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.
This is so sensible are you sure the man is an elected official!!!
So why have the CSA to begin with if its mandate is simply an arms length branch of government amounting to nothing more as a “department of suggestions”?
What is the reason behind Moore’s declaration?
Is it to allow more foreign made products into Canada with no standards they have to comply with? Moore should have stayed in Heritage.
Considering the Royalties factor,this may be a real can of worms he’s opened.
Maybe a better question is ‘why do we need a SCC?’ Isn’t it just another overlapping Ottawa make-work for bureaucrats? The CSA has the expertise and wherewithal to write and distribute things like our electrical installations codes (CEC). Why does that require Ottawa oversight?
… because as I understand it, the CSA is corrupt.
I’m not sure how this is related to the lawsuit CSA filed against PS Knight company. Seems like at first blush it could make it harder for CSA to continue with their suit. Hopefully its an attempt to tamp down these bullies of bureaucracy in the CSA.
Whew, maybe the door knobs are safe…
Chris Do you have a link? By corrupt do you mean for example the capricious and arbitrary way that the CEC safety standards for electrical installations code books are changed willy-nilly with no thought for logical application?
Yes CSA Standards are “voluntary” Always have been but, and I can only speak to Ontario here, the CSA standard as in the OESC is adopted by legislation and has the force of law. Basically the Ontario legislature contracts out it’s regulation duty to CSA for this. The Ontario OH&SA is slightly different as mostly things that get mentioned in that act are ‘do everything reasonable. The OH&SA doesn’t specifically reference codes or standards but if you are charged by the MOL then a judge will look for what is reasonable. This will include CSA, NFPA, etc standards. Right now we are struggling with complying with the CSAZ462. A very costly endeavour. A lawyers dream…….
Sorry should have indicated that the CSAZ462 is ‘Electrical Safety in the Workplace’ which is based on the NFPA70E the US standard of the same name.
“CSA Standards are “voluntary”
Sort of. When it comes to house wiring the government inspector follows the CSA code book and if your wiring doesn’t conform to the CEC code the electrician is called back to change it. If it isn’t changed and/or the inspector doesn’t sign off you could be denied home insurance.
Are these the same geniuses who require a small store in a shopping mall to have FOUR fire alarms when only one is needed to cause permanent hearing damage?
So being that Building Codes are based on CAN/CSA standards, can we just take the Code as suggested building practices and standards and ignore it altogether?
Nold, well maybe, but I was thinking more about administration and appointments to the CSA and how those so chosen, seem to use their positions for personal gain. I don’t have a link and it might be hearsay….
I’m glad that Knight etal are pursuing this. But I have my doubts that Moore actually knows what he is talking about.
The CSA is simply supposed to develop and publish standards. The government of Canada can (and does) give these standards and the enforcement of the standards legal clout as regulations. The government can quickly and simply reset the situation at CSA by clarifying the limits of their charter.
The practical aspects of the standards/regulations that have been adopted are a bigger problem. This is because of jurisdictional overlap, the overreach of Provincial and Regional and civic governments and bureaucratic mission creep at all levels.
It is still up to the provinces to enforce the standards.
Unfortunately … as in other areas of regulatory power … the provinces have a bad habit of arbitrary and often poorly considered modification and enforcement.
What is missing is that there is no overall coordination and unfortunately that seems to have been delegated to Industry Canada …. now THERE is a bureaucracy that needs housecleaning.
And that is where Moore drops the ball.
Put it this way. If you don’t buy CSA standard tools to boots you can’t be reimbursed, or use any none CSA product on the job.This is part of the OHS standards. Not being forced. What a laugh.It may not be Dejure but its de-facto. In practice though its made plain in industry no other standards apply.
They apply a mandatory CSA approval through stealth.
Call it the Wheat board of Occupational heath & Safety.
You can guess who allows their sticker to be used for equipment with their stamp.
That all companies must comply with for worker safty.
Pretty much. I did a small stint(1.5yrs) in a factory as a QC manager for a major firm, which build electrical control panels for high load machinery. EU standards are tougher than CSA by a far margin, and as long as what we were working on passed a POTS test, we could slap a label on it and send it off. Which meant that the only person to catch any failures in wiring, or backwards components, or screwed up PLC installations was…me.
Well, not enforceable directly, most likely yes. However, whenever cases are brought because of (gross) negligence), then a court will look at what a “sensible” or “well-informed” citizen/corporation would have done. For this it looks (among other things) at what standards and “state of the art” rules may be found pertaining to the subject matter. And thus it may take a CSA standard which has been “copied” into a provincial law even more seriously than a standard that has not been thus referenced.