Last year, the National Post reported our growing suspicions about [Canadian Standards Association’s] relationship with foreigners. In response to the Post’s queries about CSA selling influence to foreigners, the CSA’s Anothony Toderian claimed that “its simply not possible for us to do that. There’s no way that we can give influence over the Canadian Electrical Code to anybody because its developed by an open and transparent process…” (etc. and so forth).
Well, during 2012, Mr. Tom Buchal of Intertek Energy Services was “given influence over the Canadian Electrical Code.” In fact, the CSA lists him as an author of that legislation. And he lives on US Route 11 in Cortland, New York.
Then there’s Watts Reliant, Inc., whose Engineering Manager, a man named Dustin Allcorn, was also given influence over the 2012 Code. He’s from Springfield, Missouri. Mr. Dave Clements is another author, and he lives in Richardson, Texas. […]
Then there’s the really awkward part. The CSA knows that its not supposed to be giving influence over Canadian law to foreigners, much less selling that influence. They know this, they’ve admitted this internally. We know they know. Know why?
Well it is quite obvious what is going on here. CSA sells their rubber stamp to anyone willing to pay for it, thereby limiting the exposure of the manufacturer to future potential product liability in the consumer use of that product. You can’t sue the CSA because they have immunity as a quasi government regulator, but you can sue the manufacturer. It’s a get out of jail free card from criminal liability.
If a company wishes to sell products in the U.S.A. it must meet the U.S. standards or it will not be purchased. If there are U.S. companies wishing to sell products into the Canadian market it must meet the Canadian standards.
What has been easier for cross-border trade is to maintain similar standards. Naturally the U.S. companies with their much larger markets tend to have specific individuals with the responsibility to insure compliance with whatever standard is applicable. Many smaller Canadian manufacturers just add this “hat” to the duties of their Operating Management tasks.
Sometimes companies on both sides of the border try to maintain or develop a competitive advantage for their company. Through the meetings of business representatives trying to establish compatibility between the standards. These get negotiated into a compromise, hopefully.
The expense for these meetings is met by the Manufacturers interested in establishing a compromise standard. Some Canadian Industries do not attempt to establish a separate standard and build to the U.S. standards.
Kate; one has to be aware to an outside political interest, interested in stirring up discontent with a Canadian Government. does not move their agenda; (e.g. a newspaper or other media entity) as part of an overall political agenda. Cheers;
Mike, I knew about CSA long before Gordon Knight came along. If the Canadian government doesn’t want discontent “stirred up”, they need to address the problems.
Personally, I think it would be nice if CSA actually INSPECTED things and did their standards testing on imports the way they are supposed to, instead of just selling the stickers to anybody with a couple hundred grand in their pocket.
Take apart an electrical device made in China some time, if you want a shock. (Bwaha!) You look inside and see just how bad the designs are, and how seriously awful the components are, and you wonder why more houses don’t burn down these days.
Now try and find a comparable device that -wasn’t- made in China.
The CPC may not have created this problem at the CSA, but its certainly their job to FIX IT.
@ MikeSr.
That’s a little foggy, correct me if I’m wrong.
You concede that manufacturers gain competitive advantages by compromising Canadian standards through collusion with the CSA. You then conflate the CSA (a non profit accredited through the SCC) with the entire Canadian government. You then imply that Kate is an outside political interest (apparently a foreigner in her own country) and a 5h1t stirrer who is incapable of moving their agenda.
Wow… just wow!
I’m off for popcorn. Be back soon 😉
Lost 1 in spam. Bump
A CSA sticker is about as useful and worthy as a Made in China stamp.
“Naturally the U.S. companies with their much larger markets tend to have specific individuals with the responsibility to insure compliance with whatever standard is applicable. Many smaller Canadian manufacturers just add this “hat” to the duties of their Operating Management tasks”. MikeSr
The task of US Standards is that of an Engineer responsible for the design & manufacture of a consumer product or electrical Component.
My NEC NFPA 70: “This code is purely advisory as far as the NFPA and ANSI are concerned, but is offered for the use in law and regulatory purposes in the interest of life and property protection.”
It is a necessary to obtain fire insurance. The UL sticker just means someone has checked that the appropriate due diligence was performed by the Manufacture’s Engineering.
The very idea that any agency/Lab, or design Engineer, can TEST & verify every Electrical Component is nonsense. The published specifications of Electrical wire, Electrical connectors, and Electrical Components are available and may be used to determine their appropriate use. Manufactures have their own Labs to verify published Specifications.
I don’t understand why Canada even needs CSA unless they don’t have competent engineers.
JMHO
A CSA sticker is about as useful as having the Government investigate the High River Gun Thieves.
I expect CSA stickers are made in China.
WoW! don’t go away for a weekend to attend a family wedding after not falling into line.
My wife and I enjoyed the visit with many generations of family. thank you.
There seems to be some words such as; collusion; conflate; accuse; being put in my mouth as having said such things. Please reread my comment and your own to see if your words are compatible. Plus;”heaven forbid not actually agreeing with Kate’s choice of an approach to a subject matter”.
Now I do sometimes cross the “correct line” here over the last half dozen years of stopping by, but have not been critical of Kate that I can remember.
My C.S.A. experience does go back several decades, probably before the Baby Boomers became the control generation at C.S.A. Maybe this is a contributing factor to the confusion.
However; what does my comment among manufacturers from separate countries arriving at a compromise on difference in how standards are interpreted developed by two Bureaucracies indicate corruption. Just who do you think provided the information for establishing an accurate and realistic standard for the process.
If you feel a government process of civil servants and academics will establish enough accurate information over the people who have developed a product line requiring a standard of measure; you are either part of the bureaucracy or the regulatory benefit cottage industry.
Kate; did I touch some nerve or did your knee flex a bit quickly? There was no attempt on my part to be critical. Just we living in Ontario have been overwhelmed by the anti-conservative bias of Liberal/government media journolists here. Including the formally reasonably unbiased reporting from a media source that was sometimes evident, before their Editorial Board/Policy changed.
Oh well! such is life. Cheers;