Government Operations Committee on May 5th, 2015

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I wouldn't use the word “liberal” myself, but perhaps “generous”.

Mr. Rousseau, would you like to answer at all the points that Mr. Adler raised?

[Jean Rousseau]

There have been improvements in recent years, but much still remains to be done. Of course, there is the question of a budget. But we must still focus on the areas in which Canadians have a real interest in influencing the standards established internationally. To be in a good position to do so, we have to highlight the advances that our Canadian technology has made possible. We also have to anticipate what will be asked for internationally, but, to do so, much still remains to be done. We need a budget to do that monitoring so that we can help our companies involved in international trade.

I agree with Mr. Dulmage that the Canadian system is comparable to those in other countries. He mentioned Australia and Great Britain. Our notion of consensus is very robust and that allows us to establish credibility. However, that applies to consensual standards. The points of comparison are not at all the same with other kinds of standards. The notion of consensus is really very strong in Canada and that is to our advantage. We also have to make it possible for our companies to make use of it internationally.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That concludes our first round.

If you don't mind, the chair will take the liberty of one question. I noticed a theme in some of the questioning regarding the harmonization of standards as they relates perhaps to international trade. Has it been raised with you that our standards regime is somehow a non-tariff barrier to trade? In the interest of harmonizing international standards, is there pressure to harmonize at the lowest common denominator, or to dumb down our standards, to facilitate freer trade? Is this a subject that the regulatory regime deals with?

We'll hear from Mr. Dulmage first, and then perhaps Mr. Rousseau.

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

I have experienced all three that you mentioned. There are people who want us to dumb down to the lowest. They usually get told they can't. There is pressure to harmonize the north and south, or all three, and there is pressure on the Europeans. Generally so far the system has been able to argue against it, but I see a continuously ongoing drive. The drive is trade, so we have to be aware of that.

We had a fire truck standard that required a fire truck to have a steel ladder. The City of Montreal asked why that was, and we said it was because 20 years ago somebody made a steel ladder. In some cases, we've had some things that were a little bit of a trade barrier. I think when we go through the upcoming agreements we're going to hear more of this, and we have to be prepared to have a considered and well thought-out answer.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Rousseau, would you like to respond briefly?

[Jean Rousseau]

Certainly.

The idea of an obstacle to trade always has to be verified. In other words, standards must not be an obstacle to trade. If we require something from companies in other countries and other provinces, we have to require it of our own companies. We must base our standards on what may exist internationally and consider the aspects that could have implications in Canada, such as on the environment, for example. Environmental and health matters are subjects on which we can contribute when we are establishing a national standard for Canada from the starting point of an international standard.

The standardization system allows us to make the necessary adjustments while still considering the standards that exist internationally. We can determine if some particular aspects apply to our country and, if so, we can include them in a Canadian national standard.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rousseau. That's very helpful.

We have time for two more rounds of questioning, one for the NDP and one for the Conservatives. Then I think we'll have to thank these witnesses and move on to our next grouping.

Now it's time for Mr. Mathieu Ravignat.

You have five minutes, please, Mathieu.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Dulmage, you're both incredibly experienced when it comes to using and working with standards. So I was wondering whether you had any amendments to propose to the Standards Council of Canada Act in order to make the work of standards development agencies, or SDOs, easier. It could be a change to more clearly define the areas in which each organization is allowed to develop standards, for example.

Would you recommend any legislative changes to that end?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Who would like to begin?

[Jean Rousseau]

I want to make sure I understand your question. Are you referring to the Standards Council of Canada or the Canadian General Standards Board?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I'm referring to the Standards Council of Canada Act.

[Jean Rousseau]

Okay.

The act was amended in order to change the council's operating procedure. I believe improvements have been made over the past two years, the purpose being to ensure that issues are thoroughly discussed.

For example, when we want to establish a standard and another standardizing body already has one in place, we have to notify the other organizations and tell them why we want to create a new or complementary standard. The Standards Council of Canada implemented that process, and organizations have to follow it before a new standard can be accepted. There's considerable scrutiny around that, especially in recent years.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Rousseau, are there any other improvements you would propose to the act?

[Jean Rousseau]

In my view, cooperation with the council is positive, particularly around standards activities. It's not really about allocating areas to organizations but, rather, ensuring that they are taken into account, so that when there is an existing standard, organizations take it into consideration. That being said, I don't really have any specific issues in relation to the Standards Council of Canada Act.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Dulmage.

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

The only one I would suggest, and it's a matter of clarification, is that the SCC is supposed to approve national standards of Canada, and though we are now moving towards this it's not exactly covered off. Other countries such as the U.S. allow the SDO to declare a standard without going to the SCC with the formal documentation as part of that process. That gives a speed advantage to a harmonized standard. The act right now doesn't clarify the rules for that, so if that could be fixed and discussed that would be greatly helpful.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You have two minutes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

That was it.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We'll go to the Conservatives, Ms. Wai Young.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you so much for being here today and shedding light on this.

I note that in the documentation we received, it says,

SCC has requested that CGSB review and update standards that had not been maintained according to our accreditation requirements. Although CGSB did withdraw more than 650 outdated standards from its collection, over half of the standards currently in CGSB’s catalogue remain out-of-date. This situation is problematic for key stakeholders, including regulators, industry and consumers.

Can you shed light on this and on what can be done?

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

I have sat on the code commission for the Canada fire and building codes for the last five years and have been in attendance for the last 12, and it has been somewhat embarrassing to sit there and hear the members go on and on about CGSB's lack of updating. I understand the problem they have is quite similar to the one most of us have. Perhaps the code standard is old and perhaps it could have been made long term, but no one may want to do it anymore. They have a large number, and I have a few. I would say, if no one's using them, get rid of them. There's no use having them on the books. We may have to work out a transition plan to allow people to move forward, but if no one's using them I don't see the purpose of maintaining them. Look for another solution; maybe it's international and maybe it's somewhere else.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Rousseau, do you have a comment on this?

[Jean Rousseau]

Yes. A significant number of standards are indeed outdated, meaning, they have outlived their technical usefulness. A National Standard of Canada must be reviewed at least every five years. In the case of non-national standards, the review period can vary. SDOs have made a major effort in this regard, perhaps a bit forced into it by the Standards Council of Canada.

Be that as it may, when the Standards Council of Canada audits an SDO, the verification process is rigorous. Every single time, it examines what the organization has done to really keep its catalogue up to date. That means ensuring that no national standards of Canada are past the five-year review period and that other standards have been reviewed within a five- to ten-year window.

I can tell you that the Standards Council of Canada auditors have really been making a tremendous effort when reviewing SDOs. The number of SCC-accredited standards development organizations now stands at eight.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Very quickly, I wanted to ask about this whole standardization between Canada and the U.S. For myself, it's been a huge learning curve to come here and learn about how many things are part of the supply chain, and where things are integrated quite closely with our largest trading partner and necessarily so.

Would you say they are so far ahead of us that we really need to scramble to catch up? What do we need to do to attain that level?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Go ahead, Mr. Dulmage.