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.

RestoreCSA;

On June 10th, Halifax MP Geoff Regan filed an Order Paper in Parliament with 13 questions about the CSA. On November 28th, the Minister of Industry responded.
James Moore is the federal Minister of Industry, and his response to the Order Paper launched a new series of difficulties for the CSA.
The first question on the Order Paper was whether the CSA is “a commercial entity or a regulatory entity.” The Minister responded that “the CSA is not a regulatory entity.” Note that the Minister did not say that the CSA was commercial, only that it wasn’t a regulatory entity.
[…]
The bureaucrats at Industry Canada have therefore advised the Minister to smudge it all over; the CSA is not a regulatory entity but it is not necessarily a commercial entity either. In the legal parlance this is known as trying to suck and blow at the same time.

Ms Pegeot to be Embedded with the Department of Justice

The Department of Justice is being very quiet about Ms Pegeot’s appointment, declining to acknowledge it on their website’s News pages (or anywhere else, for that matter). As for the DFO, RestoreCSA requested confirmation of Ms Pegeot’s appointment on November 19th. We wrote as follows:
“We received a tip […] that Ms Pegeot has been appointed to the Department of Justice, as noted below. This appears to be an internal DFO email advisory. Can you confirm that Ms Pegeot is moving to the Department of Justice?”
The DFO refused to respond to our question. In consequence, we have escalated our inquiries.
We noted this week in our federal filings that because “the Department of Justice is likely to be involved in these investigations [of CSA activity], it is highly improper that a senior leader of the CSA should be appointed as the Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister who will ultimately be responsible for investigating her.”

Previous.

Ms Pegeot was Assistant Deputy Minister at Industry Canada during the same period that she was a Board member for CSA, an entity that reported to her Industry Canada office.
The CSA lobbied Industry Canada during 2012 for “additional limited protections from civil proceedings.” Over several years, the CSA has received from Industry Canada a series of immunities from litigation. Ms Pegeot, in her senior roles in Industry Canada, may or may not have influenced the proceedings in favour of her other interests at CSA, though any protection from legal accountability afforded by her Department to CSA would necessarily have benefitted her also.
The CSA routinely lobbies the federal Government for funding for various activities external to its original Charter. The CSA received $5,623,998.30 from the Canadian governments during 2011. This sum is in addition to CSA’s revenues afforded by governments from sales of access to legal statutes, sales of influence at legislative committees, sales of certification marks, etc. Permitting a senior executive of the Federal Government to hold a Board Membership in a regulatory entity receiving many millions of dollars every year in Federal Government funding is, at best, the appearance of “using their official roles to inappropriately obtain advantage” [Code, Part 1, Section A, Article 3].
[…]
In 2009, Industry Canada appointed Mr. Ash Sahi as Chief Executive Officer of CSA. In 2009, Ms Pegeot was Vice President, Policy & Planning at the Canada Economic Development, Regions of Quebec agency, itself an autonomously run subset of Industry Canada. It should further be noted that Mr. Sahi is the former Director, Industry and Trade, at Industry Canada. Additionally, Mr. Sahi was the Special Advisor to the Privy Council of Canada.
Also in 2009, Industry Canada appointed Mr. John Walter as Chief Executive Officer of the SCC, the federal body responsible for policing the CSA. Mr. Walter is the former Vice President, Standards Development at the CSA.

Cozy place.

Is there not a Conservative convention going on somewhere?

The mandate of the CSA is microscopic, its coordinative and secretarial, their actual responsibilities could be accomplished with 10 – 12 full time staff and about $6MM in annual budget. Yet the CSA has over 1,600 full time staff and an annual budget of more than a quarter billion dollars. […]
Some of CSA’s activities “as diverse as life itself” involve bemoaning the problems of living “life itself.” Among CSA’s life-focussed worries, “too many people live without adequate financial means.” Yes. And we’re all quite concerned about this, and have been for some time, actually. The CSA wants to focus on “social good” and “delivering societal benefits” and “helping to identify and manage these issues, and in reducing [the] adverse effects” of living “without adequate financial means.” However noble these interests may be, they are dramatically, even profoundly, outside of CSA’s actual “engineering materials” purpose. […]
From former Chair, Daniel Gagnier; “We consider not only what we do […] but also how we made a difference in people’s lives.” This, from the agency responsible for bankrupting the companies to whom they sold counterfeit safety certifications. The CSA’s surely made a difference in their lives. “The CSA […] helps detect, expose and punish unauthorized use of our certification marks”. This, from Canada’s most prolific counterfeiter of certification marks. “Smart people don’t waste time or money.” This, from a domestic regulator that spends over $65,000 per day on travel, over thirteen million dollars per year on “other,” and that pays rent on thirty-five superfluous offices at golf courses and yacht clubs around the world.

Read the whole thing. This exposé needs to go further than one guy’s blog site.

Gordon Knight, via email;
Its been six months since our SDA mention. Your site brought a lot of traffic, and I think we’ve got enough material for an update. […] Our latest article is here.
Pull quote? “But a Canadian regulatory entity has no business using Canadian taxpayer dollars to send the people of Taipei to watch Batman remakes.”

Things We’ve Learned Since May 6th:
Companies have contacted us to advise that CSA has been demanding that they make payments to CSA because these companies are quoting from, teaching, posting or otherwise using the rule of law. As CSA has the power to harm these entities if they don’t pay, and as the demand for payment is legally baseless, we consider these to be demands for protection money. RestoreCSA issued a Public Notice to targeted entities on May 27th.
We have learned that CSA has de facto powers of taxation on construction activity in Canada.
The office of Geoff Regan, MP has submitted an Order Paper in Parliament demanding answers from the Standards Council of Canada on the actions of CSA.
CSA has sent three threat letters since the launch of RestoreCSA.com, we’re averaging one threat every ten days.
CSA has threatened us with a new lawsuit over our latest video, entitled “Payments.” This video covers the topic of CSA members paying money in exchange for influence over the law. They are really cross with us over this one.
CSA had the lawyers for the Telus Convention Centre send us a threatening letter in advance of the CSA AGM, advising that if we attended their event they would “append you without warrant.”
CSA has been discovered lobbying Industry Canada for protection from civil litigation. This is ironic, because they’re trying to get a degree of immunity from legal proceedings while simultaneously suing us at PSKnight Co. Detail and fed filing here.
CSA will only answer with a “yes” or “no” to anybody’s Code questions, and they take up to three years to give that one word answer. Detail here.
PSKnight submitted an Open Letter to the CEO of CSA suggesting a meeting during the CSA AGM to discuss collaboration on efforts to reform the CSA organization.
CSA and its affiliate demand “imprisonment” for companies which counterfeit certifications, yet CSA was counterfeiting certifications for eight years. Detail here and here.
Access to Canadian law is now run out of Cleveland, Ohio. We have to call the United States for permission to use or access Canadian law. Detail here.
CSA generates about $22MM per Code cycle, just on sales of access to electrical law. Detail here.
CSA is exempted from most federal accountability and transparency laws. They also exempt themselves from their own accountability and transparency standards. Detail here.
CSA is claiming ownership of the acronym “CSA”. That is, nobody is allowed to use this acronym without CSA approval. Detail here. The trouble is that over there are over 500 legal and legitimate uses for that acronym. List is here. In Canada, the Canadian Space Agency and a few others have rejected CSA’s claims. Detail here.
CSA has been threatening RestoreCSA’s internet service provider and managed to get our website shut down for a couple of days. Detail here. CSA also sent a threat letter to the wrong IT company. Detail here.
CSA is caught washing their website of anything that looks incriminating. Detail here.
And, CSA is now generating over a quarter billion per year in revenue. That’s a lot, for an electrical regulator.

And believe it or not, there’s more: Canadian standards group accused of negligence in certifying modular homes

The RestoreCSA campaign

… has been contacted by several entities to advise that, like P.S. Knight Co., they are being targeted by the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) for the furnishment of what we consider protection payments.
As with P.S. Knight Co., a number of entities have been approached by CSA for payment of money in exchange for assurances that CSA will not impede their operations. These demands for payment are typically referred to as royalty payments, licensing fees, or certification or insurance fees. Regarding the instances that RestoreCSA has been advised of, the basis for CSA payment demand is CSA’s claimed ownership of portions of Canadian law.
The RestoreCSA campaign is working with the federal Government to clarify the status of CSA as being either a federal regulatory entity or a private company and, if the former, whether CSA is permitted to commercially compete within the market that it is regulating and, if the latter, whether a private company can own public law.

The Canadian Standards Association owns 35 offices “worldwide”? More detail in this interview with Ezra Levant.