The money machine;

An executive position at the [Canadian Standards Association] is a pretty cush gig. The CSA’s only oversight is the Standards Council of Canada, an outfit run by former executives of the CSA. The Council is run by Industry Canada, which for years had as its senior advisor a member of the Board of Directors of the CSA. There seems a circularity to these relationships. The cush gig extends to money, the CSA being indeed a money machine. They can compel people to buy their products and they can charge whatever they wish. The CSA is exempted from the accountability and transparency requirements that they drafted for others to follow. They have acquired for themselves thirty-six offices around the world located for practicality at major industrial centres like the Brook Hills Golf Resort and the Bluegrass Yacht and Country Club. They also spend over $65k per day on travel though, in fairness, RestoreCSA is hearing noises from the CSA’s CFO group that the $65k per day they officially reported as travel expenditure wasn’t really spent on travel. In the Mike Duffy mindset, one shouldn’t take expense reporting too literally.

Inside the Canadian Standards Association…

…there’s a division called the Notices Group. This division is supposed to “help ensure that your products continue to meet the latest standards requirements.” In theory, the Notices Group sends updates to certified manufacturers to advise of changes to various product safety standards. There is no prescribed regularity to such notices, they’re sent at CSA’s pleasure. And that’s where the trouble starts.
Updates from the Notices Group usually require retesting of an already tested product. Upon receipt of Notices Group updates, quoting CSA documentation, “in most cases, re-submittal of samples and / or documentation for testing and / or evaluation by a CSA Group certifier is required.” And, of course, the CSA runs a lucrative product testing facility. So, in sum, the CSA has the power to mandate retesting of certified products whenever it suits them, and then they charge the manufacturers for all that mandated retesting. Its like printing money, and its a pretty big incentive to issue plenty of updates.
This isn’t just a potential problem. According to whistleblowers, whenever CSA has a slow quarter the Notices Group starts churning out new updates. Said one insider, the “updates were for revenue only, a shakedown.” “There were updates without amendments that applied to product lines, [the CSA] charged companies anyway, [and this was done] regularly.” The substance of such updates is usually cosmetic, just enough to justify the new billings. “The Notices Group would up the standard arbitrarily in order to bill for an update. This is called ‘revving the report’.”

Cross-Border Influence;

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?

Meet Mustafa the Manager;

Requirements for one duration safety test on the Viking cooktop prescribed three days for which Mustafa had allocated only four hours of time. At risk of insulting the intelligence of the reader, one cannot compress seventy-two hours of duration testing into four hours, it offends the laws of physics.
The engineer responsible for this testing complained, in the parking lot. Hence the argument. Mustafa advised the engineer, in colourful and creative language and at high volume, that the engineer would indeed find a way to cram seventy-two hours of testing into four hours “or I’ll cancel your vacation.” Well, that’s incentive.
That’s also pretty normal at [the Canadian Standards Association]. On one occasion, Mustafa conducted a month-long duration test in two days. Or so says the product file, and so confirms our sources. But, again, the laws of physics get in the way. What CSA claims as having happened isn’t physically possible. The file may indeed record a magical result, but that result says more about CSA practices than the flexibility of the laws of physics.
So what happened with the Viking cooktop? Well, “he ended up copying off the previous certification for a similar product, itself having been copied from a previous certification for a similar product, making the results of the current ‘test’ meaningless.” That cooktop, so thoroughly certified as safe, is now on sale across the land. This is how CSA does safety certifications of consumer products. These products are in your homes.

“Why am we not hearing this on the news?” you ask. “The heavy investigative lifting has already been done!”
Well, with so many in media now married to politics, the journalistic offspring are too lazy to steal.

Restore CSA;

The [Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission] has been paying the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) millions of dollars to develop nuclear safety regulations on its behalf. That’s a problem because the CNSC is responsible for regulations, not the CSA, and because the CSA has no background whatsoever in nuclear safety.
[…]
In May of 2013, RestoreCSA contacted the CNSC. We wanted to know which CNSC regulations had been outsourced to the CSA and at what cost. To our happy surprise, they furnished some data. Here’s what we found therein.
Eighty-two percent of current CSA nuclear standards are included in the CNSC regulatory framework. That’s a lot of outsourcing! In trade for the use of CSA’s standards, the CNSC pays over $500k per year to the CSA. But the CNSC also “contributes” 440 person days to the CSA’s nuclear committees. We asked the CNSC if the cost of this contribution was included in the $500k per year figure. The CNSC replied on May 30, 2013 that staff contributions are external to the $500k per year figure but they couldn’t tell us what the actual staff value was because “the financial value of the staff effort in Table 8 has not been calculated at this time.” But the CNSC Evaluation Report notes that the “additional costs to Standards development borne by CNSC staff” was internally estimated at $495,563 in 2012.
In sum then, the CNSC is sending $1,008,888 to the CSA every year in payment for the CSA’s development of the CNSC’s nuclear regulations.
But what about the 440 person days of CNSC staff time? What do you suppose those CNSC staff are doing? Lets recall that the CNSC is Canada’s nuclear regulator, they’re our national nuclear experts. The CSA on the other hand, has no nuclear expertise at all. In this context, on September 23, 2013, we wrote to the CNSC to ask some pointed questions. What, exactly, are these 440 person days for?
[…]
Alright, if the CSA has no nuclear expertise whatsoever and only brings administrative assistance to the committee, if the CNSC would draw on the same nuclear expertise if they formed their own committee, if the CNSC is actually mandated by the Government to do all of this, and if the CSA’s administrative services are astoundingly expensive, then why is the CNSC washing regulations through the CSA?
Consider that the Nuclear Safety and Control Act contains the following provision: “Nothing in this section relieves the [CNSC] of liability in respect of a tort or extra-contractual civil liability to which the [CNSC] would otherwise be subject.” In contrast, the CSA has been repeatedly afforded broad immunities from civil litigation, well beyond those typical to the civil service. Washing nuclear regulations through the CSA affords a greater degree of immunity to the CNSC for any liabilities associated with them.

But according to official filings of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the CNSC furnished “440 person days” of labour in “contribution” to the work of the [Canadian Standards Association] and another half million dollars in payments from the CNSC to subsequently access that work. In rough figures, the CNSC is transferring one million dollars per year to the CSA for the development of nuclear regulations. And the CNSC of course, isn’t a “major organization involved in that sector,” the CNSC is the Federal Government.
There’s actually quite a story behind this activity. It seems that the CNSC is legally accountable for its regulatory activity, whereas the Government has given the CSA broad immunities from litigation. In this context, the CNSC appears to be spending its “440 person days” developing nuclear regulations as they are mandated to, and then “contributing” the work of their own staff to the CSA in order to make the CSA responsible for that work. Then the CNSC pays money to the CSA to access the regulations that CNSC-come-CSA staff developed. This is what’s called an in-and-out process, though its more commonly known as “laundering”.

But there’s plenty more.

The Moore we ask, the less we know;

You see, if one were to ask the current Minister of Industry whether the [Canadian Standards Association] is a government regulator, the answer would be “no.” But if you asked an agency within Industry Canada, as we once did, the answer would be “yes.” If you were to ask the CSA if they were part of government they would say “no.” Unless you asked one of their foreign offices, in which case the answer would change to “yes.” If Industry Canada asked the CSA the answer would be “no.” If The Competition Bureau asked them, and they did, then the answer changes to “yes.”
See the problem?

Sheila Copps, from the comments;

I didn’t know I had so many small dead fans. On a serious note, as was mentioned in a previous comment, the CSA is a national organization. The federal industry committee is being asked to take a look at what has been going on. Perhaps your readers could send support for this suggestion along to the Honourable James Moore.
For more info, check out the RestoreCSA.com website.

In this context, I would like to receive the Government of Ontario’s response to the following questions:
1. Does the Province of Ontario believe that private companies can own public law?
2. If public law cannot be privately owned, what is the basis for royalty payments made by the Province to [Canadian Standards Association]?
3. Does the Province of Ontario pay royalties to any other lobby group or private company in exchange for submissions made to any legislative committee or any Provincial Ministry?
4. If there is no basis for royalty payments made by the Province to CSA, will the Province of Ontario commit to an immediate termination of all such payments to CSA and an attempted recovery of past payments made to CSA?
5. Does the Province of Ontario agree that if public law cannot be privately owned, and if dissemination of public law is in the public interest, there is no basis for restricting the private dissemination of public law?

Good for her.

Restore CSA;

The [Canadian Standards Association] has been providing influence over the drafting of Canadian law to a variety of foreign governments, foreign owned companies and to the citizens of foreign countries.
Care to verify that? A partial list of CSA committee members, the folks who draft law, is available here. But its only a partial list, mind you.
The CSA claims that their public list includes “all CSA Corporate Supporters,” but sources inside the CSA have furnished us with an internal membership list, and it doesn’t match the public list. Their internal list is much, much longer. And its crammed with foreigners. […]
We were also surprised to learn that CSA is selling access to, and control of, Canada’s laws from the United States. Right now, if you want permission to read certain Canadian laws, you have to phone to Ohio and make a payment to CSA’s US office. Then you can read the laws that apply to you. Its true, the CSA’s Lisa Eberman runs this operation from an office in Cleveland, OH.

Ontario Pays CSA for Permission to Print Provincial Law

The Government of Ontario is paying the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) a per-unit royalty on sales of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (the “Code”), this Code being the body of the Province’s electrical laws. The basis for this payment is the notion that the CSA owns Ontario’s electrical laws as a result of having lobbied for their adoption into law.
We know that the Ontario Government is paying a steep royalty to the CSA but we don’t know the full figure. We do know however, that the production cost of a Code book is about $15, whereas actually buying one in Ontario costs $225…

Link fixed.

Dear Minister Moore[…] Re: Auction of Spectrum Licenses for Mobile Broadband Services

As you know, the deadline to submit applications was September 17, 2013 and the auction itself began on January 14th, 2014. As you also know, RestoreCSA did not submit an application to participate.
Relatedly, we note that your Department granted the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) full Standards Council of Canada (“SCC”) accreditation for Modular Home Certification on September 29th, 2010 in spite of the absence of a CSA filing for that accreditation. Actually, the CSA wasn’t accredited for any such certifications for eight full years, between 2002 and 2010. Throughout this period however, the CSA was selling illegitimate certifications for modular homes and, worse, these buildings were not compliant with Canadian safety regulations.
We further note that your Department permitted SCC accreditation of the CSA with no public hearing and before the deadline for objections.
The CSA did not file for accreditation, yet they were accredited, and they did not comply with regulations, yet you have granted them full legal standing.

At the CSA, the ‘c’ stands for “Club”;

The CSA tends to locate their offices beside golf courses. In Tennessee, they’re located beside the Bluegrass Yacht and Country Club. RestoreCSA isn’t familiar with yacht clubs either, but it seems that CSA picked a nice one. The Bluegrass Yacht club has “one of the most prestigious marinas” and “the best in fine dining” for an “exemplary experience in an elegant setting.” The place is “a cherished Member haven.” […]
[In Chicago] the CSA office is 3 minutes from the Hinsdale Golf Club. What is Hinsdale?
Well, Hinsdale is a very prestigious, and very old, private golf and country club. Its nice, its rated 4 stars by Golf Digest. “Founded in 1898, the Club’s amenities include a traditional 18-hole golf course, a swimming pool, clay tennis courts, a new paddle tennis facility, skeet shooting in the winter and a stately Tudor-style clubhouse.”

Obviously, “the standardization of engineering materials” can only really happen in a “Tudor-style clubhouse.”

“The average profit margin for Canadian publishers in 2011 was 11.1%. The CSA’s margin is 528.82%“.

“During 2009, an outsider was accidentally invited to attend a closed-door CSA meeting. And this person took notes. And we have them.“

The Inside Game;

The [Standards Council of Canada] is supposed to police the conduct of the CSA, but the SCC is lead by a former CSA executive, installed there by Industry Canada. The CSA itself is lead by a former Industry Canada executive, installed by Industry Canada and approved by the SCC. Appointments managed by Industry Canada are handled by the Department’s senior civil servants, one of the most senior being a Board Member of the CSA. And the Minister himself is advised by Colin Metcalfe. Its quite the circle.
The SCC holds accreditation powers over the CSA. That is, the SCC affords the CSA its legal standing and authority as a standards development organization. The legal criteria for accrediting the CSA is found in a document called Requirements for Accreditation as a Standards Development Organization (Criteria).
The Criteria file “specifies the requirements for an organization seeking accreditation as a Standards Development Organization (SDO)”.
One such requirement is especially interesting. Read carefully: “The SDO shall be a legal entity, or a defined part of a legal entity, such that it can be held legally responsible for all its standards development activities.”
Contrast that requirement with the following admission by the CSA to having sent a letter to the SCC “containing a proposal to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act to include additional limited protections from civil proceedings for Canadian standards development organizations and people acting on their behalf in the course of the performance of standards development functions.”
The CSA’s appeal for immunities from legal responsibility is in defiance of the SCC’s requirement that they retain their responsibility.
But note the word “additional.” The CSA has been repeatedly lobbying Industry Canada for ever-increasing immunities from legal responsibility. RestoreCSA noted the same lobbying, on the same subject, and the same request, during 2012. It was also “additional” in 2012, meaning that the CSA was already enjoying protection from legal responsibility at the time of the 2012 lobbying.

Why might that be? Well, consider the legal implications of this…

The Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission has become aware of potential issues surrounding the re-sale of modular style homes that have been affixed to real or leasehold property. The Commission does not have authority to regulate the sale of modular style homes unless they are affixed, and therefore “real estate” as defined by section 2(t) of The Real Estate Act (the “Act”).
Municipalities are responsible to confirm that buildings constructed or located within its boundaries are built to the requirements of the National Building Code (the “Code”). Typically, a certification label authorized by or through the Standards Counsel of Canada establishes that a modular, factory-built, or mobile home complies with the Code.
The Commission has been advised that from 2002 until August of 2010, CSA Standards was not properly accredited by the Standards Council of
Canada to inspect and certify modular homes. As such, the certification label, which may be present on a modular home, provides no assurance or guarantee that a modular home manufactured during that time and bearing a CSA Standards mark of approval conforms to the Code.
This lack of appropriate certification can have serious consequences for the owners of these properties. Owners of modular homes may be required to remove units from within municipal limits due to non-conformity with the Code. Further, owners may be required to pay for the cost of renovations and repairs to bring modular units into compliance with the Code. As a result, the value of a modular home may be significantly and adversely impacted by a determination that the unit is not compliant.

That’s right. For 8 years, CSA was selling worthless stickers to home builders.

Game changer.

On November 28th, the Federal Industry Minister, James Moore, responded to the following question:
“Does the SCC believe that the CSA owns any portion of Canadian law”
Minister Moore’s declaration in response to this question before Parliament included three distinct and formal determinations. First, the Minister ruled that the materials developed by CSA are “voluntary standards” rather than laws; Second, the Minister ruled that notwithstanding the determinations or Orders in Council of provincial legislatures, the Federal Government does not consider any portions of Provincial law which contain CSA developed material as legitimate or enforceable Provincial laws, and; Third, the Minister ruled that because legal statutes containing CSA developed material are not considered by the Federal Government to be legitimate or enforceable law, the CSA may remain the rightful owner of “the intellectual property and copyright” of their developed materials. [the full ruling by the Minister is at page bottom]
In essence, Minister Moore has stated that CSA developed materials incorporated into provincial laws are merely “voluntary standards” whose character as independent of the law is unchanged by inclusion within the law. The Minister’s determination is that CSA materials are “referenced in regulations,” but they are not part of regulations per se. Or more simply, CSA standards are not enforceable as laws.

But read it all.