that aspect of the CGSB's work.

Let's turn now to laboratory certification programs. It is easier for a new laboratory to acquire certification under the CGSB's program than the corresponding Standards Council of Canada Program. It is easier from a technical perspective and from a cost perspective, especially because—I feel—the Standards Council of Canada sets exorbitant prices for its services.

There is some overlap between the certification programs of the CGSB and the Standards Council of Canada but for new SMEs it makes for an easier start.

We have received CGSB auditors over several years. I have always felt that they were competent. I think it is important to state that. However, the CGSB can only provide certification for laboratories under programs for which they provide certification services to government or to an industry. Over the years, my company has expanded and has had to change registrars simply because it could no longer certify us for all the services we were offering.

Another aspect of the CGSB is its list of approved products. That is the list I was referring to earlier. This is a list of products that have already been certified, which gives buyers an opportunity to obtain these products without having to wonder whether they are compliant or not. For example, the CGSB has a list of latex gloves, surgical gloves, and gloves that doctors use in hospitals. These are gloves that are used by dentists, physicians, etc.

One of the problems with the CGSB is that it cannot promote its programs because of its internal operation rules. These programs are good for potential clients, whether they be hospitals, for example in the case of latex gloves, or users who may be purchasing them in a pharmacy. However, it does not have the right to advertise itself to the public or to users.

A few years ago my wife was sick and we had to go to the hospital. There was a box of latex gloves on the wall. Given that I work in the area, I checked to see if the gloves were certified. Usually there is a logo on the box that states that they have been certified. There was no logo.

Obviously hospitals work under budgetary constraints. They often tend to choose the lowest bidder. In any case, the government often works that way. If there is no requirement to buy certified products to ensure quality, then obviously it can be tempting to save money and choose a brand that is not certified and for which a minimum level of quality has not been guaranteed. Hospitals choose the product because it costs 10¢ less. I think it is important to raise awareness about the value and advantages of services offered under this program. If people are not aware of this, then they will not ask for it.

Another program that should be used extensively but that is actually used infrequently is the program for office equipment purchases. The federal government alone purchases 100 million dollars' worth of office equipment annually. Some governments require that a part of this program be used, including the Quebec government; it requires compliance with the standards of the Canadian General Standards Board. There was a time when they also required compliance with the QPL program. The cities of Halifax and Winnipeg, as well as some colleges and universities, also require compliance with the CGSB standards for office furniture.

Public Works and Government Services Canada requires compliance with national standards. In the past, the department required that providers be certified under the CGSB standards and also be on the QPL list in order to be able to sell products to the government. There has been a lack of competent resources within the CGSB, a lack of internal policies within Public Works Canada and pressure on the part of the industry, including from American companies. Public Works Canada had been very patient with the CGSB but it finally withdrew the requirement for manufacturers to be on the QPL list for the purposes of selling their products to the federal government.

In terms of furniture, the QPL was working and continues to work slowly. For its part, Public Works and Government Services Canada is constantly changing its procurement policies and is reducing its monitoring of technical compliance for furniture, because it does not have enough internal technical resources, and it feels that the process of insuring that providers are compliant with the CGSB's national standards is too onerous.

If we look at the numbers, we can see that the federal government purchases $100 million of office equipment every year. According to my quick calculations, the cost of certifying products in order to ensure a minimum level of quality, that is compliance with CGSB standards and listing with the QPL, make up approximately .5% of the government's total annual procurement.

Furthermore, the tests required under CGSB standards for listing with the QPL use North American standards. Like all Canadian industries, the furniture industry exports approximately 80% of its office furniture to the United States. In order to sell to major institutions and companies, as well as to the American government, that is probably the biggest buyer of office furniture in the world, companies must meet certain performance standards. Those standards are perfectly compatible with the CGSB standards. A considerable amount of work has been done to harmonize CGSB standards and those of the BIFMA, which represents the American industry. If you include the 80% of exported furniture, the .5% of annual procurement goes down to .1%. In my humble opinion, it is not a lot to pay if what you get is a robust and efficient procedure that guarantees an appropriate level of performance and quality.

On April 7, PWGSC held consultations on its draft procurement policy for office furniture. I attended those consultations and I recommended that the use of the CGSB QPL should be mandatory. This new procurement policy is not yet in effect, but from what I have heard, the use of the new QPL will not be mandatory.

In a procurement policy where contracts are awarded to the lowest compliant bidder, why would Crown suppliers choose to voluntarily adhere to a verification program intended to maintain a certain level of quality? The question almost answers itself. In my humble opinion, I am not sure it is necessarily in PWGSC's advantage not to require that.

We have to look a bit at the CGSB as a gear in a gear box. It's one thing to question if it's the right gear or if there are the right number of teeth on that gear, but then if that gear doesn't engage with the rest of the gear box because the stakeholder is within the government—for instance, my two examples for DataTech Labs, or for the furniture—well, then, we have to wonder why that gear is there, or we have to wonder how we get that gear to work properly with the rest of the gear box.

In that regard, the government has several options. It can opt for the status quo, in other words continue on in the same way, even if that is not as effective as it should be, at least as far as the programs I have seen are concerned.

To make the CGSB more effective, PWGSC and the other departments and agencies would have to be required to use QPL certified products as much as possible.

Recently, I studied another case where seats reserved for the public had been sold to the government. There was no requirement to meet CGSB or BIFMA standards. One of the chairs was broken and someone was injured when they sat on it. A complaint was filed with the supplier and the supplier had to change his furniture.

Government representatives rightly wondered how they could ensure that these chairs would be safe. Our client called us and we told him that we would test the chairs according to national standards. And in fact that is what should have been done from the beginning, at the bidding stage. We conducted tests, and we showed that by modifying the chairs, they could be adequate.

If things had been done in the correct order, there would have been a requirement that these products meet the standards before they were offered to the government. Then that person would not have been injured. They went through all the steps, but not in the right order, so there was a waste of time and energy. Everyone was dissatisfied with this purchasing process.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Comtois, I will ask you to conclude your presentation.

[Michel Comtois]

Here are three suggestions I would like to make.

Public Works and Government Services Canada and the other departments should be forced to use the QPL as much as possible. We need to allow CGSB to be known to Canadians, at the institutional or individual level. We need to give the CGSB the resources it needs in order to carry out its mandate properly. This should not be too expensive for the Crown because it works on a cost recovery basis.

If there is no willingness to use the CGSB effectively, we need to consider its relevance, or at least the relevance of the services its offers.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for your presentation.

I now give the floor to Mr. Dauphin, who is the Director General of CanmetMATERIALS, Minerals and Metals Sector, from Natural Resources Canada.

You have the floor.

[Philippe Dauphin, Director General, CanmetMATERIALS, Minerals and Metals Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

Merci.

Honourable Chair, distinguished members, it's a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to you about NRCan's experience with the national standards program provided by the CGSB.

I am the General Director of the CanmetMATERIALS Laboratory for Natural Resources Canada.

Natural Resources Canada is involved in the management of a certification program consistent with a CGSB standard, specifically, non-destructive testing. Non-destructive testing is used to detect flaws and cracks in the structural components used in industries such infrastructures for energy production and transmission, civil engineering structures, manufacturing and transportation, and general quality control of materials and components.

Natural Resources Canada certifies conformity with the CGSB-48.9712 standard for technology which uses different testing methods, such as industrial radiography—for example X rays— and ultrasonic testing. Generally, non-destructive testing is a set of highly valuable technologies and tools, because it does not permanently destroy or alter the article being inspected.

CanmetMATERIALS is a technology centre of Natural Resources Canada, and our mandate for materials technology includes value-added use of materials for sustainable development in Canada and globally; industry competitiveness and productivity; energy efficiency; efficient use of natural resources; and security, reliability, and environmental impact of major infrastructures, for instance nuclear power plants, and oil and gas pipelines.

The NRCan national non-destructive testing, or NDT, certification body is a national program within CanmetMATERIALS that has been carrying out its national certification program since 1960. For our program, there is a critical context dependency on the CGSB standard, since our main program activity involves NRCan’s certifying individual inspectors according to the CAN/CGSB 48.9712 standard.

Currently, this standard dates from 2006 and it will be updated in 2014 for upcoming implementation by NRCan. Historically, CGSB has been publishing and managing this NDT standard since 1960. Of note, it's also a Canadian adoption of International Standard ISO 9712, and it keeps our national scheme in pace with what industry is using internationally.

In the industry, there are more than 5,000 inspectors in Canada who are certified in non-destructive testing by Natural Resources Canada. Certification from a federal department in accordance with national standards published by the CGSB is well-regarded and accepted nationally and internationally. It provides an independent and highly credible assessment of an inspector's qualifications.

In order to maintain and develop a national program, it is essential to consult with stakeholders and the industry, so that our programs and activities are continually supported by the contributions of industry and experts in the field.

According to the current list of members on the CGSB 48/2—non-destructive testing committee, the number of representatives are as follows: 55 members from the general public, the private sector and industry, and 13 from departments.

The committee discussion and participation by a well-balanced group of stakeholders have been essential to the ongoing development and maintenance of an appropriate standard for NRCan to rely on for our implementation of the program.

In summary, the CGSB non-destructive testing certification standard is essential in being a fundamental pillar for NRCan to carry out its mandate to ensure the health and safety of Canadians by providing a strong NDT quality focus for the industry. We're very proud to be managing and providing this program of a CGSB standard-based NDT personnel certification with 50-plus years of history and success. With CGSB stewardship and support, we look forward to continuing to work with our industry to deliver value through our national programs, such as implementing and using new technology for engagement and communication, and to continually improve the implementation of the standards and the service delivery to address current and future needs.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for your presentation.

Without further delay, I will give the floor to Mr. Jenkins, Director of Ecosystems and Fisheries Management at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Thank you for being here today.

[Randy Jenkins, Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much. And good morning to everyone. It's a pleasure to be here today.

DFO's involvement with the Canadian General Standards Board in the conservation, protection, and the enforcement branch goes back to 1997. There are three general areas that we currently use the CGSB for, and those haven't changed in a number of years. The first is in standards development. Our first engagement with the Canadian General Standards Board was back in 1997 when we were looking for independent oversight of our at-sea observer program training module.

The observers operate in different regions across Canada and we wanted to try to have some consistency and rigour and standards around how the training is carried out, so that we were fairly confident that the training of an observer in the Quebec region, for example, was similar to one in the Newfoundland region, and that there would be some consistency to the data we get back from those observers.

So in 1997 the CGSB developed a national standard that was known as the CAN/CGSB-190.1-97 training and certification for at-sea fisheries observers. This provided the standards, and those standards are still in use today. We've used it since 1997 as a guide for our at-sea observer programs.

It's been more relevant perhaps in recent years once the standards document was developed and we used it, but our biggest use of the CGSB program is the qualification program asset. It provides for us a qualification system for two types of observer programs. One is known as the dock-side monitoring program, which administers the weigh offs of fish landings at port, and the other one is the at-sea observer program, which provides independent observers on board vessels at sea to verify catches.

In the case of the dock-side monitoring program, that was our first engagement of CGSB to provide a qualification program. Essentially, if you want to become involved in the delivery of dock-side monitoring services in Canada, your first step is that you must become qualified with CGSB. From there you move on to a DFO designation. Essentially the CGSB arranges for a quality system manual to be compiled by the companies interested in becoming qualified to carry out these services. It's essentially just detailed operating procedures that cover everything that the dock-side monitoring program is going to deliver and how they're going to carry it out. The CGSB then will make sure that it matches what DFO's expectations are and they actually do carry out their processes through annual audits in accordance with the methods they've explained.

The year 1999 was the first one we entered into an agreement with CGSB to develop the qualification program for dock-side monitoring, and we've used CGSB ever since that time to carry out the annual audits and to certify or qualify new companies that wish to get into the program. The general requirements for dock-side monitoring services are inscribed in legislation. The fisheries general regulations outline the requirements to deliver observer programs in a general sense, and then of course the policy framework around the nuts and bolts of what makes the program tick is described in various policy documents within the department and incorporated as well into the CGSB manuals.

As for cost and funding of these programs—a common question we get from the industry and others—the DFO covers most of the costs. A company interested in becoming certified or qualified through the process has to pay the initial qualification cost. But as for the ongoing audits and maintenance of the program, DFO covers those types of costs.

In the case of an individual company, it will vary depending on the complexity and how complete their work is to begin with. But it costs a company roughly $5,000 to $10,000 to go through the process. That's what they would have to pay the CGSB. Of course, that is addition to any internal costs they would cover if they had to bring in new systems, or do anything else.

DFO covers the annual surveillance and the regular monitoring of these companies to ensure that they're compliant with the quality standards manual. In recent years we've managed to get the costs down to about $60,000 a year. Prior to that we were spending about $92,000 a year—keeping in mind that roughly 17 companies are qualified. We carry out audits on a three-year cycle. If no problems are detected through desk audits, you can expect an on-site auditor every third year, and paper audits or desk audits will be carried out in the alternate years.

Recently we've expanded our program. As you may be aware, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans restructured their at-sea observer program and moved from a contracted process to a service supplier process that would be similar to a dockside monitoring process, whereby any company can deliver services as long as they're qualified and then designated by DFO.

In the old model there was one contract per region, and if you bid and got the contract you were the service supplier. In theory you could have 50 companies. We wanted a system to make sure everyone delivered a quality program, that they had the management and operational processes in place to ensure the integrity of the data, that DFO got what it was looking for, that the individual industry companies that utilize this service were confident that the data collected was accurate, and that DFO was accepting the reports of the independent observers as being accurate in describing their fishing activities.

In 2012 we entered into another agreement with the Canadian General Standards Board to develop a qualification program for the At-Sea Fisheries Observer Corporations. This followed a very similar path as the dockside monitoring program. We have since moved to streamlining our operations a bit more, so when we developed the at-sea observer program qualification, we improved upon the dockside after 10 or so years of experience. We tightened up some of the language and the rules, and we are currently harmonizing a lot of the background policy, so when we go out to various companies or to the coast, it's more efficient for the Canadian General Standards Board to do both types of observer programs at the same time. If you travel to the Pacific region or the Newfoundland region, while you're there you can mix and match. You can do the dockside monitoring program and the at-sea observer program. This is certainly most cost-effective. In some cases, companies are interested in delivering service to both programs. So instead of having your company management tied up in two different audits, if you're involved in both programs we can do the audit at the same time, so it makes it a bit more efficient.

Again, the costs to the companies are very similar. There's a $5,000 to $10,000 cost to set up with the Canadian General Standards Board, depending on the complexity of your program and the number of times they have to go back. But once you're set up, DFO generally funds the maintenance costs. So as long as you keep your program up and running as you described it to us when you were approved, we will cover the costs of doing the spot checks. If there is a problem, and it requires a revisit by the auditors for corrective action, the company would have to cover the cost of the CGSB going back.

In closing, we don't foresee any major changes in our use of CGSB in the future. It's served us quite well. It provides an arm's length from DFO and certainly a bit of independence, so every company will know that regardless of what region they're from or where they're applying from, they're all evaluated in the same way. They're all expected to provide the same type of information.

The qualification process is clearly articulated on the website. It's available to the public. Anybody can check it out, and see if this is the type of program they'd like to be engaged in. Without the CGSB pre-qualification, the onus would revert to DFO to try to do all this type of audit and follow-up and process-type work ourselves, and it would be overbearing for us to do that right now. We don't have a lot of professional auditors on staff in our section, so it would mean hiring staff, whereas we believe this to be a cost-effective mechanism to carry out the quality assurance program on these companies.

DFO will focus its activities on ensuring that other aspects of the program are met, such as fraud and collusion, and ensuring that the company is operated at arm's length from industry.

We expect that we will have continuing and ongoing relations with the Canadian General Standards Board. There may be applications to other types of programs in the future, if they come up, that require a certain type of pre-qualification.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for your presentation.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses who presented this morning.

We will now proceed to the question and answer session on your presentations.

Ms. Day, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today. It's always a pleasure to listen to you given that you are experts in your field.

My first question will be for the representatives from the Canadian Fuels Association.

I'm sure you know that the advisory committee that develops the standards is composed of representatives from industry, consumers, experts and representatives of general interest groups, such as departments.

Apart from the departments, which other interest groups are part of that committee? Is the committee obliged to have all of those stakeholders or would it be preferable that they be represented on the committee?

[Gilles Morel, Director, Fuels, Canadian Fuels Association]

I will answer on behalf of the association.

There are three main parts to your question. I will start by describing the makeup of the committees.

Members of the committees represent producers and refiners, who must develop and respect the standards. They also represent producers of additives. Additives are elements that are an integral part of the final standard. For example, they facilitate getting the products on the market so that the products can meet environmental performance criteria. While these are very specialized products that are manufactured in very small quantities, these producers of additives have a great interest in ensuring that the finished products respect a certain standard and that they meet performance expectations, when it comes to vehicles for example. In short, manufacturers and vendors of additives are also present.

There are also the people who are involved in the production of biofuels. This is now a requirement in many committees. These people want to be part of the committee and they also represent producers.

Governments also have a seat on the committee. The various governments do not always have the status of a voting member, but in most committees, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Environment Canada participate. They now use the regulation in several standards, according to the CEPA. There are also several provincial governments such as the government of B.C., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. They regularly have to refer to their regulation standards. They also participate in the committees' deliberations.

Finally, representatives from the automotive sector also help develop the standards. For example, the standard concerning ethanol E85 was developed by a representative of General Motors on the committees.

So, we have very balanced representation. One of the strengths of the committees that deals with oil products is the fact that no individual group has more than 50% representation. This ensures that the group is diverse enough to represent producers, vendors of additives, governments, and other user groups.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have a complementary question.

We know that when a standard such as an ISO standard is developed, a minimum standard for quality is created. Small and medium enterprises often end up being excluded because they cannot meet that particular standard. Sometimes the consequence of this is an inflation of prices. When there are only a few players, prices increase artificially.

One of our objectives in this study is to find ways of making the board more effective. Do you have any suggestions in that regard?

[Gilles Morel]

For 40 or 50 years, we have sat on the various committees, for example on the committee on testing methods which I mentioned earlier. My colleague mentioned 60 years of participation in that committee.

There have been a lot of changes over the years and the committees are much more effective. Recently we have tried to combine several meetings because when the committees get together, the meetings can take up to an entire week. We try to have all of the experts from the industry there at three same time so that they can help establish or revise standards in various committees, whether it be the committee on verification methods or the committee on oil, gas and alternative fuels. Usually it is the same experts who participate in all of those committees. We need to have a series of meetings. However, in recent years, we have managed to reduce the number of formal meetings to two per year. The rest of the work is done by conference call, depending on what is required with respect to the particular standards.

Last week our spring series of meetings were held for 2014. To make things more effective, we suggested reducing the lengths of the meetings from five days to four days. We try to condense the working groups and the main committees as much as possible.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

All right, thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Ms. Day. Your time is up for this round of questions.

Mr. Trottier, you have the floor. You have five minutes.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today.

Mr. Comtois, you had some interesting things to say. You are both a client and a supplier. You have previously been a member of the technical committees of the Canadian General Standards Board. Did you have discussions with other standards organizations?

In the testimony we have heard so far, we have seen that standards development is a very specialized skill. It is better that it be done centrally, for example at PWGSC, which can collaborate with other departments, instead of having a standards office within each department.

It is a fairly specialized skill. There are also private businesses that do this work. Do you have discussions with the Canadian Standards Association, with Underwriters Laboratories, or with other similar organizations?

[Michel Comtois]

For many years our organization has worked with standards from the BIFMA, the Business Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association of the United States.

Actually when you look at the CGSB standards, there is a section that deals with the resistance of the finishes and the general requirements for edge radius and measurements, but then when you get to the mechanical testing portion, they will say test to the applicable BIFMA standards.

I've been heavily involved with that group as well for the past 20 years or so. I've also been involved with ISO. I've been involved with Bureau de normalisation du Québec as well. So I've been involved not so much with the Underwriters Laboratory but with similar organizations.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Our committee is wondering if the Canadian General Standards Board should be doing this work, or if it would be better managed by a private organization. Could we subcontract this work to private organizations for cost or client services reasons? Also, we do not know if these organizations could do this kind of work.

[Michel Comtois]

It could be done in whole or in part by organizations like the Canadian Standards Association or the UL. However, these two organizations are unfortunately very conservative when it comes to opening up their processes. For example, if you wish to obtain certification under a UL standard, they have to do the testing. They will not allow you to use an independent laboratory like ours, and consequently all of the tests are centralized in one place. Even if it is officially a not-for-profit organization, most of the time their services cost much more than ours. This despite the fact that we are a for-profit organization. This is largely because they have a monopoly.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a question for Mr. Boag and Mr. Morel from the Canadian Fuels Association.

It's a question of structure. The CGSB exists within Public Works and provides standards development work on behalf of Transport Canada.

Do you see an advantage in having this agency, the standards board, outside of Transport Canada? Is there an advantage in having it at arm's-length?

[Peter Boag]

I'm not sure it's definitely doing the work for Transport Canada. It's doing the work, broadly, for consumers of fuels. Of course, it's doing it for government, which is also a consumer of fuels. So in many ways it's doing it for PWGSC as a procurement organization. To say that it's doing it for Transport Canada, in part, yes it is, but probably from a narrow perspective.

Could it be done outside of government? Probably. I think the issue for us would be, how is the organization governed, how is it funded, does it work efficiently, and does it ultimately deliver the kind of quality standards that have passed the test of time with continued relevance and the ability to continue to develop new standards as they're required?

Could it be done elsewhere? Yes. Could it be done as efficiently and effectively? It's something that could be examined.

Our presentation today was very supportive of the role and the work that CGSB has done in doing this in an effective and an efficient way with full transparency. Mr. Morel talked about the broad range of stakeholders who are at the table. It is very much a consensus-driven organization.

The answer is yes. Would it actually be better? I don't know.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Trottier.

We will return to Ms. Day, who has five minutes.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next question is for Mr. Jenkins, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

According to the Canadian General Standards Board website, in 2008 the Canadian Organic Aquatic Producers Association asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada to create a national standard for organic aquaculture. The proposed standard was meant to serve as a guide for using the “organic” label for aquatic practices, no matter the origin. The department offered to finance the participation of a specialized consultant in September 2009. The board signed an agreement with the department to create this standard. The advisory committee was supposed to develop a draft standard to be submitted for public consultation between June 30 and August 30, 2010.

In August 2010, a letter was sent to the board by environmentalists and producers who criticized the draft standard project because it allowed the use of pesticides, among other reasons.

Can you tell me if the standard has become a national standard in Canada approved by the Standards Council of Canada?