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.