Standards Council of Canada is Canada’s national standards and accreditation body, established in 1970 as a federal Crown corporation to oversee the country’s standardization system. The organization supports standards development, accreditation, and conformity assessment, while representing Canada internationally through bodies including the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission.
Your career has moved from engineering and environmental work into standards and public policy. What has consistently drawn you toward those questions of public interest and accountability?
I chose engineering because I loved finding solutions, but it also connected to something important my parents taught me: caring about the community. In Canada, an engineer’s first duty is to protect public safety, and that responsibility, along with the public interest, has been a constant thread throughout my career. From environmental work in Montreal to redeveloping brownfields for the city, that sense of purpose has always stayed with me.
Along Montreal’s Lachine Canal, areas that were derelict and vacant are now vibrant and alive because of the work we did. I used standards throughout my career as an engineer, but I never fully understood the world behind them — the process, the importance and the value for Canada and other economies. What excites me is that the people developing standards and accreditation systems are, in large part, working to serve the public interest and protect public safety.
What do people overlook about the role standards play in economic growth, trade and everyday life?
The system works so well that people don’t see it. Standardization in Canada started more than 110 years ago with railways. Different railway companies used different rail designs, so goods often had to be unloaded and transferred between trains. Engineers and railway owners realized that it was inefficient and agreed on common measurements and track spacing. Standardization began with efficiency, then increasingly focused on safety after accidents and fatalities.
Over time, standards became tied to science, evidence, and risk management. That evolved into what we now call the quality infrastructure: metrology, standards development, conformity assessment and accreditation. Together, those systems build trust. When you make coffee in the morning, you trust the machine won’t electrocute you because of those systems. The same applies to Wi-Fi, digital interoperability and global trade. According to the WTO, even with tariffs impacting trade, around 80 percent of global trade continues because of established standards systems. More broadly, roughly 93 percent of global trade is supported by standards. For a country like Canada, which depends heavily on exports, that quality infrastructure is essential.
What is the risk for countries that are not actively involved in international standard-setting?
The risk is losing access to markets. Many companies think about intellectual property from the beginning, but not always about standardization. They protect their IP, develop a great idea, and later realize they need to comply with standards to enter a market. Ideally, you think about both from the outset.
If countries are not part of the international standards system, they allow competitors to set the norms. That’s why we work with Canadian innovators in areas where Canada is a technological leader, so we can influence or help create the international standards that take shape. Standards are tactical because they determine market access, but they are also strategic because they shape the rules around emerging technologies. Large economies like the U.S. and China understand that very well. We don’t want to simply be standards takers — we want to be standards setters too.
Canada played a leading role in developing international AI standards. Why was that important?
We led the development of the first AI management systems standard because responsible AI is important to Canadians. We promoted the standard, helped design it and played a leading role in shaping it. That matters because it allows Canadian concerns and values to be reflected in the final framework.
Countries that don’t participate in those conversations risk losing influence and market access. Digital transformation makes participation even more important because markets now operate globally. If you want access to those global markets, you need to be part of the global standards community.
Are there areas where Canada still needs to be more proactive in global standard-setting?
Right now, we’re undertaking a major review to ensure Canada’s international participation aligns with our national priorities. There are hundreds of committees at ISO and IEC, and more than 25,000 standards. We can’t participate in everything, so we need to make strategic choices about where Canadian expertise and effort can have the greatest impact.
Our focus is on making sure the areas that matter most to Canada — AI, emerging technologies, critical minerals and others — are reflected in our international participation. We’re very close to that alignment now, but it requires clear decisions about where Canadians spend their time at international standards tables.
Canada is often praised for innovation and talent, but also criticized for being too cautious or overly regulatory. How do you respond to that?
Canada is a society that cares deeply about people, and I think that naturally makes us more cautious in some areas. AI is a good example. In the United States, AI is framed much more around market growth and commercial opportunity. In Europe, regulation is stricter and more prescriptive. Canada tends to position itself somewhere in the middle because of our values, and because the U.S. remains our largest market.
At the international level, we often play the role of a bridge between those two approaches. The AI management systems standard we led is a good example of bringing together more restrictive and more market-driven approaches to create something practical to support responsible AI and risk management. I believe in supporting growth while also thinking seriously about the potential impact on society. That concern for people and consequences is a very Canadian trait, and it resonates strongly with me as an environmental engineer.
Standards processes are often criticized for being slow or difficult for newer companies to navigate. How is the system adapting to the pace of technological change?
The pace of change today is exponential, and we recognize that. Standards development is based on consensus, and consensus takes time because it requires people to come together to discuss and agree on complex issues. But we are using digital tools to make those conversations faster, more efficient and more inclusive, even across multiple languages and jurisdictions.
Technology now evolves much faster than it did in more traditional industries. We have longstanding systems and processes, but we also know the system needs to evolve if it is to remain relevant.
Across the standardization system, there is a major transformation underway aimed at making the system faster and more inclusive while still managing risk properly. With technologies like AI changing every month, we can’t simply chase the technology itself. Instead, we focus on building frameworks that help developers and users understand and mitigate key risks.
Looking ahead, what areas are you most focused on in terms of Canada’s next phase of growth and the role the Standards Council can play?
A major focus right now is reducing internal trade barriers within Canada. We’re working closely with provinces, territories and the federal government, including advisory groups that represent standards developers across the country. We’re also focused on housing, infrastructure and climate adaptation. Housing is a good example because standards and codes are fundamental to making sure homes are safe and durable.
We’re also working with provinces and territories on supply chains and modernizing the standards system itself. Sometimes the issue is not creating a new standard, but improving uptake of standards that already exist, including at the municipal level. We need to deliver value by being faster, more inclusive and thinking about the entire quality infrastructure as a whole — metrology, standards, conformity assessment and accreditation.
