Government Operations Committee on May 7th, 2015

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gray, in your opening remarks, you mentioned the introduction of GCStandards, which “use a streamlined process which is faster, more flexible and costs less than traditional standards”. Could you expand on that?

[Desmond Gray]

I will ask Ms. Lojk to answer your question.

[Begonia Lojk]

Thank you for the question.

GCStandards were introduced this year to meet the needs of our federal government clients. As you know, we are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada to develop standards in Canada.

There are several constraints when it comes to accreditation. One of them is the fact that we cannot have administrative clauses. For instance, we cannot introduce certification or specific clauses for a government program.

There also has to be a completely balanced committee, which is completely normal and very good.

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

Excuse me for interrupting, but what do you mean by “completely balanced”?

[Begonia Lojk]

In the accreditation system for any committee, we have to make sure that there is a balance between the producers, the users and what we call the general interest representatives. Normally, we have consumers, representatives from non-profit organizations, and so on. It depends on the subject of the standard.

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

Who represents the general interest?

[Begonia Lojk]

It might be consultants or academics. They are often people from the university community or from non-profit organizations. They can represent the interests of the environment, for example.

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

Who chooses these people who allegedly represent the general interest?

[Begonia Lojk]

Who selects the committee members?

On our team, we have standard-setters who have expertise in their respective area, which means that they will look for participants in the industry and in universities. If it's a new committee, they will consult the other committees to see if there are ties with the topic. They will also look for individuals who are interested in participating on the committee.

At the same time, they will ensure that these people represent a legitimate interest, meaning that it cannot be their personal interest. If a participant represents the consumer, we want to confirm that the individual truly represents a group or the general interest of consumers. Then, when we think we have found a balance, we create a committee that will choose a chair to run it. However, that balance always has to be demonstrated for our annual accreditation.

Does that answer your question?

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

Yes.

How is this process less costly?

[Begonia Lojk]

GCStandards is a product prepared outside the accreditation system, which means that it is a product that is specifically for the government when it does not need a standard from the accreditation system.

Let's take Fisheries and Oceans Canada, for example. Perhaps the department wants a document. We haven't yet started working with that department, but it is requesting a document for the “e-log” program.

That might be a GC standard because we do not really need Canadian consultation. It is intended to be used only in the department's program. It isn't a standard that will be used by the industry or purchased by the public. So it is a very specific service.

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

So you are saying that there is no legal obligation to use a standard. It's more like a guideline.

[Begonia Lojk]

Yes, it can be a guideline, but also a standard that gives public servants directives for their program. It may be a standard established for their program, for themselves.

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

I don't see how this process is less costly. Is it because it isn't mandatory?

[Begonia Lojk]

No, it is less costly because the standard development system requires the creation of a committee and also public consultations.

There are lots of rules of the game.

It usually takes a year and a half, if not two years to develop a standard. In fact, certain steps need to be followed for public consultation and so on. That means at least 60 days at the start, in the middle and at the end. You might say that a Government of Canada standard is more of a specification than a standard.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm afraid your time is concluded, Mr. Brahmi.

Ms. Wai Young.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you for being here today and for shedding light on what are certainly some of these very complicated changes in this area. Given that Canada has signed some 40 free trade agreements, obviously, keeping a set of Canadian standards is crucial. We're very proud of our Canadian standards, of course, both internally and internationally.

I am a newcomer to this committee, and I was surprised as I was reading about the complexities and the fact that there are now eight different bodies. What is this proliferation, and what does it mean in terms of efficiencies and effectiveness for the Canadian government and in terms of your role?

I have a couple of questions on some of the background documents.

In 2009, after an evaluation of CGSB, you abandoned 700 standards that had become obsolete. Then, in May 2015, as we heard earlier, a representative from SCC confirmed to the committee that more than half of the standards in the catalogue were out of date.

Of course, we want to maintain Canadian standards. There are eight different organizations now developing standards that people and businesses can go to in Canada. There are a lot of questions around harmonization, internal coordination, and simplification with regard to the provinces and internal trade, as well as around meeting international standards.

We can get into the weeds and talk about how standards are developed or not, but obviously there are eight different organizations doing that, and they're doing it very well.

What is the government's role in this? What is your department's role in this? What could it be or should it be, given the modern world, and how standards are changing very, very quickly? Are you in a situation where you feel that you can play a leadership role, a coordinating role, a referring role, or a monitoring role with regard to these other agencies?

Perhaps your role needs to change. Instead of helping to develop standards, which obviously these other agencies, which we heard from directly today, are doing more efficiently and more cost-effectively, perhaps Canada needs to reconsider its role in terms of what we do in this area.

[Desmond Gray]

Thank you very much. That's a very good question and it will probably tax me to give a very good answer.

I'll tell you what I think. You're absolutely right: the challenge, of course, is to have an efficient system that allows maximum interoperability in terms of market so that Canadian goods and services can be accepted abroad as quickly and as easily as possible. Of course, there's always a quid pro quo in international arrangements. So there's the international domain and there's also the Canadian dimension. I think you've heard from a number of witnesses in the past several weeks who have raised the issue of barriers to trade among provinces. So, again, all the standards-writing organizations in Canada write the standards, but we don't dictate to anybody how they're used.

The question is how we ensure more effective use of these standards. So every time somebody decides to create a regional variation on a standard, that adds complexity to the system. I'm not challenging them as to why they do it. They may have very good reasons for doing it . For example, we do talk in Canada, and Canada does try. I want to be very clear about this. The CGSB is like every other standards writing organization in Canada accredited by the Standards Council. Our process requires us, at the first instance of developing a standard, to see if there's an existing international ISO or IEC standard. In other words, does something already exist so that we don't have to develop something different? That's what promotes interoperability globally. Don't forget, these standards are written by Canadians who come into the room. It's not CGSB. These are not bureaucrats writing the standards. These are Canadians from industry, from business, from the private sector who are giving their opinion as to whether this standard is acceptable or not and how it should be changed. So when Canadians do this, they have to reflect. There's a bit of a challenge role to make sure that's done. We're actually audited on that. But I have to absolutely agree with you. The complexity of difference adds a cost.

One of the challenges, then, in terms of the regime is how we can do better. It's beyond me, obviously. We will ensure that we can provide a better solution, but even when that solution goes out, there are multiple variations once it goes forward. So there's another level of complexity that really needs to be addressed.

On the international level in terms of Canadian standards, Canada has been a very active participant in ISO for many years. In fact, I would say it's recognized as one of the stronger members of ISO and it has provided great value. But Canada is challenged, because if you look at ISO, I'm not sure what the number is, but there are at least 20,000 standards. There's something like a thousand every year coming forward. These are based on international committees. These are not cheap. So if you want to participate, you have to be at the table. But don't forget that people who represent Canada at those international committees are, again, the same people who are coming out of those standards committees at the national level, from CGSB, from ONGC, from BNQ in Quebec. These are the volunteers who, because of their expertise in that area, will then participate for Canada at the international level.

I guess one of the questions here is how we ensure that we leverage our national system in a strategic way to make sure that we don't miss opportunity, that we have an integrated approach, that we maximize the efficiency of this system, and that we deliver optimal value that benefits Canadians.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Gray.

Thank you, Ms. Young.

Next for the Liberal Party, we have Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

[The Honourable Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Mauril Bélanger]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can you answer the question about the outdated standards, quickly?

[Desmond Gray]

Yes I can. You're absolutely right. I apologize for that. CGSB at one point, in about 1990, had 1,300 standards in its collection. A lot of these standards were in fact created more because they were specifications for government products. We took them all off the books. Basically, we've taken off almost 1,000. Over 900 have been removed. I want to explain that we don't just cancel them.

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

Can you answer the question?

[Desmond Gray]

Okay, I'll go very quickly. You're absolutely right, we've reduced them. We now have a collection of about 350 standards. In 2008—

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

When do you expect those 300 to be dealt with?