Effectiveness can be defined as the achievement of objectives, while efficiency is the best way to achieve these objectives, for instance in terms of speed or costs.

In terms of effectiveness, the CGSB appears to be achieving most of its objectives. It develops standards and certifies products, laboratories and personnel. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the CGSB clients who appeared before the Committee said they were satisfied with the services provided.

However, the SCC official noted that at least half of the CGSB standards catalogue is outdated. Since standards must be reviewed every five years or less, ensuring that the standards are kept up to date is part of the CGSB’s responsibilities. In this respect, the CGSB is not effective.

The Committee heard evidence that the CGSB’s role has evolved over time, as has the standards industry. The SCC official stated that the “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. […] 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.” He added 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shows that there may be instances where a CGSB standard would lead us to having multiple certifications with very old, outdated standards.” In light of this testimony, the CGSB’s role should be examined.

According to a PWGSC official, in response to a 2009 CGSB evaluation report prepared by PWGSC, the CGSB developed a strategic plan, which resulted in it removing 700 standards and placing a focus on those standards that require the federal government’s involvement.

A PWGSC official added that five years ago, 856 of the CGSB’s standards had not been reviewed in over five years, but that as of 15 April 2015, this number was down to 162. She believes that it will take one to two years to clear the backlog in relation to the outdated standards.

In PWGSC’s 2015-16 Report on Plans and Priorities, a new performance indicator was added: that the “[p]ercentage of standards reviewed on time (within a five-year cycle for National Standards of Canada)” reach the target of at least 75% by 31 March 2016. The Committee believes that the CGSB must comply quickly with SCC guidelines, which stipulate that all National Standards of Canada are to be reviewed at least every five years.

Moreover, the number of years since a standard was last reviewed is not the sole criterion for determining whether it is outdated. For example, a recent standard may become outdated if the related technology is developing very quickly. In contrast, a standard may remain current for a long time if little change has been made to the relevant product. The ULC Standards representative discussed the use of a standard by industry or by regulatory bodies as being an appropriate consideration in determining whether a standard should be kept.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Committee recommends that Public Works and Government Services Canada, in its 2016-17 Report on Plans and Priorities, increase the target for the percentage of standards reviewed on time from 75% to 100% by 31 March 2017.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Committee recommends that the Canadian General Standards Board continue to quickly review its standards, update those that warrant it, remove outdated or unused standards, and submit a progress report to the Committee by 31 March 2016.

Regarding the CGSB’s efficiency, the most recent evaluation report by the SCC, prepared in June 2013 and updated in September 2013, flagged a major non-conformity, since the CGSB had not implemented corrective measures recommended in an earlier evaluation. Otherwise, the evaluation grid contained only criteria deemed adequate or omitted from the evaluation. CGSB employees were evaluated as being competent in their fields.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Committee recommends that the Canadian General Standards Board comply more quickly with the recommendations in the Standards Council of Canada evaluation reports so as to improve its effectiveness and efficiency and that it submit a progress report to the Committee by 31 March 2016.

As mentioned earlier, the Committee heard evidence that Canadian businesses interested in exporting products or selling them locally may have to comply with two standards — one international and another domestic — which increases costs for businesses, especially small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee learned that redundant standards may be especially costly to small — and medium — sized enterprises (SMEs). On this topic, the SCC official noted that the existence of multiple standards “makes Canadian SMEs less competitive.”

A PWGSC official said that “Canada participates in agreements to recognize other countries’ standards and certification systems and likewise to ensure Canadian standards and product certifications are recognized and accepted elsewhere, without the need for costly retesting.”

Furthermore, several witnesses said that while few international standards needed to be adapted to Canadian conditions, adjustments are sometimes necessary. A PWGSC official gave the following example:

For example, the standards being developed for radon mitigation need to consider Arctic-type extreme temperature conditions, Canadian soil geology characterized by high uranium content, unique geological formations, and Canadian building and construction work practices. 

A Canadian Fuels Association representative said that 10% to 15% of Canadian standards are different from U.S. or European standards:

… 85% to 90% of any given standard finds its basis in either a European or a U.S. standard, with much larger markets. On that 10% to 15% difference, there’s a real effort to ensure that if we’re going to have a slightly different standard, it’s for legitimate reasons.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The Committee recommends that the Canadian General Standards Board look at whether it manages domestic standards for which there is already an international standard and no Canadian conditions warranting a domestic standard, in order to avoid duplication of standards and reduce certification costs for Canadian businesses interested in exporting their products.

Several witnesses, such as the SCC official, said that the SDOs should focus their international activities on areas where Canada has greater expertise or competitive advantages. The SCC and BNQ officials said that this could allow them to compete with international standard-setting bodies or have greater influence within them, for example on technical committees developing international standards. Having greater influence on international standards based on Canadian technology and interests could benefit Canadian companies.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Committee recommends that the Canadian General Standards Board focus its international efforts in areas where Canada has special expertise or a particularly skilled workforce in order to gain influence in these areas with respect to the development of international standards.