Government Operations Committee on May 5th, 2015

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Rousseau. I would like to start from Mr. Dulmage’s observation that the uniqueness of Canada’s standardization system is that it does not directly belong to a State. I would like to set that fact against a background that haunts me personally and should haunt all of us involved federally. I am talking about the rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic. On July 6, 2013, 47 innocent people lost their lives in the centre of a moderately sized town in Quebec, a centre that was completely razed.

In your answer to the first question put by my colleague, Mr. Ravignat, you said that a lot of norms are voluntary in nature. The Canadian uniqueness that Mr. Dulmage was talking about sometimes ends up in a conflict of interests in the establishment of standards. Have you personally observed any conflict between the interests of industry and the interest of the State, which is to protect the public? If not, are there cases where it would be possible?

[Jean Rousseau]

That is an excellent question.

The standards development organizations accredited by the Standards Council of Canada use a non-consensual development process. For a standard to be referred to as “consensual,” three parties must absolutely be involved. First, if it is a product, there must be the manufacturers, then the users, then people with a general interest. I did not put those parties in order of importance. There could be regulatory organizations, experts, and so on. So there must be a balanced committee for a standard to be considered consensual. Those standards must not be confused by the ones called “industry standards”.

The companies and associations that establish standards do very good work but they have no duty to establish a consensus. They establish a consensus between themselves in the case of an industry standard, but then you always have to wonder whether the consensus extends to the two other players, the users and those with a general interest. That is a very important concept. I repeat that it is really considered when a standard is considered “consensual” and meets the Standards Council of Canada's criteria.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Could you make your answer a little more specific? The issue of rail safety is of interest to our region because the railway line from Dakota to eastern Canada goes right through it. That is the same line on which the Lac-Mégantic disaster occurred. Are there any particular issues in the area of rail safety?

[Jean Rousseau]

Following that unfortunate tragedy, it was said that the manufacturing standards for tank cars should be changed, really improved. So there is already a consensus on that. The effort now should be for the industry to put those new criteria into effect as quickly as possible. The technical knowledge of the issue is understood.

It must first be shared with those involved in regulation and with other parties so that it is acceptable to all. Yes, the industry has concerns, but the users, the consumers, the people who want safe products around them, have concerns too. I have no particular expertise in the railway industry, but I know that there must be consensus in all the areas where you hope to establish a standard.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rousseau.

That pretty much uses up Mr. Brahmi's time, but I wonder if you would like to make a contribution to that line of questioning, Mr. Dulmage.

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

I would agree with what Mr. Rousseau said. There is a great need, and in the system we have, as he said, we all have to have balanced committees. We're all audited. Every single standard we write is audited. We have annual audits, so the real idea is that you have to have balance, and you have to have consensus. I think sometimes we run across issues where an authority will substitute law for consensus, and then he runs further and further into a hole and has to come back.

Unfortunately, safety is an ongoing issue. I don't know if Jean noticed it, but in our submissions, our reviews of standards, we must also identify how we are supporting the national public interest, public safety, public good, and the health and safety of communities in the advancement of the economy and trade.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's an excellent point. Thank you.

Next we'll go to the Conservative Party, Mr. Brad Butt.

Brad, you have five minutes, give or take.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today.

Prior to being elected to this wonderful place, I was in the association management business for 12 years in the greater Toronto area. I had an opportunity to work with different government officials on different regulations and rules and standards, in this case as it related to the housing sector. It was certainly my impression that the people involved in these sectors, the people who do the hands-on work every day, were far better attuned to the standards and what needed to be achieved than, quite frankly, the bureaucrats ever were. The bureaucrats did the best job they could but they were not practical, hands-on people in the industry.

It seems as if there are several associations and boards all doing the same thing. Duplication is likely going on, which is likely costing companies that have to comply in extra time and extra money. Is that what's happening here? Do we have a duplication of services? Maybe we're not using as much of the expertise of private sector operators who know their businesses and know what needs to be achieved.

If that is the case, is there not some way we can pare this down so we have one set of standards, one body that does the accreditation and sets the standard? Should it not be the goal at the end of the day, to have one seamless system that works for everybody?

I'll start with Mr. Dulmage, and then Mr. Rousseau can certainly comment as well.

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

If I understand your question, you want to know if there should be a one-size-fits-all solution or one solution.

In Canada, we're much ahead of the U.S. The U.S. has 15,000 regulators, and we have thirteen times four in the sectors.

You're right that I often run into issues where an authority has an idea but hasn't talked to the sector, and the sectors get up in arms. We now have eight SDOs. We could have a system, such as the Germans do, whereby the accredited SDOs would prepare and publish the standards, and you wouldn't go to an association to get them because you would get these inherent or unintentional biases. You would use the system, let it develop for you, and adhere to it. That, to me, would be where we should go.

Should we have one SDO? My guess is that in 30 or 40 years we will have one, because our economic needs are so great that we'll have to be in sync with the rest of the world, but right now I think the eight we have can do the job, working with the SCC. We do try to avoid duplication if we can.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Rousseau.

[Jean Rousseau]

The standards are published. The people who work on the technical content of those documents are members of the standardization committees, with all the other members. So you must have a committee with some balance.

However, we must not forget a really important aspect. The standards development organizations, such as the BNQ, the CGSB, the ULC or the CSA, manage a process that copies what the ISO does internationally, as do organizations in other countries.

That idea really has to be understood. Here is the difference. Yesterday, for example, the BNQ published a standard on explosives and safe distances for explosives. The BNQ does not provide the technical content of that standard, because the criteria are established by the experts in the area, the various parties involved, doing a lot of work at meetings of the standardization committees. That is all done under the supervision of the organization, such as the BNQ, that manages the standard development process: the committee work, all the public consultation, reviewing the comments, the official publication of the standards and the follow-up when changes are needed. It is about reviewing the standards in question with the methodology and the frequency required.

That is the information I wanted to add.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

That pretty much concludes your time, Mr. Butt, thank you.

Next then for the Liberal Party, we welcome the Honourable Mauril Bélanger for five minutes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I am not very familiar with this subject, but I hope that my questions will not repeat those that have already been asked.

My first question goes to Mr. Rousseau.

You said that you have several hundred subcontractors. Could you tell us how those subcontractors are chosen and for what time period?

[Jean Rousseau]

Let me clarify the concept of subcontractors. The members of the committees that establish the standards are volunteers. When I talked about subcontractors, I meant for checking the standards. Audits are conducted in order to check products, to verify management system standards or to evaluate laboratories since some activities are seasonal in nature. So we have a great need for a lot of people for a short time.

We also need experts in major areas or with various specializations. That is when we need subcontractors. We have our own employees for a certain number of tasks. Otherwise, we hire subcontractors, people who must be recognized by us. They must meet standards. We have to evaluate their credentials and their performance according to the criteria on an on-going basis. We have to be sure that they have all the knowledge, the know-how and the people skills they need in order to conduct the evaluations.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Dulmage, does your association have people who they also call to do some of the audits?

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

No, I should explain. We were founded in 1920, so we're 95 years old. We have 185 employees in Canada.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

You do your own.

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

We do our own follow-up services. We are tied to a large organization with 12,000 employees. For something specialized we would sometimes bring in an outside person, but normally it's all done by the staff.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'm aware of an organization called Accreditation Canada/Agrément Canada. They do the accreditation for hospitals. Is there a linkage at all with either of your organizations?

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

There isn't with us directly. I'm aware that they do talk to the Standards Council of Canada. Having been on a hospital board as a treasurer, I was involved in the accreditation audit. It's an area in which I think there could be more liaison and collaboration.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Rousseau, do you have anything to do with Accreditation Canada?

[Jean Rousseau]

The Accreditation Canada system operates in parallel, in a way. An international organization develops standards for evaluating hospitals. Yes, there has been discussion with a view to building a bridge between the Standards Council of Canada, Accreditation Canada, the Bureau de normalisation du Québec and the Conseil québécois d'agrément. This is an area that really focuses on hospitals and other services to the public.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

My last question comes from the document provided by the Library of Parliament.

It says that both the Standards Council of Canada and the Canada General Standards Board represent Canada on the ISO.

How is it that two organizations represent Canadian interests on an international organization? Can you comment on that?

[Jean Rousseau]

Yes. Depending on the subject, it may be the Standards Council of Canada or another organization. Countries are members of the ISO. Canada is a member through the Standards Council of Canada. However, they may delegate the secretariat of an international standard committee to representatives of other Canadian organizations, such as the standards development organizations.

Here is an example. For a secretariat named TC 197, which develops standards in hydrogen technology, Canada is represented by a president and a secretary. They come from the Bureau de normalisation du Québec and they lead the committee. The Bureau de normalisation du Québec runs the international committee, which develops international standards for hydrogen technology. I could give you a host of examples involving other standards development organizations.

In some cases, by contrast, we do not want a standards organization to represent Canada because our industry has no need. In those conditions, the Standards Council of Canada represents Canada directly. Sometimes, it is desirable for standards development organizations to represent Canada, but for all the interests involved to be properly represented, those organizations have to take a truly Canadian position.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Dulmage, would you like an opportunity to respond briefly?