Government Operations Committee on May 29th, 2014

[Pablo Sobrino]

I'll answer on two fronts.

First of all, many of the standards we do are referenced in regulation, so that regulator would enforce the use of that standard within their regulatory regime. So that's one piece. We'll write a standard, but we're doing a standard that will be referenced in regulation. For instance, Transport Canada will have a number of standards referenced in regulation, and it's Transport Canada that would enforce those regulations.

The one place that we do play a role is that we certify that your product or company is meeting the standard. So we do certification. We'll remove the certification if you can't meet the standard that you are trying to apply. So that's the place we play a role, but it's not an enforcement role. It's really a certification role, and that's true for all the standards organizations. They will remove their name or their label from that product. So, for instance, if I take anything that's in procurement, if you don't meet the standard, you will not be able to sell to the Government of Canada. So that certification process is how you allow access to the industry. But we don't do enforcement, and the enforcement really falls upon the regulatory agencies that use the standards, and therefore enforce them.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

There's a vacuum here. There's a gap. Have you ever talked about filling it? Surely you must be concerned that you're setting these wonderful standards out there. They're not being followed, at least some of the time. What do you do? Do you just say, life sucks?

[Pablo Sobrino]

No. When we've had those discussions it has been very much about removing certification. It's uncertifying, so they no longer can claim that they meet the standard. That's the role we've played. In terms of the enforceability, that's the discussion we have with the departments that use the standards. Are they following up with them? But we have never had a discussion about our role in enforcement. Standards organizations don't do enforcement.

[Desmond Gray]

Just one comment on the certification side. As Pablo said, for a number of things that we buy in the Government of Canada, in the bid documents we actually refer to a standard, and people who bid must either attest or in some cases, be certified to...in terms of that product. So they must have had an independent third party come in and test their product or service to make sure it meets the standard, and that certification or testing must be current.

In other words, you don't just get tested once and then you're good for 10 years. There's a regular cycle when people come back and test your product again and again, and this can include laboratory testing of your product and samples as well.

I'd also like to say that in the past we've been certified. We do certification. People in the private sector will sometimes call us, and I'll be very frank with you, sometimes it's competitors who will say, “Someone is claiming they're certified to your standard. We don't think they are. You should check them out.” That has happened in the past. We do a standard for insulating blankets around hot water tanks,and I remember a number of years ago there was a company that was advertising, putting on our logo—certified by CGSB—and when this was brought to our attention, we checked it. They had never been part of our program whatsoever. It was simply not true. It was a false claim, so through our legal services we advised them to cease and desist, because in fact it was misrepresenting in the marketplace, and they then removed that from the marketplace.

So part of it is making sure the consumers understand what the certification means and also to do due diligence to the degree possible when it's brought to our attention and to act accordingly, and we do that.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy.

Mr. Easter, go ahead for five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

I have a question somewhat along the same lines as Ms. Ablonczy's. When somebody violates a standard or fails to meet it, what's the process for the public to either redress or at least get some satisfaction that this didn't meet the standard as set by the various agencies?

Does it stand up in court? The case of the leaky condos is a good one. Is the only avenue someone can pursue the court system, or a regulator declining the certification? What's the process there?

[Desmond Gray]

I think it's an interesting question.

Coming back to the previous comment, certainly the regime of certification is one that's very important. If you see a mark, and you cannot have confidence that the mark actually means something in terms of the product's performance, then, of course, we have a problem.

When I go out and buy something.... For example CGSB, for any of you who do construction if you ever get vapour barriers, installing a vapour barrier in your home, the ten mil vapour barrier, you will see the CGSB logo on it. Of course these products are tested.

So manufacturers have their product and they bring their product voluntarily to have it certified by us. We have a process to certify it including product testing. We use laboratories to certify and to test these products to make sure the samples perform. This is how we build confidence.

In many of these cases we do two things. We have what we call qualification and certification. We have a whole series of products we qualify, and that means we're doing it internally with laboratories to evaluate the product. In certification we actually have an external group that's also a third party review and provides for a greater degree of validation, if you want to put it that way. We use that often in higher-risk areas. For example we have medical gloves, which we certify for obvious reasons.

The certification regime itself is a critical piece of confidence in the marketplace to make sure people are getting a product that meets the standard, and they understand there's a consistent process that is being used, and a fair and accurate process that is being used. That's the confidence part.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I guess one of the problems, though, for the public is awareness of that label, that little symbol. I do watch for it now. You people set the process, and it's a CSA standard.

But I'll give you an example, and this comes from the farm. An individual I know thought he was getting a hell of a break on plastic wrap. You wrap plastic around silage, around bales, to store it. It certainly wasn't certified, and he lost many tens of thousands of product. He wouldn't have known, and I wouldn't have known at the time. Plastic's plastic from where we stood.

So that's a problem in terms of getting the knowledge out there, that people know how important it is to meet the standard.

I wanted to ask you a question on your handout and overview, May 2014. For food under standards development program, you have labelling of genetically engineered food. How does that differ from GMOs, genetically modified? Is it the same thing? I personally think it's different, but can you give me an explanation on that. It's always a debate out there whether we should be labelling GMOs or not, but genetically engineered is different in my view from GMOs. Am I right, or am I wrong?

[Pablo Sobrino]

I think I'm going to have to get back to you on that. That's a very technical little question, but if I can find it in the next few minutes....

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Well, that's not a problem. You can get it back to the committee and we'll have a look at it. But it is a huge debate and I think perhaps somebody had mentioned earlier, that one of the other big issues—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Sorry, I will have to stop you now—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

—is the organic products on shelves and whether they really are organic.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

To help you out, I want to specify that the French version of the document talks about the labeling of genetically engineered food.

[Pablo Sobrino]

I will send you the details. There are some very specific distinctions when it comes to this terminology.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

I want to ask you about trade agreements and the work you would do to facilitate the things Canada is trying to achieve in international trade agreements. Do you get involved? For example, with the European Union free trade agreement there are aspects of it that are different from those we had in NAFTA, including government procurement.

Will you need to work with your European counterparts to enable this opportunity of a trade agreement with Europe?

[Pablo Sobrino]

This is the same—maybe I'm going a little bit back to what Des was talking about earlier. One of the roles that CGSB is often called to play is to ensure that there is an alignment between standards between different countries, to facilitate trade so that Canadian suppliers are able to participate in other markets globally. These standards can be referred to as non-tariff barriers to trade.

Part of the role that we play at the International Standards Organization through the Standards Council of Canada.... All standards organizations contribute to discussions. I believe over 35 committees participate at the International Standards Organization, and it is precisely for that, to ensure alignment between our standards meeting our needs, as well as being able to ensure that our industries can access those markets.

Des was talking earlier about the ISO 9000, which was an example of a standard put in place that essentially excluded you from doing business unless you had that certification. We stepped into that vacuum, and the private sector has caught up and is now doing that. But this is going to come up continuously. Whenever there's trade, there are standards set by a country.

If I go back to the example of radon gas, the standards set in the U.S. don't meet the Canadian need. From a free trade perspective, U.S. manufacturers aren't going to be able to deliver to us until they know what our standard is. We can already access the American market because we have their standard, but they don't have ours. On the free trade side, it very much is about enabling business, and it's part of the harmonization of our requirements.

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

In that NAFTA example, is that something that would be subject to a challenge? So if an American supplier wanted to sell into Canada and they say that the Canadian standard is artificially high, unnecessary, over-engineered for example.

[Pablo Sobrino]

There are provisions in the trade agreement to adapt to specific requirements of each of the host countries. On the specifics, I'd have to look at that one in particular, but obviously radon gas is not an issue. You have to look at each case where you're restricting because essentially you don't want to set a standard that you can then be challenged on as having put up a barrier to trade. So that's the trade-off, and part of our working at the international level is to ensure that there's alignment across those things and that the needs are real, not created.

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

Another area where I think the Canadian standards board plays a role is when it comes to red tape for small business. I know that the Treasury Board and also the Minister of State for Small Business have been leading an initiative for a couple of years, a red tape reduction plan.

Are there examples where the standards you're creating, where there are complaints from small business that this is just extra regulation for them, extra barriers to their being able to conduct business, not only within the private economy but also in selling to the Government of Canada?

[Pablo Sobrino]

Obviously there are those who may not want to have a standard in place for their products. The idea is to make sure that you're focusing your standard on limitations that are real such as health and safety, those kinds of things.

One of the important things that we believe standards provides is that, in terms of regulatory reform, in terms of regulation, regulations take years to amend and to change, but we're able to adapt regulations that reference to standards. We're able to change a standard and modernize a standard. We do it on a regular basis. In regulation, referencing to that standard makes sure that you're keeping up with the current state of the art.

The other thing with our standards is that, the way standards are written is performance based, so what we're looking for is the outcome of a product. It's not necessary that your personal flotation device be made by someone, but rather that it does certain things, that it's able to support certain weight, that it turns people over in the right direction if they're in water, and all that.

If your product meets that standard then that product can be certified and be out in the marketplace. It allows innovation; that's what it does. If someone comes up with a better way to make a personal flotation device, as long as it performs, it will be certified. In that sense, I think for small business, we support innovation. The more referencing to standards, the more in keeping with modern-day practices. Regulations take a long time to change.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

Mr. Gray, do you want to add anything?

[Desmond Gray]

I have two comments, and one is on the SME side. It comes back to some of the previous questions. In the past, because sometimes there is a challenge in terms of quality and consumer confidence in the marketplace, sometimes one of the solutions that private business looks to is to establish a standard where they get together with us. All the key participants create an objective standard and then we run a certification program, which is in a sense voluntary. You don't have to do it. There's no regulation that necessarily says you have to. What it does is it then tells consumers that this is what a good product is. This company meets the standards. An objective measure done by a third party gives confidence.

Sometimes in the past this has been used to distinguish for consumers between those companies that are well-managed, producing, and responsible companies, and those perhaps who have been less so. It provides for a clear mechanism for doing that. Often this is driven by business, because they recognize there's a need in terms of their industry to achieve this kind of distinction.

I do want to come back to your previous question. It was an excellent question. As part of the national standard system in Canada, every one of the standards-writing bodies has to follow a standard established by the Standards Council of Canada itself. We're audited every year on our processes and the work that we do. I just want to read to you in terms of one the things that we have to meet, because it relates to establishing and being aligned with international standards. It says our process is a requirement that reads:

When international standards exist or their completion is imminent, they, or their relevant parts, shall be used as the basis for corresponding standards developed by SDOs, except where such international standards or relevant parts would be ineffective or inappropriate.

So in a sense the whole structure, the whole approach is, let's see if there's an international standard first that we can use as a base document for the committee. We don't start off from scratch; we don't have to. We start off with an international standard where it exists and then we look at it in terms of Canadian needs.

As was mentioned by Pablo, ASTM had a standard for radon gas. We could have used that standard, but when we looked at it, parts of it simply didn't reflect Canadian need, so it had to be adjusted. In terms of harmonization, harmonization is always in the backs of our minds. It's part of our process. It's not just us; it's a requirement under our accreditation.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you. I must stop you here to yield the floor to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin, you have five minutes.