Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Issue 18 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, to which was referred Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, met this day at 10:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce to order. My name is Michael Meighen. I chair the committee and I am a senator from the province of Ontario. Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are here.
Our deputy chair is the distinguished senator from Quebec, Senator Hervieux-Payette.
[Translation]
From Newfoundland and Labrador, we have Senator Beth Marshall.
[English]
Senator Kochhar is from Ontario.
[Translation]
On my left, Senator Ringuette from New Brunswick; to her left, Senator Harb from Ontario, then Senator Moore from Nova Scotia and Senator Massicotte from Quebec.
[English]
I am sure there will be one or two senators joining us as we move along.
Today, we are examining Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act.
Joining us for the first hour of today's meeting is Mike Lake, member of Parliament for Edmonton-Mill Woods- Beaumont and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry. Officials from Industry Canada are accompanying Mr. Lake. They are: Gilles Vinet, Vice-President, Program Development, Measurement Canada; Sonia Roussy, Vice- President, Innovative Services Directorate, Measurement Canada; and Carl Cotton, Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada.
Mr. Lake, welcome to you and your officials and thank you for being with us. We appreciate the time you have taken. If you have an opening statement, we would be pleased to hear it and then we will go to questions from senators.
Mike Lake, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry: I am pleased to meet with the committee to discuss Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act.
You have done the introductions here, so I will not redo those, but I am thankful to have the officials here today to help answer any technical details as we go through, because it can be fairly technical at times.
At the outset, let me remind the committee that the bill before us addresses marketplace frameworks that are essential to consumer confidence, and will modernize a piece of legislation that has not been amended in 30 years. It is the result of a great deal of consultation with interested parties, including consumers and stakeholders from many industrial sectors, including the eight trade sectors that will be initially addressed through these amendments.
In fact, Measurement Canada began the process of consulting stakeholders several years ago to identify an appropriate level of regulatory intervention. A legislative review of the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act was announced in the report on plans and priorities tabled for Industry Canada in 2006, and stakeholder consultations on proposed reforms began later that year.
The importance of this bill was emphasized during debate over second reading in the chamber. I would like to thank Senator Banks for indicating during second reading that he supports the principle of the bill and stating that this is a good piece of legislation. Before responding to the committee's questions today, however, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by Senator Harb at second reading.
It was pointed out that compliance rates for service fuel dispensers are typically around 90 per cent. I would point out that, of the 10 per cent who are not compliant, the preponderance — about 65 per cent — are in favour of the retailer and only 35 per cent are in favour of the consumer. It is not only consumers who are disadvantaged; retailers who sell gasoline with accurate measurement face unfair competition.
Several points were made about whether the government should focus its attention on other issues relating to gasoline prices. Pricing matters fall within provincial jurisdiction for the most part, except when there is suspected collusion in setting prices. The Minister of Industry also oversees the Competition Bureau, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind the committee that, in recent years, the bureau has prosecuted gasoline retailers for anti- competitive behaviour and will continue to promote competitiveness in the marketplace.
We know some were concerned about the cost to retailers. A point was made to refer to how the costs of inspection to gasoline retailers — $50 to $200 every two years — would be passed on to consumers. I would like to point out that, at the parliamentary committee, Joan Huzar of the Consumers Council of Canada stated this was a minor cost that should not impact the cost of gas.
As well, these costs would be minimal, considering the annual value of goods purchased and sold, and the negative financial implications of inaccurate measurement on customers. Measurement Canada estimates a typical gas pump measures 500,000 litres of gas over a two-year period; this represents sales of $500,000, based on a charge of $1 per litre. Inspection fees represent an incremental cost over the typical cost of a maintenance contract.
Senators raised the issue of the relatively small number of prosecutions that have taken place before the current legislation as a reason why the bill before us may not be necessary. I would point out that the number of prosecutions is not necessarily an indicator of whether or not a bill is needed. Prosecutions can be a very heavy-handed instrument to apply and not necessarily the best approach to use in all instances.
This leads me to the second broad category of the concerns — whether the measures in this bill will be effective. I would like to pay particular attention to the issues arising from administrative monetary penalties and authorized service providers. Administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, will provide an important alternative to prosecution that will help enforce fairness in the marketplace. Under the acts as they now stand, prosecution is the only means available to levy fines for non-compliance. Using the court system to punish minor contraventions is not effective or efficient. Typically, the retailers whose measurements are not accurate find themselves in contravention, not because of deliberate malfeasances but because of a lack of appropriate attention to measurement. This is not a matter that deserves a criminal record and a severe fine.
Under the bill before us, Measurement Canada will be able to issue administrative monetary penalties that befit the infraction. The effect is to promote compliance and, where necessary, to provide a more appropriate punishment for relatively minor infractions, while maintaining the option to prosecute flagrant cases or situations where retailers have a history of non-compliance. As a civil measure, AMPs help enforce compliance without the need to prosecute. The penalty will fit the offence and this will lead to more vigorous action against those who are not in compliance.
At the same time, the method of using authorized service providers will help ensure a more rigorous regime. The number of inspections at gas pumps, for example, will increase from 8,000 per year to approximately 65,000. Certainly, this will help to make the regime more effective.
It has been asked whether there is a benefit to turning over the administration of the tests to non-government inspectors. I would point out that this will leverage Measurement Canada's resources and enhance marketplace coverage, in order to allow them to monitor the marketplace more effectively. Also, the non-government inspectors would be in a position to correct measurement issues immediately, so that the retailer would not have to wait for a service call and then recall the Measurement Canada inspector to have the repaired device certified. At the same time, I would emphasize that authorized service providers will not have the same authorities as Measurement Canada's own inspectors have. Government inspectors alone will have the power to enforce the law, which could lead to prosecution or the imposition of administrative monetary penalties.
Under this bill, fines are being increased from $1,000 to up to $10,000 for minor offences, and from $5,000 to $25,000 for major offences. A new fine for repeat offences is being introduced in the amount of $50,000. These penalties will surely help the law become more effective in increasing measurement accuracy in the marketplace.
Questions have been raised about the possibility of conflict of interest. I point out that the livelihood of authorized service providers will depend on maintaining their designation from Measurement Canada, which will closely monitor and address any non-conformances. Performing the work in accordance with requirements will be critical for staying in business.
This bill is necessary; it will be effective. The bill, after all, will help to ensure the accuracy of measurements in eight trade sectors, including retail food, forestry and mining, and retail gasoline. Additional sectors could be added in the future. Many issues were raised at second reading. I hope that, in responding to several of them, I have anticipated some of the questions the committee might want to raise.
In closing my introductory remarks, let me emphasize once again that the measures in this bill will increase business and consumer confidence in the accuracy of goods bought and sold on the basis of measurement. Measurement Canada has consulted widely on the issues contained in this bill, and has received a great deal of support from stakeholders, including consumers. I welcome the committee's questions.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I apologize for interrupting our witness. I would just like to point out to my colleagues that the witnesses we are about to hear from were not able to listen to the testimony of the officials because apparently, from a financial standpoint, it would have cost $300 an hour.
I am absolutely flabbergasted to learn that the parliamentary secretary made a presentation that, normally, the other witnesses should have had access to. I simply want to mention this to the committee chair. I do not believe that either of us was aware of the situation.
We always hear about technical problems. But these are not technical problems, they are financial problems. But we are not talking about thousands of dollars; we are talking about $300.
I simply want to make sure that this situation does not occur again. It is not democratic that we should be online whereas those people are not. I believe that they should be online with us.
[English]
Senator Harb: The problem can be addressed easily. Mr. Lake could sit with us while the witnesses make their representations. A number of questions might be raised that officials and/or Mr. Lake would be in a position to answer.
We can make a good situation out of a bad situation. This would work much like a round table meeting, save time and help to resolve the issue.
The Chair: I am sure they have time constraints but maybe some or all would be able to assist.
Mr. Lake: The officials can stay for the rest of the meeting. I cannot stay because I have a prior commitment.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: Do these people have Internet access?
Line Gravel, Clerk of the Committee: Apparently they do have Internet access.
The Chair: Apparently they have access.
Ms. Gravel: But I don't know whether they have Internet access from where they are.
Senator Mockler: Could we check that? If they do have Internet access, all they would need is a laptop.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: But they must be notified.
The Chair: I think that Senator Hervieux-Payette has raised a valid point. If memory serves, it is not our policy to ensure that witnesses who appear by videoconference can hear the witnesses preceding them, but it is certainly not a bad thing. And if it is simply a question of $300, I think we can find that amount.
I will look into this matter and report to the committee at the next meeting. Is that all right?
Senator Mockler: In future, we should also inform all those with Internet access that they can go online to listen to the testimony.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: They need to be aware of that in order to hear all the evidence because it is up to the department to make the provisions of the bill.
The Chair: I would like to point out, and this is not a criticism, that the second group of witnesses was invited at the last minute. We managed to fit them in and are pleased to do so. That said, I would like to ask Mr. Lake and the department officials to stay since they may be of great assistance to the committee's work.
[English]
We will move to questions.
Senator Harb: Thank you, Mr. Lake and officials from Industry Canada. You are to be commended on the excellent hard work you have done over the years, involving the various sectors dealt with by this committee. You do an amazing job. I understand that, when a regulation is to be introduced, you continue to work with the industry to engage them. Is that correct?
Gilles Vinet, Vice-President, Program Development, Measurement Canada, Industry Canada: Absolutely.
Senator Harb: Initially, the bill will cover about eight sectors.
Mr. Lake: That is right.
Senator Harb: Of those eight, which one has the highest level of compliance? Is it the retail gasoline sector?
Mr. Vinet: Among the eight sectors that we are covering, two sectors have higher compliance rates than the others have: retail food and retail gasoline.
Senator Harb: Are they the highest?
Mr. Vinet: Yes.
Senator Harb: The parliamentary secretary has a tough job to do. He is here to represent the government on this bill, which I understand. The bill deals with weights and measures and its short title is the Fairness at the Pumps Act. I believe that the Minister of Industry and other members across the country put out fairly nicely done brochures that talk about faulty gas pumps costing Canadian consumers millions of dollars every year. That is not right. The pamphlets say that the Conservative government is taking action to protect Canadian consumers, and so they introduced the Fairness at the Pumps Act to increase the number of mandatory gas pump inspections, et cetera.
Mr. Lake, the bottom line is that Industry Canada has confirmed that, out of the eight sectors that this bill will cover, gasoline ranks as the highest. Why is it that you have to do the government's dirty work to put in a short title that does not reflect the excellent work the administration has done over the years, and for a bill that covers 40 sectors? Why do you have to do the dirty work on behalf of the government, putting in a title that is not right, fair or just?
Mr. Lake: The Fairness at the Pumps Act title is not a negative title; it is a positive title and is talking about fairness proactively.
When you consider naming a bill, some can have names that do not mean anything and do not mean anything to Canadians who are trying to make sense of what the bill is about. Using a title like Fairness at the Pumps gives an example of a situation that Canadians realize is not always fair. The inaccurate measurement at gasoline pumps costs Canadians $20 million a year, I think.
It is also important to recognize that, in the case of gasoline pumps, of the 10 per cent of gas pumps deemed to be inaccurate, almost two-thirds of them are inaccurate to the benefit of the retailer, and a third are inaccurate to the benefit of the consumer. There is an imbalance there.
We are trying to strike the issue of fairness to consumers, across all eight sectors, but the name of the bill reflects one example that any Canadian who has to buy gas understands.
Senator Harb: Mr. Vinet, has any gasoline retailer ever been convicted of an offence under the Weights and Measures Act that you are aware of?
Mr. Vinet: Yes.
Senator Harb: How many?
Mr. Vinet: You have to keep in mind that over the last 10 years, easily, we have not used prosecution very much. The act is 30 years old. The fines are extremely small and prosecution is very costly.
There have been one or two retailers that I am aware of that have been prosecuted.
Senator Harb: One or two. If you compare it to the other sectors, that is in line with every other sector.
Mr. Lake: In fairness, Senator Harb, one of the reasons the legislation is important is because action has not been taken because the only option was prosecution.
Senator Harb: We have no problem with taking measures in order to ensure fairness. We have a problem with trying to target one sector out of all of the other sectors that have the highest compliance. You target them unfairly, both in public as well as in every possible means, in order to ruin the reputation of a sector in which over 70 per cent of the people working in it are independent, small retailers across the country.
That is the problem. You are trying to target a sector that has the highest compliance by naming a bill with the short title Fairness at the Pumps when they, in fact, have the highest compliance. I will rest there.
Mr. Lake: I will comment, if I could. It is important to remember that some of the people hurt the most by the inaccurate measurements at the pumps are the retailers themselves who actually have accurate pumps. However, the perception is out there that that is an inaccuracy in measurement. There is a competitiveness issue in the sense that some of their competitors might have inaccurate pumps that are to their benefit, so they might be able to offer a price advantage because of that.
Some of the people most hurt are the retailers themselves who actually have accurate pumps.
Senator Harb: The truth is otherwise. We just heard from Measurement Canada, and I have the statistics here. They just indicated that they are the highest for compliance.
I know you have a tough job to do, Mr. Lake, and you are trying your best without blushing, but the bottom line is that we have a problem here.
I am done, Mr. Chair.
Senator Ringuette: I am looking at some of the 40 sectors covered in this bill. Since I like to see how things work, could you tell me how you measure the natural gas distribution, and how often?
Mr. Vinet: Natural gas is covered under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, which is covered as well under Bill C-14. The natural gas meters installed beside houses and establishments are regulated by us. In Ontario, you heat mostly with gas.
Senator Ringuette: How often are they inspected?
Mr. Vinet: The electricity and gas meters are utility meters so they must be inspected. Depending on the type of meter, it could be six to ten years between inspections. You have to keep in mind that these are utility meters. Millions of meters are installed beside each house. It is completely different from a gas pump that can be serviced on the site at any time.
When electricity and gas meters are verified originally, they are all verified to be accurate before they are installed. They are verified every six or seven years, based on the sampling plan established by Measurement Canada.
Again, when we are comparing gas pumps or scales versus electricity and gas meters, it is a very different ball game. The economics behind the cost of inspecting, testing and replacing the meters is quite different.
Senator Ringuette: Who verifies the gas and electricity?
Mr. Vinet: It is done 99 per cent of the time by organizations recognized by Measurement Canada to perform inspections on our behalf.
Senator Ringuette: Those people would be certified by your department, would they not?
Mr. Vinet: Exactly. These organizations are recognized and audited by us to inspect.
Senator Ringuette: Is it the same thing regarding water, alcoholic beverages and so forth?
Mr. Vinet: Water meters are not regulated. The other sectors, like alcoholic beverages, can have other devices. You can have tank scales and hopper scales. Those devices are regulated by Measurement Canada, they are inspected by Measurement Canada, and some of those devices are inspected for the initial inspections by organizations.
Senator Ringuette: Did you say water meters are not regulated?
Mr. Vinet: That is right. They are exempted under the regulations.
Senator Ringuette: Why is that?
Mr. Vinet: It is a long-standing exemption that Measurement Canada has been looking at in consultation with industry to see if that should be revised. At the time, there were very few water meters and water was very inexpensive.
Senator Ringuette: However, we are reviewing the act.
Mr. Vinet: The exemption is in the regulations. Modifying that would require a regulatory amendment, not a legislative amendment.
Senator Ringuette: So you can do that at any time, can you not?
Mr. Vinet: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Why are drastic volumes of water being peddled into bottles, et cetera? It is a basic necessity and it should have been a major concern to you. It is a major concern to all citizens.
Mr. Vinet: The water in bottles is regulated. Every bottle of water is regulated, as any packaged commodity is. It is the water meters in houses that are not regulated.
Senator Ringuette: Let us move on to another thing I find very interesting: The telecommunications industry. What do you measure there and how?
Mr. Vinet: We are not involved in that sector. Just so you understand, these trade sectors —
Senator Ringuette: It is one of the sectors in the bill.
Mr. Vinet: The telecommunication sector is not one of the eight sectors.
Mr. Lake: To be clear, there are eight sectors in this bill where mandatory inspection frequencies will apply. Those sectors are: Retail, petroleum, downstream or wholesale petroleum, dairy, retail food, fishing, logging, grains and field crops, and mining.
Senator Ringuette: I have before me a document sourced as being from Measurement Canada on sectors covered by Bill C-14. The thirteenth sector under Bill C-14 is indicated as the communications industry. What does Measurement Canada have to do with the telecommunications industry?
Mr. Lake: Perhaps you could provide a copy of the document to the officials.
Senator Ringuette: The source says ``Measurement Canada.'' Ms. Roussy, perhaps you could comment.
Sonia Roussy, Vice-President, Innovative Services Directorate, Measurement Canada, Industry Canada: I am not aware of the document that you have. There are 39 sectors.
Senator Ringuette: Communications is one of them.
Ms. Roussy: The 39 sectors could fall under the mandate of Measurement Canada in some way. We consult with those various sectors progressively. The bill addresses the first eight sectors that we have consulted with, which Mr. Lake mentioned. That is the limitation of this bill initially. In the future, we may look at amendments to the regulations to include other sectors. The first eight sectors that were named are addressed in this bill. The other ones are potential sectors that we could look at in the future.
The Chair: We are satisfied that appears to be the evidence we have heard — that eight sectors are covered by Bill C- 14.
Senator Ringuette: Communications could be affected by this bill through future amendments to the regulations.
The Chair: Please proceed with the question. We have a number of other questioners.
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators will understand the major issue with regard to measurement and the telecommunications industry: The decision from the CRTC on Internet downloading. How would you measure in respect of the telecommunications industry?
Mr. Vinet: Again, we are not involved at all in measurement of the telecommunications industry. The weights and measures communities in other countries are not involved in telecommunications either. It is not regulated from a weights and measures standpoint. We are not involved at all.
Senator Ringuette: Did the CRTC not consult you in order to determine the accuracy of measurement in respect of the required gigabytes? No?
The Chair: Senator Hervieux-Payette has a supplementary.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I used to be in that sector. Yes, there is a big factor, and we are not talking about millions of dollars but billions of dollars.
Your telephone bill is billed in 10-second increments. It used to be one-minute increments. You might recall when the competition started in Canada. They split it and it made a big difference for the heavy users of telephone communication, in particular long distance. Senator Ringuette talked about the Internet and I am talking about the telephone. If you are not talking about telecommunications, you should do so because this sector has to be regulated and has to be overseen and inspected. We are talking about major companies that transport, and the resellers who serve a certain sector in Canada and work on the main cable.
We cannot simply hope that you do it later if it is not done now because we are talking about as much money, if not more money, than in other industries.
The Chair: We are on the record on that. However, let us try to focus on the intent of Bill C-14.
Senator Massicotte: I have a comment based in the form of a question. I take note, Mr. Lake, that you explained to Senator Harb that the title is not negative or derogatory. However, in your testimony, you gave examples of why 6.5 per cent of consumers pay too much. You seemed to justify why the title is derogatory, and yet your opening comment was that it was not derogatory.
[Translation]
If I may, the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole has pointed out that, in Quebec, and certainly in other provinces, there are already regulations that exist to deal with this problem. It is the same objective. The concern is that these regulations may be duplicated, which will complicate the situation. Why is the federal government getting involved in something that is already regulated by the provinces?
Mr. Vinet: This matter was raised before the committee last summer. We then met with the representatives of the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole in Parliament. Mr. Bouchard, the M.P., had organized that meeting to clarify this matter. In Quebec, the Régie du bâtiment has a number of environmental requirements. One of its requirements is that calibration be done every two years. There is no criterion for or control over that.
So, after holding discussions with the Régie du bâtiment and with the association, our understanding is that everyone is satisfied and that there is no duplication. In fact, by doing what we are doing, Bill C-14 will be useful for the Régie du bâtiment, because inspections conducted under Bill C-14 would meet the requirements of the Régie du bâtiment in a way that ensures they are valid and conducted using certified standards and approved testing methods. As far as we are concerned, there is no duplication. The Régie du bâtiment focuses on the environment.
Senator Massicotte: Does the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole agree with you becoming involved?
Mr. Vinet: As I see it, yes. I do not wish to speak on their behalf. We met with them. We clarified this matter with the Régie du bâtiment. We are of the opinion that there is a consensus, that there is no duplication and that this will be good for everybody.
Senator Massicotte: I received a letter dated February 15 that expresses the same concern. In their opinion, there is needless duplication, and so forth. I accept your testimony, but there are people who are not convinced that this is the case.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Mr. Lake, the first part of the bill talks about electricity and gas. Every home has a hydro meter. How will electricity and gas be inspected? Will they be inspected on an annual basis? Could you clarify who will do the inspections? Currently, the utility companies do some or all of these inspections.
Mr. Vinet: Bill C-14 will not change the way in which hydro and gas meters are inspected and tested. Bill C-14 will introduce administrative monetary penalties and increase the fines applicable to electricity and gas meters. That is the extent of the impact of Bill C-14 on hydro and gas meters.
Hydro and gas meters are inspected at the meter shop before they are installed at a home. All meters are inspected to ensure that they meet stringent tolerances. They are inspected on a regular basis after they are installed to ensure that they remain accurate. It is the responsibility of the utilities to make sure that their meters always perform within the legal tolerance specified in the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act.
Senator Marshall: What will the Measurement Canada inspectors do? Will you describe their function for the eight sectors under the bill?
Mr. Lake: There will be an oversight role for Measurement Canada inspectors. Measurement Canada will train and certify the authorized service providers and, in effect, inspect the authorized service providers' work to ensure that they are conducting operations in a proper manner. Obviously, it is very important to the functioning of the protocols under this new act. In addition, they will also go out and conduct inspections on their own at times when an authorized service provider, for example, cannot do it, for whatever reason.
Senator Marshall: Are these inspectors centrally located, or are there regional offices across Canada?
Mr. Lake: Are you talking about the Measurement Canada inspectors?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Mr. Vinet: We have 15 offices across the country, and we have resident inspectors, so we are spread out across the country. As Mr. Lake said, the mandatory inspections will be conducted by authorized service providers who are also spread out throughout the country, and we expect there will be many more of them because the workload will increase very much with Bill C-14.
Senator Marshall: Some of the work will be subcontracted out. Did I understand that correctly? Is that the concept?
Mr. Vinet: Right now, the inspections of in-service devices like gas pumps and scales that are done in Canada are done by Measurement Canada, because there is no legal obligation for traders to have their devices inspected on a regular basis. Some devices can stay in service for 10 years without being inspected, or five years or six months if we do the monitoring. Right now, we do the monitoring but with very few inspectors. With Bill C-14, all the devices will be subjected to a mandatory inspection cycle, and these inspections will be conducted by these organizations. You have to keep in mind that the number of inspections annually for those eight sectors for onsite devices may go from 20,000 to 250,000. Obviously, it is a big increase in the number of inspections, and those will be conducted by them. Our inspectors will continue to perform inspections to monitor the marketplace and to investigate complaints, because we receive complaints on a regular basis. Our inspectors will continue to do inspections to investigate complaints and to monitor the marketplace.
Mr. Lake: It is important to note that the legislation leverages the resources that Measurement Canada has and, effectively, creates a far more vigorous enforcement or monitoring of measurement accuracy. That is what is critical about this. It creates a business model for these authorized service providers, which will be small businesses. We will see across the country, where there is a need, that business will be created, and these authorized service providers will build their business around that need. Obviously, it will be important for them to ensure they are doing good work, because they will be tested by Measurement Canada, and they need to have that reputation.
It creates a benefit, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, for the retailers themselves. In the past, if there was a check done and the measurement device was seen to be inaccurate, they then needed to call someone else to come in and fix it, and then call Measurement Canada back to do another test to make sure it was certified. In this case, the authorized service provider can come out and do the test. If it is seen to be inaccurate, they can actually fix the measuring device right there, and it is one trip instead of several.
Senator Marshall: Are the eight sectors covered by this piece of legislation aware that this legislation is coming?
Mr. Lake: The consultations for this were very broad, starting in 2006, so yes, absolutely. The stakeholders were very engaged in the process and very hands on in the development of this plan.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have about 15 or minutes left, and I have four more senators on my list.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I will continue in the same vein as Senator Marshall. Which sector has a non-compliance rate that is higher than 10 per cent? Is there one sector in particular among the ten? If the petroleum sector is one of the most compliant, along with the food sector, then who are the culprits that must be chased down with your new inspection system?
Mr. Vinet: You must understand that there are variations within each sector. In a single sector, there are several types of devices with a number of methods or types of compliance, but I will spare you the details today.
In the retail gasoline sector, we have said that the compliance rate for gas pumps is 94 per cent, which is very high. For truck refuelers, the compliance rate is 80 per cent, which means that 20 per cent of truck refuelers are not within the tolerances.
For example, if we look at trucks carrying home heating oil, once again that is in the retail gasoline sector, but compliance rates are 60 per cent for those devices. However, in other sectors — retail food and retail gasoline being the sectors with the highest compliance rates — we are looking at around 70 per cent compliance.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The government will sign a contract with individuals in the private sector, who will in turn perform inspections of the private sector, and, if there are differences, as Mr. Lake mentioned, these new contractors will form their own small businesses and hire inspectors.
I would like to know about the process. How will it work? Who will authorize these people and certify future small inspection firms? Who will train them and how much will it cost? Once on-site, you mentioned between $50 and $200. Your inspectors, the people to whom you delegate your authority, show up, see a difference; they notice that the device is not working properly. Who will make the adjustments and do the certification? What is the process? If it is not working, someone has to repair it. It may be a mechanical problem, so why between $50 and $200? Between you and me, I am trying to figure out why it would cost $50. Will your new inspector be charging per kilometre from his home? How will the inspection actually work on-site?
Mr. Vinet: I will begin by answering one part of your question. Currently, businesses or business people who have measuring devices call service companies to ensure that those devices are accurate. If they are not, the companies repair and calibrate the devices. That is done already.
In most cases, those companies will apply to us to be certified. Then there will be a process that I will ask Ms. Roussy to explain.
Those companies will conduct the inspections and charge inspection fees to perform the tests required by Measurement Canada. They must have the equipment necessary to do the tests to ensure that devices are in compliance. With regard to the process, I will ask Ms. Roussy to answer your question.
Ms. Roussy: There is a fairly detailed process that has existed for 15 years. We already have authorized service providers who perform some inspections for us. They do not do 300,000 inspections per year, more like 30,000. The process begins with an application to Measurement Canada. The company in question must be incorporated and the people who will be doing the inspections must take a course of about five days given by Measurement Canada. It costs them $100 per person per day to participate in this course. Following the course, there is a theory examination that people must pass, and once they have done so, practical evaluations are done on-site.
We ensure that the individual really has the qualifications required to do the work that needs to be done. After that, the company must submit documents setting out the inspection procedures that it will be using. These procedures must be approved by Measurement Canada.
The company must purchase the equipment necessary, and have it calibrated and certified by Measurement Canada. Once all that has been done, it is given the authorization to perform certain inspections in its area of expertise.
The company then begins to do inspections, and we monitor it at least once per year. If there are problems, we monitor the company more closely. Should the problems continue, the company's authorization may be suspended or revoked. To date, according to our monitoring, companies meet the standards in approximately 98 per cent of all cases. So there are very few non-compliance cases, but when they occur, we point it out and the problem is remedied very quickly. This is because, for the companies, being certified by Measurement Canada is very important. If their certification is suspended, they may have to shut down and would no longer be able to do inspections.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How do they show up to do the inspections? You mention 250,000, but there are well over 250,000 service outlets in Canada. There must be over a million. Who decides where they will go? Who sends them? Are they the ones who decide or do you assign them to certain places?
Ms. Roussy: The retailer has to because, under the new legislation, inspections must be done yearly, or every second year, depending on the sector. They are also the ones responsible for calling the service provider. All the service providers and their areas of expertise are on our website. So they can use our site to find companies in their area at the best price. They then hire the service provider and pay for the inspection.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you have a data bank that includes the 750,000 you will not be inspecting, if you are only inspecting 250,000?
You say you will be doing 250,000 inspections. But if one million companies have to be inspected, how do you find those that do not report? I can see how the process will apply to companies that comply, but what about the others? We are talking about very small cities. For example, in my area in the Eastern Townships, I am wondering how people will know whether it is time for them to hire a company.
And, as I mentioned, $50 or $200 are two different things. A small gas station with one pump in a village of 400 people is not the same as a big Petro Canada station with 12 pumps. I would like to understand the costs. Is the cost per pump, per set of scales? How will the cost structure be determined?
Ms. Roussy: Measurement Canada does not set a price. The market determines the price. That is why the price can vary from $50 to $200 per device. A gas station with only 4 pumps will pay four times $50 and, for a station with 24 pumps, it is 24 times.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Given that there are not very many service providers, are you not concerned about potential abuse?
Ms. Roussy: Since very few inspections can be undertaken by the service providers, there are already 353 approved technicians across the country. So it is not a monopoly. Retailers have a wide choice of service providers, so they can also look for the best price for any given service.
There are over 100 companies hiring over 350 approved technicians who can do inspections. Once the new legislation is passed, companies will become more interested in becoming service providers.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: These will not be small businesses, as Mr. Lake said earlier. They could become businesses employing 250 individuals.
Ms. Roussy: Currently, our largest company has 30 approved technicians. Most service providers are smaller companies employing two to five technicians.
The Chair: I am told that our second group of witnesses, the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole, are now ready. They unfortunately missed the comments of Mr. Lake and others. Given the time, with the permission of our Montreal witnesses, we will extend this part of the meeting by a few minutes.
Mr. Lake, can you stay another five to ten minutes to give the four remaining senators an opportunity to ask questions?
[English]
Senator Gerstein: Mr. Lake, I was interested by some comments that were made by several members of the committee with regard to the short title of the bill. In Toronto, if one is on University Avenue travelling south of College Street, there are four teaching hospitals within one block, two on each side of the street. All of them are affiliated with the University of Toronto, and all of them have world-renowned research centres. Yet, one of them has large banners hanging down the front of their facade saying ``best medicine, best research.'' Is that pejorative to the others? I do not think so. The New York Times is referred to as the best newspaper. Many retailers talk about offering the best service. As a matter of fact, I think there is a retail chain called Best Value. Is that a putdown to everybody else? Of course not. It is a standard.
The short title is ``Fairness at the Pumps.'' Does that not really reflect a standard, and do you not feel that the gas distributors should relish in the fact that they are being so pointed out? It is fairness at the pumps. It is a great assuredness, I suspect, to Canadians that they know this is how their government is protecting them by the high standards that they are maintaining for distribution of fuel oil or other items. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Lake: I could not agree with you more.
The Chair: Thank you for putting such a succinct question. That is very helpful.
Senator Massicotte: There was a question there?
The Chair: I had to listen to the very last moment.
Senator Kochhar: I am intrigued about how you came on the name. The naming of anything is always intriguing. I also wonder why my daughter named my grandchildren as she did. You cover eight sectors. Why could you not come up with a name like Fairness of Measuring Devices, which covers everything? I have nothing against measurement or fairness at the pump, and I am quite satisfied with the names of my grandchildren, but could you explain why and how you really arrived at this name?
Mr. Lake: I personally did not arrive at this name. I like the name. I think that it articulates well and gives a good example of what we are trying to accomplish with the legislation.
When Canadians look at it and see the name and hear that it applies to eight sectors, they will translate the benefits within the gas retail sector to the other eight sectors as well to see that there is fairness throughout. It is probably a flaw in our system that sometimes our names tend to be too legalistic, and make it difficult to understand exactly what a bill is trying to accomplish. With this one, it is clear what the bill is accomplishing. It takes a quick explanation, the title, and then an explanation of the eight sectors so the people can get their head around what it is that it is accomplishing.
Senator Kochhar: I will buy your argument, but I am really not satisfied with it. You have eight sectors. In my view, the biggest fraud would be in the weigh scales in the small grocery stores. Do you have any provisions to have surprise inspections in some of these stores to ensure that their scales have not been altered to be fraudulent to the customers? It would bring a lot of disadvantage to the customers if those scales, a couple of ounces on a pound, have been altered in the favour of small stores. Do you ever do any surprise inspections, or is that beyond your realm?
Mr. Lake: The officials may want to comment on that as well. The whole point of the legislation is to ensure that the inspection is happening at regular frequencies and to ensure that the devices are accurate, because of exactly the problem you mentioned. As well, part of the process is to have a system of, as you say, surprise inspections to ensure that people are following the rules, not only to ensure that the retailers themselves are properly tuning their measurement equipment, but also to ensure that the authorized service providers are doing the job they are supposed to be doing.
In regard to the name, I do not want to dwell on it too much, but I would say that if the name is the biggest problem we have with this legislation, then it is pretty good legislation.
Senator Kochhar: Nobody is arguing about that part of it, but I still have not heard whether you have surprise inspections or you do not.
Mr. Lake: Yes.
Mr. Vinet: Definitely. We will keep inspectors to monitor the marketplace, to go out there and do surprise inspections to see if everything is working well, and also to educate traders about the requirements to have their devices inspected, as Senator Hervieux-Payette mentioned before. Our inspectors will be in the field to do that important function.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: They inspect the inspector.
Mr. Lake: Well, they inspect the inspector, but I think Mr. Vinet is saying, too, that part of the process is trader education and ensuring that the retailers are aware of what the rules are.
Senator Kochhar: I know the retailers are aware they have to be fair, but there are retailers who are not fair, and how do you catch them?
Mr. Vinet: It will be the job of Measurement Canada inspectors to be there. There are provisions for AMPs, administrative monetary penalties, and increased fines. For the small minority of traders who are not doing things as they should be, we will be able to take enforcement action and play a watchdog function.
Senator Moore: Thank you for being here. I have one point with regard to the short title. To me, it implies that the current situation is that there is unfairness at the pump. I think it is a smear on the existing condition. We have heard that it is probably the industry with the highest compliance. Who came up with that name?
Mr. Lake: The minister would have come up with the name, I guess, or the minister's office. In terms of the point that you are trying to make, when we introduce legislation, we are obviously introducing legislation to change something, whatever the given circumstance is.
Senator Moore: I understand that.
Mr. Lake: In this case, we are trying to bring more fairness to measurement.
Senator Moore: You are not saying that. You are nailing one industry, one of the eight, and I think that is absolutely unfair. It might be cute, and it might be good politics and all that stuff, but it is not accurate and it is not right. I have some friends who are dealers, and I do not think they would like that, not at all. I think it is wrong. I really do. I think it is absolutely un-Canadian. It is not the right thing to do.
I want to ask a question about these inspectors, the authorized service providers. You say you have 353 right now?
Ms. Roussy: There are 102 companies, and they employ 353 recognized technicians.
Senator Moore: How many will you have, Mr. Vinet, if this bill passes? How many do you forecast employing or having contract arrangements with?
Mr. Vinet: We cannot give the number because it would depend how they structure their companies. You could have one company hiring four people to do the work. Right now, some of the recognized companies do not do inspections full time, as Ms. Roussy mentioned. Right now, the only inspection they can do is the initial inspection. The number could be doubled or tripled.
Senator Moore: You are asking for authority to add, so you must have some idea how many you need. Do you need double or 10 more? You must have some idea. If not, I do not think we should be handling this. I would like to know what the cost will be to the taxpayer.
Mr. Vinet: The number of inspections conducted by authorized service providers today is around 40,000 device inspections per year. It will go to roughly 300,000 per year. That is a big increase.
Senator Moore: My final point is what Senator Kochhar was asking. Will you be doing random inspections of the authorized service providers in addition to what you do currently?
Mr. Vinet: Absolutely.
Senator Mockler: To follow up, Fairness at the Pump is a good title. We can agree to disagree.
I think this is long overdue. As was mentioned by other senators, we can add to those sectors. There is one common denominator that would I like more about, following from Senator Marshall's question, Mr. Lake. Could you add something about your consultation process, please, and be more specific?
Mr. Lake: It was a broad consultation with stakeholders from a variety of different areas. Again, it started in 2006. A legislative review of the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act was announced in the 2006-07 Industry Canada report on plans and priorities. That was where the consultation began. There was a broad consultation, and stakeholders played a significant role in what has come out as the end result, or this legislation. I do not know if the officials want to add anything more to that.
Ms. Roussy: I could add that when we do our consultations, we refer to them as trade sector review consultations. We involve all sides of the transaction. We involve the vulnerable parties, consumer groups, or vulnerable parties to the transactions, the ones who cannot control the device, who are really at the mercy of the person who owns the device. We involve industry who owns the device. We involve other government departments who might have an interest, because there are royalties or so on that might be dependent on that device. All the stakeholders are involved in those consultations, and they are very broad.
We do consultations. If we cannot easily come to a consensus in terms of what that sector wants, we hold consensus meetings where everyone is present at the table and is able to argue their points. We are seeking consensus from all the players.
The Chair: Colleagues, that exhausts our list of questioners. I am sure there are other questions, but we are 10 minutes over time and I have to call a halt at this point. I thank Mr. Lake sincerely for his presence, along with the officials. We have had a good discussion.
We will now turn to our second group of witnesses.
[Translation]
First, to the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole, welcome, thank you for your patience, and our apologies for the delay. We have with us Mr. Serge Harnois, Chairman of the Board, Mr. René Blouin, Senior Advisor, and Sonia Marcotte, Chief Executive Officer. Welcome.
With your permission, I think that we have a new witness who has arrived at the last minute, but we would like to welcome him. It is John Nunziata, a well-known former parliamentarian.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata is sitting with the officials from the department and will be given an opportunity to intervene shortly. Mr. Nunziata, just for the record, could you tell us who you are representing?
John Nunziata, Acting President, Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association: I am representing the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association, CIPMA. I am legal counsel to the association, and also acting president and CEO, chief executive officer.
[Translation]
Sonia Marcotte, Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole: Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting us to take part in this debate. We are appearing on behalf of the members of the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole. Our members are involved in importing and distributing fuel and in retailing heating oil and lubricants. Retail sales of Quebec petroleum companies total over $1 billion a year.
We have noted the concerns of parliamentarians regarding the accuracy of measurement devices. AQIP considers it quite legitimate and desirable that consumers should receive the quantities —
The Chair: Could you speak a little more slowly, please?
Ms. Marcotte: AQIP is therefore not opposed to the types of provisions outlined in Bill C-14; however, it is hard for us to understand why it was given the short title ``Fairness at the Pumps Act.'' To begin with, the bill is not aimed at any particular sector, but rather at a wide range of sectors where weights and measures are used.
Nowhere in the 30 pages of the bill is there any reference to the petroleum sector, which is clearly not specifically targeted by this comprehensive bill. How can we justify this short title that does not reflect the content of the legislation? Why do we imply that the amount of fuel dispensed by pumps right now is unfair, especially when there is no basis for an assumption like that?
In fact, Measurement Canada has published an analysis showing that, of the nearly 70 sectors studied, the retail gasoline sector had one of the best compliance rates. At 91.11 per cent, this sector is only slightly behind the honey and rubber industries and considerably higher than the retail food and retail electricity sectors.
Serge Harnois, Chairman of the Board, Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole: We find this short title particularly surprising because Quebec has regulations that require gasoline retailers to ensure that all fuel dispensers equipped with a meter and connected to an underground tank be calibrated at least once every two years. This requirement is laid out in section 141 of the Safety Code under Quebec's Building Act.
In order to avoid increasing the administrative burden, we would call on the federal government to prevent regulatory duplication, since the provincial government is already carrying out this responsibility. Indeed, our experience has shown that, when specialists calibrate the gas pumps at our stations, they are more likely to give a little extra to consumers than to short-change them. Once the pumps have been calibrated, they are sealed so that no one can modify what has been done. Moreover, mechanical pumps are gradually giving way to electronic pumps, which are well-known for being accurate.
René Blouin, Senior Advisor, Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole: As we have already said, we find it difficult to understand why the government has decided to give this bill a title that implies unfairness at the pump.
In order to correct this unfairness to the gas retailer, we propose that section 1, the short title of the act, which reads the Fairness at the Pumps Act, be amended and become the Fairness in Weights and Measures Act. Our proposal is in line with the substance of the bill and contains no unfair attack against any commercial sector in particular.
Ms. Marcotte: In summary, we invite legislators not to increase the burden of regulation when a province is already doing a good job of ensuring that fuel distributors give consumers value for money. Finally, we insist on the need to change the tone of the unfair content in this inappropriate short title, which blames fuel retailers for no reason. An affront of this nature has no place in a rigorous and credible legislative process.
The Chair: Thank you, Montreal. We will now give the floor to Mr. Nunziata for a short comment.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief submission this morning. As I indicated, I represent the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association, a trade association representing the larger independent fuel marketers across Canada. In the Ottawa area, you see MacEwen, Canadian Tire and Pioneer Fuel; in Atlantic Canada, Wilsons Fuel; and Parkland Fuels in Western Canada. We support, in principle, Bill C-14. Independent fuel marketers encourage mandatory inspection cycles of measurement devices as a means of increasing consumer confidence in our sector, and across the 40 sectors covered by this proposed legislation. While we agree in principle with the bill, we very much regret that the government has chosen to politicize what is intended to work in favour of consumers and retailers. Across Canada today, 72 per cent of the almost 13,000 gasoline stations are run by independents and individuals. They are privately owned and, even though you might see the banner of a large oil company, they are small businesses.
Senator Moore referred to it as a smear, and we agree. Our colleagues in Quebec agree. It is slanderous. It is clearly an attempt not to bolster or support the sector, but to play into the consumer concern about the grudge purchase they have to make almost on a weekly basis. None of us like to purchase gasoline, but we have to do it. We, as independent petroleum marketers, provide the essential competition that tries to keep prices as low as possible. In fact, independent petroleum marketers make less money when the price of gas goes up. Senator Ringuette will know that it is because of the fees that the credit card companies charge.
While we look forward to working with Industry Canada through the regulatory process, the Senate unfortunately has chosen to deal with this bill in one day. In our view, it requires more consideration than that. I suspect that none of the other sectors are aware that the bill is being dealt with today. We were not aware that it was before the committee. We had to make our way here today, as did our colleagues in Quebec. Many other sectors ultimately will be dealt with in this bill. I do not want to repeat this fact but of the 40 sectors covered under the bill, the retail gasoline sector is one of the highest in terms of compliance. If the intent is to protect consumers, why does the bill not deal with alcoholic beverages, for example, where there is 78-per-cent compliance, or retail supermarkets where there is a lower compliance rate? The government is doing it, we understand, because an election is coming. We understand from the literature that a certain Conservative Member of Parliament has put out that it is intended to politicize, and to suggest to consumers that there is widespread fraud in the sector, and that somehow 13,000 legitimate business people are taking out their wrenches and trying to commit fraud against the people of Canada. That is the farthest notion from the truth. These pumps are sophisticated devices and, when they fail, it is not because of deliberate, malicious intent on the part of the operator. They fail because of the volume of liquid that goes through the pumps, and they fail both in favour of consumers and in favour of retailers. Ultimately, we would like to see our devices being perfect, because it is in our interest to know how much gasoline we are purchasing and how much gasoline we are selling.
You can make jokes about the short title of this bill but, ultimately, it maligns a large sector of the retail community. We know that this bill will create a massive bureaucracy and the intent is good, but it will be costly to our members. We do not represent small members, but you will hear from those retailers in the future when they are required to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars to fly an inspector to some remote or rural gas station in Nova Scotia or Quebec or Ontario. We believe that the costs would be significantly higher for these small business people.
My other point in closing is that I recently had my home rewired. A very reputable company tore out all the knob and tube wiring and installed new wiring. The city sent in an inspector who found deficiencies. The company erred on the side of safety in my home. The important message is that an independent inspector came in and inspected the work. This bill allows the people who do the work, and we are not suggesting that they might tamper deliberately with the pump, to put the seal of inspection on the work. The government should be honest that you are not really providing integrity to the whole measurement process when you allow repair people to also certify the work they are doing. Those are my comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunziata. Do officials have any comments at this time or would you like to respond to questions?
Mr. Vinet: No.
Senator Harb: The unfairness of this whole thing is that the government representative is not sitting at the table. It is not fair for us to put officials in the awkward situation of answering a political question.
Senator Moore: The minister wrote it.
Senator Harb: Yes. The parliamentary secretary has gone on the record to say that it was the privy of the minister.
I want to say quickly that nowhere in the clause by clause is there any reference to the short title. I want to thank the delegation from Quebec for their intervention and Mr. Nunziata, who both confirmed that they have big trust in the sober second thought of senators and that the Senate will take the leadership action required and do the right thing.
Members of the lower house have a job to do — they have to run for political office. Senators do not have to run for office. They are appointed until the age of 75 years so they can do the right thing.
I hear both delegations telling us to do the right thing. They are telling us that, if the House of Commons has made a mistake, the Senate should correct it. I want to put that on the record. Thank you very much for appearing before us.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I did some quick calculations on the costs of adding 300 new people, from 1,800 inspectors to 2,100. I assumed an average salary of $50,000, as these people do have certain technical skills. I see additional costs of $90 million. So that is the cost the independents will have to pay. Could you paint us a picture of an independent, either in Montreal or here; basically, these are not stations that belong to multinationals, are they?
Independents are more often found in rural areas, where the quantities sold would require big investments by the multinationals, so the investment is left in the hands of local business people.
We are talking about $90 million, which I find to be a huge sum, and also about 1,800 jobs that will contribute nothing to the productivity of this country. Yes, they will have a job, and perhaps this is part of our colleagues' stimulus package. But if this is already being done in Quebec, and if we represent 25 per cent of the Canadian market, our bill is already 25 per cent too high because of the duplication.
Have the people in Quebec discussed this with the provincial authorities and what proposals have been made? Is there an agreement with the province of Quebec to transfer this process to federal authorities or are we in a situation where the independent, which you will be describing to me, will have to pay for two inspections?
Mr. Harnois: As we stated in our brief, what we want to avoid at all costs is a duplication of the standards we must comply with at provincial level, those administered by the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, and the new legislation.
Currently, we already have objectives to be achieved. We have to have inspections done at least once every two years, inspections that are supervised by a certified appraiser who comes to give us approval and provide us with our gas permit. These standards certainly include a calibration of the pumps carried out by inspectors approved by the Régie du bâtiment. With the new legislation, it is highly likely that the Measurement Canada inspection rules will change, they may be different. What we absolutely want to avoid is having two inspectors coming at different times; that would double our costs.
The new costs will be established according to the cost of accrediting the new inspectors so that they can work for Measurement Canada; how much extra will they charge because training costs have increased? Perhaps the number of inspectors will have decreased. We want to avoid any duplication that will increase costs. But it is difficult to see today what the costs increases will be.
The Chair: Mr. Vinet, how would you respond to the issue of duplication? And while you are at it, you may want to comment on Senator Hervieux-Payette's calculation of total costs.
Mr. Vinet: I am surprised to hear about any duplication. As I said earlier, in Quebec, the Régie du bâtiment's long document contains a small clause, which states that equipment must be calibrated every two years. We spoke with the Régie du bâtiment. You have to understand that the federal government has jurisdiction over the accuracy of measurements. No one at provincial level deals with measurement. Weights and measures are in federal jurisdiction, as set out in the Constitution. There are no duplication issues because provinces are not involved in the activity.
We spoke with the Régie du bâtiment, and they told us that they have no standards governing the calibration that must be done every two years pursuant to their regulations, the manner in which devices are tested, the equipment that must be used, or whether a standard is retraceable or correctly calibrated. Those things are not checked.
We compared the compliance rates of gas pumps in all provinces, including Quebec, and their rate is no higher than in other provinces.
In our view, the Régie du bâtiment focuses its efforts and requirements on the environment, ensuring that tanks do not leak. And one of the ways to ensure that is for devices to be calibrated every two years. But there will be no duplication. The Régie in Quebec accepts the accreditation of authorized Measurement Canada service providers. They are very pleased that the inspections conducted under Bill C-14 would help ensure compliance with the Régie du bâtiment's requirements.
That is why we are surprised, because we see no duplication of that kind. We are not quite sure how calibrations are performed under Quebec regulations.
As costs are often a concern, I would like to point out that, under the current program, if Measurement Canada were conducting the inspections, companies with measuring devices would have to hire service companies in order to ensure that their devices are properly calibrated. If an inspection finds that a device is not compliant, a company must call its service company back again in order to calibrate the device. So they cannot issue a certificate stating that the device is properly calibrated. At that point, we would have to go back. As you can imagine, that would be very ineffective. Bill C-14 provides that service providers approved by us will be able to do both calibrations and repairs, as well as to conduct the tests required to certify devices. This should greatly reduce costs, especially in remote areas, given that one organization can do everything at once.
As Ms. Roussy indicated, organizations and individuals who have things to hide regarding the integrity of their inspections will have a lot to lose, because they will be checked by us. If they do not do a good job, they can lose their accreditation, making it much more difficult for them to find work.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: A couple of weeks ago, CIPMA applauded the Prime Minister, as did many small businesses across the country. He announced the Red Tape Reduction Commission. I will read from the press release:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, accompanied by Rob Moore, Minister of State Small Business and Tourism), today announced the creation of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which will work to reduce the burden of federal regulatory requirements on Canadian enterprises, especially small- and medium-sized businesses.
``Small and medium-sized businesses are a critical driver of the Canadian economy,'' said the Prime Minister. ``This initiative will help ensure that they can grow, prosper and create jobs without being impeded by unnecessary government regulations.''
We applaud the Prime Minister, but this bill is diametrically opposed to the objectives that he announced a couple of weeks ago. It will simply layer additional bureaucracy. If you think the gun registry was a massive bureaucracy, you will have to register every gasoline pump and every measuring device in this country. You will have a database of over 1 million devices, and all these inspectors will have to write down and submit reports to some bureaucracy here in Ottawa.
To a large extent, with this bill you are doing things that the Prime Minister is trying to avoid with his Red Tape Reduction Commission.
The Chair: Thank you for your opinion on that.
Mr. Vinet: I will reply briefly because I understand time is short.
Device owners will not have to register their devices. Again, this work will be done by companies that they will hire. They will select who they want to hire to do the service and the inspection. Because it will be private organizations, they will be able to have inspection services on weekends and at night, which is much easier than having government inspectors.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I want to make sure I really understand the status of the inspectors. If I understood what Mr. Nunziata said, the experience he had in the electricity sector can be something that can occur elsewhere. How frequently will you check the inspectors in order to ensure fairness and demonstrable credibility?
[English]
Mr. Vinet: We have a program right now. We are doing inspections after, without them knowing; we go out and perform inspections after they do inspections. We audit their work and make sure they are competent.
They will be monitored closely. We realize it will be important for Measurement Canada to have a strong monitoring of these organizations. Our intent is to continue to do that and reinforce it, if we have to, because that is key here.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Vinet, you said that you had 40,000 inspections. How many inspectors do you have for inspecting the inspectors?
Mr. Vinet: At present, we have about 130 inspectors looking after the Weights and Measures Act, the act on electricity and gas and oversight of organizations.
Senator Ringuette: Clearly, I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one, I am a rather down-to-earth person — and I do not want to insult my colleagues who are members of one bar association or another — but according to your testimony, this is about the short title damaging your members' reputation. As a result of this damage, there may also be a financial issue. This is the first time that I have seen a bill with a title that could result in damages and costs for defamation of an entire industry by the federal government.
The Chair: Do you want our witnesses from Montreal to comment?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, of course, as well as Mr. Nunziata.
Mr. Blouin: You are doing clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. When you look at each of the clauses of the bill, nowhere is there any mention of the oil and gas sector. The bill is general in nature. For example, clause 16.1 says, ``The Minister shall ensure that, for each particular sector, all persons designated are trained and qualified . . .,'' and so on.
The entire bill is drafted that way. Nothing logically leads us to conclude that the bill would target gas retailers; it does not do so. It is all the more insulting for us, and we are afraid that the public will start singling out gas retailers as fraudsters, whereas, when Measures Canada did a study, they realized that gas retailers have instruments that are among the most accurate in Canada. That is why we are calling on senators today to take action to amend the title, which really does not make sense, and to ensure that no one is treated unfairly and unjustly because this bill is passed.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: I want to reiterate that CIPMA supports the principles of this bill. It is in everyone's interest to have accurate measurement.
Very few Canadians will ever look at the legislation or even the short title. What concerns us is what the government intends to do once this bill is passed. Senator Harb has a copy of the householder that will go into each Canadian household.
The taxpayers are footing the bill and we are being slandered, maligned and libelled. There is a suggestion there that some sort of massive fraud is happening with gas station operators across the country. That is our concern.
The bill itself is not our concern. Rather, we are concerned with what politicians in an election campaign intend to do with that piece of legislation. Something that should be in the best interests of Canadian in a decent way has been politicized. What has been done by maligning our sector is indecent.
The Chair: We have exhausted our list of questioners and we have one more piece of business to do.
We will have a short adjournment before proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
[Translation]
I would like to express the committee's sincerest thanks to our guests from Montreal; thank you for your very clear and precise presentation. I think that everyone has a clear understanding.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata, thank you for appearing. I am glad we found a few minutes to fit you in. I will have to send you particular notice of every bill that comes before our committee, as soon as it is referred, so you are not caught at the last minute.
To our officials, I know it is not always easy to answer our questions in a ``non-politicized'' way, which is your job and your duty. You have done excellent service today. Thank you for your testimony.
Senator Ringuette: I have a motion.
The Chair: You have a motion.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I move that we do not proceed to do clause by clause but rather move in camera to consider a draft report.
[Translation]
Let me repeat: I move that we do not proceed now to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, but rather we move in camera to consider a draft report.
The Chair: Before we do that, I suggest we excuse our witnesses.
Thank you to all our witnesses. You are free to leave; we are then going to discuss the motion moved by Senator Ringuette.
[English]
Senator Ringuette has proposed that we go in camera. If her motion passes, we will go in camera and that will mean some people will leave. We are still on the record, in public. Do you have an intervention, Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: I want to go on record that I object to this motion. Senator Meighen made a very good declaration in our house last week, saying that once the bill receives second reading it must go to clause by clause. I agree with his reasoning.
He made two other comments and he actually referred to a ruling by the Speaker, saying you cannot go off record to discuss a draft report. The draft report is intended for reports from our staff or for discussion, not for significant new reports being proposed.
Therefore, I think that approach is inconsistent with Senate rules and I object to it.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments before I put the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Question.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly understand Senator Massicotte's point of view. I must admit that I share it because it takes away the practices that have always occurred here.
However, due to this morning's witnesses and their very sustained questioning of the bill, I think that we need to move in camera to discuss the reporting of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you. Please be brief, Senator Harb
Senator Harb: After hearing the witnesses, my concern is whether there is a legal implication as to whether either one of those organizations may decide to go and challenge the government in court.
The only merit to go in camera and discuss is that we would probably reach an opinion as to whether we are subjecting the Crown to liability that can amount to millions or billions of dollars by singling out one sector at the expense of others. I have not spoken with my colleague, as I just saw the motion now, but that is probably the rationale for why she is proposing her motion. If that is the case, I will go along with it.
The Chair: A lot of legislation could theoretically expose the Crown to liability.
I will put forward the motion by Senator Ringuette: I move that we do not proceed by clause by clause by but rather move in camera to consider a draft report.
[Translation]
I move that we do not proceed now to clause-by-clause consideration, but rather that we move in camera to consider a draft report.
All of those in favour will please raise their hands.
All of those opposed will please raise their hands.
[English]
Four, eight. I declare the motion defeated eight to four and we will now proceed to clause by clause.
Senator Massicotte: The minutes will record my objection to the rules — anti-Senate rules.
The Chair: Yes.
All right. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Senator Ringuette: Absolutely.
Senator Harb: Definitely.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I hear Senator Harb's voice but no one else's.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?
Senator Moore: Yes.
The Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 18 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 19 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?
Senator Moore: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 21 carry?
Senator Ringuette: We do not seem to have anyone on the Conservative side agreeing. They do not seem to be saying anything.
Senator Gerstein: — clauses except the title.
The Chair: Shall clause 21 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 22 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 24 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 25 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 26 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 27 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 28 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 30 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Harb: Can we have debate on that?
The Chair: I think we have debated on that. I really do. I think you have been very eloquent.
Ms. Gravel: On division?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No, I think we can make a proposal, no?
The Chair: I thought we had a proposal from Senator Ringuette.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No, the proposal of another title. I would like to propose an amendment. Instead of the short title it should be —
[Translation]
— la Loi sur l'équité des poids et mesures in French.
The Chair: And in English?
[English]
Fairness in weights and measures.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am inspired by Senator Kochhar, so I thought he had the right point and, in all fairness, this bill has not been modified for the last 30 years, so I guess we can do that before the end of the session, and it would be certainly fair and my conscience would feel a lot better to all those players in that sector.
The Chair: Then the motion amendment has been proposed by Senator Hervieux-Payette.
Senator Massicotte: I was so moved by Senator Kochhar — I am sure we will hear this — you should go into politics actually.
Senator Kochhar: There are a lot of things that are not right.
The Chair: The motion is on the floor, colleagues.
Senator Ringuette: The amendment.
The Chair: The amendment; thank you, Senator Ringuette.
All those in favour would please so signify.
Senator Ringuette: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ringuette: Can we have a written —
The Chair: Do you want a recorded vote?
Senator Ringuette: Absolutely.
The Chair: All right, I am an agreeable fellow.
Senator Ringuette: Good.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are now proceeding to a roll vote on the proposed amendment. The clerk of the committee will call members' names, beginning with the chair, and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain. The clerk will then announce the results of the vote, and it is my duty as chair to declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
[Translation]
The Chair: Would you like me to read it in French?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No, that is fine, but what exactly are we voting on at this point?
The Chair: On the amendment.
[English]
Reread Senator Hervieux-Payette's motion?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That we amend the short title.
[Translation]
— by the following text, in French: La loi sur l'équité des poids et mesures.
[English]
Or in English.
The Chair: The law on fairness of weights and measures.
Senator Moore: It describes what it is.
Senator Harb: That is exactly what it is.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Meighen.
The Chair: Against.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Gerstein.
Senator Gerstein: Against.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Greene.
Senator Greene: Against.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Harb.
Senator Harb: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: For.
[English]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Kochhar.
Senator Kochhar: Against.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Against.
[Translation]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: For.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Against.
[English]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: For.
[Translation]
The Clerk: The Honourable Senator Ringuette.
Senator Ringuette: For.
[English]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Smith.
Senator L. Smith: Against.
Ms. Gravel: Nays 7, yeas 5.
The Chair: Then I declare the amendment defeated.
We shall now vote on the short title in clause 1.
Senator Harb: We want the title to continue but remove the short title.
The Chair: The next question I will put to you is, ``shall the title carry,'' but first we must decide whether the short title in clause 1 carries.
Senator Harb: Okay.
The Chair: Do you wish a recorded vote?
Senator Harb: It is quite clear, yes, to remove the short title to ensure fairness.
Senator Ringuette: That is another amendment.
The Chair: No, that is yes or no.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, it is an amendment.
Senator Harb: No, no, it is a removal. That is a no. Voting against it.
The Chair: It is yes or no, shall the short title in clause 1 carry; if we defeat, it there is no short title.
Senator Harb: No short title, just a real title, which makes a lot of sense and that is why the Senate is here, so we can do what is fair, what is right.
The Chair: The same procedure applies. Need I repeat the instructions or the rules for a recorded vote? I just did it a moment ago.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is okay.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Meighen.
The Chair: Against — no, I should say, no.
Ms. Gravel: The question is?
The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 carry?
Senator Ringuette: You should be saying ``yes.''
Senator Harb: No, no, he is voting as he should.
The Chair: You are right; thank you.
Ms. Gravel: The honourable senator —
The Chair: The short title shall carry in my view. Thank you.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Gerstein.
Senator Gerstein: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Greene.
Senator Greene: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Harb.
Senator Harb: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No.
[English]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Kochhar.
Senator Kochhar: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: No.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Ringuette.
Senator Ringuette: No.
[English]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Smith.
Senator L. Smith: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: Nays 5; yeas 7.
The Chair: Then I declare the clause carried.
Shall the title carry?
An Hon. Senator: Title, yes.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I will report this bill to the Senate?
Senator Harb: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your excellent expression of differing views. I think it is very useful.
If there is no other business to bring before us, we will declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)