Government Operations Committee on May 5th, 2015

[Michel Girard]

Yes. It is part of SCC's role. Once an organization is accredited, there's an annual audit, findings are made, and the results of the audit are circulated back to the clients.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

What do you identify as being the major goal or major criteria of evaluations?

[Michel Girard]

We use the CAN-P-1 document for our audits so we want to make sure that the standards development organizations have the right staff in place to develop and maintain standards. We want to make sure the standards that are being developed are using the balanced matrix of interests, so we're looking at that. We also want to make sure the standards catalogue is up to date as much as possible. Those are the main areas we cover, and the auditors spend a couple of days talking to the staff, talking to management of these SDOs, and looking at their documentation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We now go to Mr. Warkentin for five minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Girard, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your testimony as well as the advice you can offer.

I'm reading the last part of your testimony, and you highlighted a number of things with regard to the CGSB that concern me, quite frankly. You mentioned there are 650 outdated standards within their collection. Obviously, they weren't keeping up. I suspect that means that other organizations were updating the standards, and so the private sector as well as government were going to those organizations for those updates. My question would be, while they still do have remaining catalogues, some of which are updated, some of which aren't, are there any areas in which the CGSB is the only organization that has a standard? Are there any areas in which no other organization has taken up the field of building standards for those elements? If so, what areas would those be?

[Michel Girard]

That's a very good question. Thank you.

With the four new SDOs that we've accredited, there is a catalogue of up-to-date standards available for almost every need that Canadians have. I would say that when it comes to, for example, textile standards that CGSB maintains, you have up-to-date alternatives available elsewhere. It's the same for glass standards. I would say that maybe a handful of CGSB standards would be unique. I'd be surprised if there were that many, because other countries are facing the same kinds of issues that Canada is. We have global patterns of trade. We have supply chains that are very integrated among Canada, the U.S., and other major trading partners, so it would be pretty exceptional to see a CGSB standard that only Canadians need and only Canadians use.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Great. Obviously the role has changed, and the world is changing very fast when it comes to this. Obviously there is a desire, as you talked about, to integrate our standards with those of other countries so that we can trade with them better. From what I'm hearing, there seems to be a diminished need for the CGSB. I think we've highlighted that basically the private sector or other organizations have taken up the entire field that they currently fill. Can you see any element of what they do that could not be offered by some of these other standards organizations?

[Michel Girard]

No. I think CGSB was a very useful organization 40 or 50 years ago when it was closely integrated with the procurement system of the Government of Canada. It developed standards and specifications that were then tested by Public Works, because Public Works had laboratories. Those laboratories were closed in 1977. Since then the value of the catalogue has diminished and there are up-to-date alternative standards out there that can be used and are being used by Canadian regulators and industry.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Does the existence of the organization create additional red tape for the government and its contractors? Obviously, we've established now that there are other organizations that everyone's using. Is there an impediment in having them there?

[Michel Girard]

We haven't looked in detail at the CGSB catalogue to see if there are duplicative standards, but I can say that I've heard some anecdotal evidence that in Canada we are having to undergo two tests for products that are perfectly fine with one test in the U.S.

One example of that would be for the glass doors in your shower stalls. They need to be tested twice to be used in Canada, once with an ASTM test, and once against a CGSB standard. The standard was developed and has not been updated since 1990. In my view, a standard that is many decades old has diminished value, and yet we need to pay for those shower doors that have the two logos.

In other sectors, we're being told that the cost of certifying a mature product can be between 2% and 4% of the cost of the product that you pay for. So if the same shower door is being used in Canada and the U.S. but it needs to have two certifications in Canada, then there's a contributor to the price gap. That hasn't been documented systematically, but I would say that anecdotal evidence shows that there may be instances where a CGSB standard would lead us to having multiple certifications with very old, outdated standards.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We'll now turn to Mr. Brahmi, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Girard, I represent the constituents in the riding that was devastated by the Lac-Mégantic disaster on July 6, 2013. My constituents in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu are questioning the balance between rail safety standards and oil transportation risks. I mention oil transportation, but you could probably tell us about other such cases.

In your remarks, you talked about the growing trend away from domestic standards. In Quebec's case, it would even be provincial standards because we have a provincial regulating body. So there is a shift away from provincial and national standards towards binational, or regional, as you said, and international standards.

Because of that trend, are safety considerations specific to our reality likely to fall by the wayside when it comes to the transportation of dangerous goods by rail? By their very nature, international standards require broader consensus, resulting in added risk at the local level.

Does the trend concern you?

[Michel Girard]

That's a great question.

We can't be involved in all international standards development activities around the world. Having the presence of mind to know which standards are strategically important, or even essential, to Canada is necessary. And those are the committees we need to contribute to. When Canada determines that certain products or processes are strategically important to the country, committees are established with a view to shaping those standards on the international stage.

Canada is well-received. Our representatives are extremely effective when participating in these international meetings, whether at the ISO or elsewhere. The same is true when you look to the U.S. As I see it, it's necessary to determine which standards are of strategic value to the country and whether health- or safety-related issues need to be considered in a different light. That is the way to establish a standard, and ensure that international standards and our needs coalesce.

Given the four new SCC-accredited organisations in Canada and the process we follow, we require that the Canadian process be applied when standards for use in Canada are being developed. The balanced matrix approach I mentioned earlier ensures that consumers, Canadians, have a place on the committees. That is the de facto approach to developing and maintaining these standards.

The first step is making choices, and the next step is to make sure those standards are aligned with our expectations and needs. As Mr. Rousseau pointed out earlier, if an international standard isn't to our satisfaction, we can always modify it and incorporate additional criteria.

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

My question relates strictly to the rail sector. Are there cases where business interests and public safety conflict? A regulator's number one concern is, after all, public safety.

[Michel Girard]

Our job is to make sure that SDOs adhere to the process, and that's what we do.

When a draft standard is ready, we post it on the organization's website. That is how we make certain the public has 60 or 90 days to provide feedback. All comments must be individually examined by the chair of the technical committee, and a response must be provided in writing to address the validity of the comment and, if applicable, the manner in which it will be incorporated into the standard.

Hence the importance, from our perspective, of adopting a strategic approach to priority setting. It's the only way to make sure that standards reflect the concerns of consumers, Canadians, and regulators. Regulatory authorities have a vested interest in ensuring that standards meet their needs to allow for referential incorporation.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Next is Guy Lauzon for the Conservatives.

You have five minutes, please, Guy.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Welcome to our guests. It's nice to have you here.

You mentioned, I think, Mr. Girard, that the CGSB is at about 50%; it has reviewed about 50% of its standards. Public Works has a target, I understand, of 75% for this organization by the end of this fiscal year. What do you think the chances are of it meeting that target if it's only at 50% now and there are apparently thousands?

[Michel Girard]

That's an interesting question. I wouldn't want to speculate on its behalf. What I can say in terms of trends is that in the 1990s CGSB's catalogue had about 1,700 standards. Five years ago it had fewer than 1,000. Now CGSB is down to about 300. Two weeks ago it withdrew another 20. So my sense is that, in order to meet accreditation requirements, it has only two choices: It can either access additional funding to update the standards and re-establish technical committees and get going or withdraw the older standards where there's no financial support to update them.

My sense is that, if there is no need and nobody is willing to pay for the update, it will have only one choice and that will be to withdraw more standards from its catalogue.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

And for all intents and purposes it wouldn't be effective if it had very few standards. It wouldn't be a player if it were down to twelve standards or two standards or something.

[Michel Girard]

I know. It has competent staff and if it has the right technical committees, it is possible for it to continue with a very limited scope, but if there are up-to-date alternative standards out there, maybe that's—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Other organizations are doing the same things. Okay, I think I hear you.

In your address, just to build on what Chris said, you mentioned that the situation with CGSB is problematic to stakeholders and to regulators, but to industry and consumers.... I used to be involved somewhat in industry, and of course I'm a consumer and I've experienced frustration. I bet you there aren't any members of Parliament around the table who haven't dealt with some organization in their riding, some company that is just frustrated to death with these myriad standards.

So can you elaborate on the problems that CGSB would create for me as an entrepreneur, a business owner, or a stakeholder?

[Michel Girard]

I think the example I gave a few minutes ago about the laminated safety glass standard being old and the requirement for two tests of limited value points to an issue. If you look at their catalogue of standards, you'll see there are other areas in which the standards are maintained by CGSB but could also be referenced in the national model codes, such as the building codes.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

And that same shower door is costing me as a consumer more money because of....

[Michel Girard]

It's because of the double certification. Now, if there are significant differences in Canada—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

That's fair.