THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy met with videoconference this day at 10:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations.
[English]
Matthieu Boulianne, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Senators, good morning. As clerk of the committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of our chair, the Honourable Senator Gignac, and to preside over the election of an acting chair for the purpose of this meeting. I’m ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Are there any nominations?
Senator Loffreda: I nominate Senator Ringuette to be acting chair.
Mr. Boulianne: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Loffreda that the Honourable Senator Ringuette take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Boulianne: I declare the motion carried. I invite Senator Ringuette to take the chair.
Senator Pierrette Ringuette (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: My name is Pierrette Ringuette. I’m a senator from New Brunswick. I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy.
Before moving forward, I ask my colleagues to kindly introduce themselves.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda, Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Sandra Pupatello, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: Colleagues, we received an order of reference from the Senate on November 27, 2025, authorizing this committee to examine and report on Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations.
[English]
Today’s meeting will be divided into two panels, starting with a short introduction from the sponsor of Bill S-3, who is none other than the vice-chair of this committee, Senator Varone.
He will be accompanied by officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, as well as Measurement Canada, an agency of ISED.
[Translation]
We are welcoming: Etienne-René Massie, Assistant Deputy Minister, Small Business and Tourism Marketplace Services; Anne-Marie Monteith, President, Measurement Canada; and Nathalie Campeau, Vice President, Weights and Measures, Measurement Canada. We are also hearing from Gayatri Shankarraman, Vice President, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs, from Measurement Canada. We have 60 minutes for this first panel.
[English]
Senator Varone, you may start with your statement.
Hon. Toni Varone, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for this opportunity to address you as the sponsor of Bill S-3.
Trade measurement touches the lives of each Canadian. Whether we’re fuelling our cars, buying fruits and vegetables at the grocery store or paying our electricity bills, we all rely on accurate and reliable measurement.
Financial transactions based on measurement occur in virtually all major industries throughout the commercial and retail supply chains. The accuracy of devices used to buy and sell goods based on measurement has a direct impact on the pockets of all Canadians.
The government’s responsibility for the trade and measurement laws and requirements governing the accuracy and reliability of the purchase and sale of measured goods is grounded in the Constitution Act of 1867. These laws are essential to the fair, efficient and competitive operation of the marketplace and contribute to a strong and resilient economy.
Measurement Canada, an agency of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, is responsible for administering and enforcing Canada’s trade measurement laws and requirements from coast to coast to coast. As part of its legislative mandate, the agency evaluates and approves scales, gas pumps, electricity and natural gas meters, electric vehicle chargers and other measuring devices for use in Canada, and tests and certifies the accuracy of these devices once they are installed in the marketplace.
The agency also calibrates and certifies the physical test standards used to certify devices, investigates business and consumer complaints of suspected inaccurate measurement and recognizes private sector organizations to test and certify measuring devices.
The laws governing the accuracy and reliability of the purchase and sale of measured goods have served consumers and businesses well for many decades. However, they have not kept pace with the current market environment and today’s digital age. The last substantial update was in the 1980s, at a time when the predominant measurement technologies were mechanical and transactions were analogue and paper-based. They came into effect before the internet, before mobile and wireless technologies became the predominant ways that businesses and their customers interact.
As such, the current laws are not well adapted to increasingly automated, software or digitally enabled measurement systems. The current legislative framework for trade measurement reflects the time in which it was created. It is static, prescriptive, overly complex and burdensome. Compliance and enforcement tools are limited and tend to be punitive rather than preventative. They are not scalable to reflect the impact of non-compliance, resulting in penalties that are not always suitable to the offence.
Digital technologies are fundamental to the way businesses and consumers interact in the marketplace, and the pace of technology development continues to shorten product life cycles. Trade measurement laws governing financial transactions should reflect this, namely, in the purchase and sale of measured goods, and protect consumers and businesses. The prevention of loss due to inaccurate measurement and unfair business practices is essential. At the same time, encouraging innovation, improving timely access to advances in measurement technologies and increasing businesses’ ability to adapt to marketplace evolutions and customer preferences are also essential.
This bill amends the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act with the goal of modernizing Canada’s trade measurement framework to address these challenges. The proposed legislative changes would create a framework that would reduce barriers and regulatory burdens for business while increasing protections for consumers. These amendments would better regulate trade measurement not just for the present but for a future that is rapidly evolving.
With that, I look forward to a robust discussion. I will do my best to answer your questions from my personal understanding of the bill, but we will be joined by technical experts from the government who can impart their expertise. I’m certain they will be able to answer all the questions you may have. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Senator Varone, thank you. Do our witnesses have short statements?
[Translation]
Etienne-René Massie, Assistant Deputy Minister, Small Business and Tourism Marketplace Services, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair. I had a short presentation, but I must admit that your colleague Senator Varone used a lot of words from it. If I may, I will take a few minutes to define a few examples of the modernization of the act.
The Acting Chair: Please go ahead.
[English]
Mr. Massie: Let me start by providing a few words about Measurement Canada, which is responsible for administering the two statutes that are a part of Bill S-3.
Measurement Canada is responsible for ensuring the accurate measurement of goods that are bought and sold in the Canadian market, essentially ensuring that Canadians get what they pay for. The agency does this by administering the acts, approving and inspecting measuring devices and investigating complaints.
Measurement Canada also accredits service providers that assist with that inspection across the country.
[Translation]
As the senator said, our acts were designed for a pre-internet, pre-mobile technologies and pre-AI marketplace. Their prescriptive nature, rooted in approaches used in the 1980s, does not allow for proactive prevention of non-compliance or the use of flexible approaches to ensure trade measurement accuracy.
Our bill proposes to modernize Canada’s trade measurement legislative framework. It introduces amendments to facilitate regulatory oversight that protects businesses and consumers, while leveraging modern approaches and aligning Canada’s framework with international schemes.
[English]
Some examples include proposed amendments allowing inspectors to use sampling to certify measurement devices under the Weights and Measures Act. By way of illustration, instead of inspecting all 25 front-end checkout scales at a grocery store individually, an inspector could inspect a smaller, randomly selected number. If the scales in the sample measure accurately, then we would certify the 25 scales.
The use of sampling would expedite inspections and reduce administrative and compliance costs for the businesses, and the use of sampling to certify meters is already permitted under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and works well.
Introducing scale to our requirements based on the circumstances in which an electricity meter is used is another example. This would reduce the compliance and administrative requirements for small businesses such as campground operators, who are currently required to meet the same requirements as large energy utilities if they charge for the amount of electricity used by customers. Appropriate safeguards and customer protections will be put in place.
Finally, amendments to the Weights and Measures Act would allow the minister to issue temporary permissions for the use of novel technologies without approval or inspection under specified conditions. This would expedite the introduction of innovative devices into the marketplace, allowing industry to test their performance in actual operating conditions. Safeguards would be employed to ensure customers receive accurate measures, and there would be a requirement that devices under these temporary permissions meet all legal requirements after a set period.
As I mentioned earlier, Bill S-3 proposes to modernize the trade measurement framework in Canada. One of the ways that is being proposed is to allow virtual inspections. Amendments would help businesses in difficult-to-reach locations, such as the northern areas of provinces and territories, by allowing the use of telecommunications and digital approaches to perform those inspections. For example, scales could be inspected remotely without the physical presence of an inspector by creating a “digital twin” of the device.
[Translation]
Overall, the amendments proposed in Bill S-3 would encourage innovation, reduce red tape and keep Canada aligned with international best practices.
They would make trade measurement requirements more results-based, supporting industry’s ability to adapt to marketplace changes and customer preferences, while ensuring the accuracy and reliability of these transactions. Thank you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Massie.
[English]
We will proceed with the first round of questioning. We have five minutes.
Senator C. Deacon: I want to reach back to 2022, a time when Measurement Canada had not updated the way we sell electricity. I just wanted to look at that because I want to look at whether or not we are solving this problem. At that point, we had given about $1.5 billion worth of support for EV charging stations and subsidies for EVs, but we had never changed the measurement standard to allow the private sector — non-provincially regulated utilities — to sell power in kilowatt hours. They could only sell it in hours. That meant that a fast-charging Tesla was being subsidized by a slow-charging LEAF. It made no market sense.
When we raised this with regard to Bill S-6 in 2022, the regulatory modernization act, I was flabbergasted that it still took until November, I think, when a special dispensation was put in place.
Can you explain to me how, in the Department of Innovation, that was not a priority within your department, or resolved within the appropriate time? Was there no political will or political concern?
Do you now have the authority to move ahead without political will or concern? It flabbergasted me that we did not deal with this in advance, and it still took another six months after we raised the issue for a special dispensation to be put in place.
Ms. Monteith and Mr. Massie, could you speak to whether this bill really does solve the problem?
Anne-Marie Monteith, President, Measurement Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Thank you for the question. You are correct. Initially, when charging stations were first introduced, the charging could be done in a flat-rate, time-based manner or it could be done by kilowatt hour, which is an amount of energy consumed in a certain amount of time. Measurement Canada’s mandate only extends to the kilowatt hour because that is the amount of energy consumed.
Since then, this has been the trend in which industry has been going, which is more and more kilowatt hour, because it is more accurate and fairer for customers.
The temporary dispensation program was introduced for electric vehicle supply equipment, or EVSE. This bill would actually provide authority to introduce temporary permissions for type approval for new technologies. At the time, we had to seek legal advice. They advised that, through a temporary dispensation program with temporary terms and conditions, we could put in place a framework to allow this to happen. Bill S-3 is a step in the right direction.
Why did it take six months at the time? It was probably ensuring that due diligence was carried out and the appropriate framework was put in place, and it was accelerated as much as possible, I’m sure, to deal with the pressures from customers.
Senator C. Deacon: I would love to hear, Mr. Massie, your perspective at a higher leadership position.
My concern is that it wasn’t something that was done in parallel with the subsidies. There was no consideration. I can’t figure out how it wasn’t a concern. Mr. Massie, maybe you would be better positioned to respond.
Mr. Massie: Sure. Thank you very much for the question.
Definitely, when the government made significant investments in EVSE, we were also looking at the requirement for charging infrastructure and supporting the marketplace. The marketplace was nascent in Canada as well and nascent around the world in trying to understand the technology. We would work, and we continue to work, with international partners to make sure that we are aligned with the technology and our approaches.
Why was there a difference and a discrepancy of six months back then? We can go back and look more closely for the exact answer, but as Ms. Monteith mentioned, there were technical standards, and we wanted to ensure we were aligned on that front.
Senator C. Deacon: To be clear, my concern is that it wasn’t ever raised in the department, it appears. It was only when it was raised in the Senate that it eventually became an issue. The Department of Innovation should be a department, I would expect, that is really business focused, if there is one in the Government of Canada. That is my concern. I want to ensure this bill addresses those sorts of issues, and that we’re not letting the plumbing fall behind the investments that we’re making. This is a place where we have very much let that happen.
Mr. Massie: I can note that, when the government was working on the EVSE project, we were working in parallel with our colleagues to try to work on that element. I agree with you that there was a discrepancy on when we came on board. We will continue to work on it. Those are also elements as we work on technologies that we want to make sure of, and the temporary dispensation and the measures in the bill will actually give us more flexibility going forward when new technologies show up on the marketplace to be more proactive and follow industry in enabling them to use those technologies in the marketplace with temporary dispensations.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Massie.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Senator Varone and Mr. Massie, for your insightful comments.
Senator Varone, you did mention that the current Electricity and Gas Inspection Act dates back to 1980. We need the change, and it is important we pass it. Hopefully, the current Bill S-3 does reflect all of the challenges of the current marketplace. If it does not, I invite any of the panellists to address those concerns, and I say that because, in clause 44, it proposes a statutory review of the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to be extended from 5 years to 10 years.
My question is this: Given today’s environment and how quickly technology advances, the changes day to day, why is it 5 to 10 years? I often say perception is reality, and when I read that — 5 to 10 years — are we looking at reviewing this in another 50 years?
Mr. Massie: Thank you for the question, senator. A statutory review is important, and it is important to bring these bills back for consideration on a more regular basis, as opposed to doing it from 1980 to 2026, as we are today.
The 10-year statutory review aligns with other pieces of legislation that we have. We have also built in additional flexibilities in this bill that will allow us to make some changes more proactively. I agree with you; however, that technology is moving very quickly. We have through our legislation — I will invite others to comment — given ourselves the margin of manoeuvrability to enable us to introduce changes and allow for dispensations when new technologies show up on the marketplace.
Ms. Monteith: I can add that this would also require that, following a review every 10 years, a report would be presented to Parliament.
Senator Loffreda: It’s always easy to say this, and often we hear about the stakeholders, but it’s an important element of every bill. Were they consulted? Were all of their concerns addressed; if not, which concerns were not addressed? Do you feel comfortable going forward with Bill S-3 if some of those concerns were not addressed? Which ones would be most affected?
Ms. Monteith: Thank you for the question. I will invite Ms. Shankarraman to respond.
Gayatri Shankarraman, Vice President, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Measurement Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Sure. We did consult broadly in 2022, in a formal consultation through our website. Outreach to all our stakeholders happened between February and March online, but we also met with our stakeholders bilaterally, for example, Electricity Canada and the Canadian Gas Association, to hear their specific concerns as well. For the most part, all or most of their concerns are addressed.
The goal of the modernization was not to review the acts totally. It wasn’t a total review or rewrite of the acts. It was to modernize the acts for actually what you mentioned, to ensure we can anticipate innovations, changes in technology, and have wording in the law that would address our ability to adapt to that and to ensure that the law is still applicable.
One thing discussed was the legal units of measurement, for example. We do use the international standard units of measurement. We also have the derivatives: the Canadian units of measurement.
Industry uses different ways to measure different technologies that they devise on their own and that are not recognized. As long as it is recognized by Measurement Canada, it can be added to the list of legal units of measurement. We did not think it was necessary to change legislation for that. There is an ability to update the legal units of measurement through Orders-in-Council. That was the main thing that we did not address. Other than that, industry and our stakeholders were in agreement that we are moving in the right direction, and it does address their concerns.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Senator Varone, could you outline the expected timeline for implementation of the new regulatory requirements, and how the government plans to support stakeholders during the transition, especially those who might incur compliance costs?
Senator Varone: Are you asking about when it is going to come through the Senate and then through the House? This is generally considered to be a housekeeping matter. They don’t expect a lot of resistance in making these amendments here, then bringing it to the House and then introducing it there and getting it wrapped up. The implementation thereafter becomes something that the bureaucrats will address. I will turn that part of the question over to them.
Mr. Massie: Thank you for the question. Once the legislation is passed, should it be passed in both houses of Parliament, that will launch a fairly thorough exercise of reviewing all of our existing regulations to align our regulations with the new provisions of the legislation. Through the regulatory process, as we have done for this bill, we will do a lot of engagement with stakeholders. There will also be, as part of the regulatory process, an opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback in that process to enable us to come back with the final regulation for consideration by the Governor-in-Council.
On compliance costs, we are very much aware of compliance costs. We are very much aware of small-business costs. Measurement Canada sits within my sector, which is responsible for small business policy. We do look at those interactions on a continuous basis. We will look to minimize, as we can, understanding that, as technology advances, the industry makes a lot of investment as well in technology on that front.
We are trying to align our approaches. Ms. Monteith can add to this, but we are trying to align our approaches to the North American market and through the international market, working through the international organization that is responsible for legal metrology.
Senator McBean: Increasingly, is aligning only with the North American market becoming a little problematic? Should we not also be looking more globally?
Mr. Massie: We are looking very much globally. We work very closely with the International Legal Organization of Metrology, or OIML. We have to make sure that we align with their established standards, that we bring their standards into Canada, to ensure that the European, Asian and North American markets all look at that international organization to ensure there is commonality in the standards. I invite others to comment.
Ms. Monteith: A good example of this is the work OIML is doing on EVSE, which is electric vehicle supply equipment, also known as EV charging stations. This is a new technology. It is a little bit different from past measuring devices in the sense that it incorporates a lot of software. Some manufacturers have built in displays that are embedded in the vehicle themselves, which presents new challenges in terms of ensuring compliance with existing requirements.
Those standards are currently in development. The international organization has provided international guidance. Measurement Canada was one of the members of a small working group that helped develop these standards.
The European Union has recently published its own updated Measuring Instruments Directive with these EVSE standards. We have been consulting, and our objective would be to align fully with these international best practices.
Senator McBean: I have the same question then. Will this same ability to implement this be prohibitive or easy for the small and medium enterprises that need to update their measurement systems?
Ms. Monteith: We want the new requirements to be implemented while trying to have minimal impact on the current marketplace. As a regulator, we often face situations where measuring devices have been introduced through conditional requirements or provisionally. We’ve been able to observe them in the marketplace, in the environment, to adjust for specifications in line with these final specifications. We take into account the lifetime of these measuring devices. They have a life cycle of 5, 10 or 15 years. We would put in as a requirement that full compliance would be expected when they are next replaced in the future. That’s one way of doing it, but we are very aware of the costs to businesses and to manufacturers if they need to replace something on short notice.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Varone, for sponsoring this bill. I feel I’m in a bit of a time warp here. Do I have to get rid of my measuring tape that is in inches, feet and centimetres? That is tongue-in-cheek. Listen, I guess the most interesting way of looking at this from a consumer’s perspective is that we know that there is a huge debate about the cost of living. Everything is very expensive right now. Accurate measurements are very important for people if you are buying something. If it is a kilogram, you want it to be a kilogram, not less, not more, but actually what you are paying for.
In the context of updating the measurement system to ensure it is more accurate in reflecting what is already a reality, what are the penalties for a franchise that does not meet the obligation of providing accurate measurement for the goods that they are providing to consumers? How do we hold them accountable? Will those rules be looked at when the regulations are updated? Or will they be currently maintained as they are in the context? I ask because a lot of what the consumers relate to is what they have to pay. There have been a number of investigative pieces by the CBC where they’ve gone into supermarkets and you can see the falsehood that consumers are paying for. It is not accurate. Maybe you can start there and enlighten me as to what the regulations might look like.
Ms. Monteith: I will start by saying that Bill S-3 would introduce a provision on preventative control plans. It is a framework to help work with businesses that have been non-compliant in the past to try to make sure they are fully aware of the requirements and ensure better compliance in the future.
We also have an enforcement policy to make sure we have a system of inspectors who monitor the marketplace and take appropriate measures in cases of non-compliance. I will invite my colleague to speak briefly about that enforcement policy.
Nathalie Campeau, Vice President, Weights and Measures, Measurement Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: In terms of the enforcement policy, we do have progressive enforcement with traders. We start by educating them about their requirements under the act and regulations. Then we move to progressively include more incentives to ensure compliance. Currently, we do have seizure; so we can seize the device. We have the authority to do that currently and also to address non-compliance with monetary penalties. This is what you referred to. That can vary from $500 to $1,000 per day, per non-compliance, as an example.
The preventative measures that Ms. Monteith discussed about the new provisions will be an intermediary measure to help us work with the traders to bring them into compliance. As an example, we could work with them to request a preventative control plan on the maintenance of the device, or also calibration practices, to ensure that they maintain good compliance throughout the life cycle of the device.
Mr. Massie: I would add that our inspectors are there and will investigate any complaints that we receive from Canadians or organizations. Sometimes the transactions are between businesses, so one business will raise a concern about another business’s practices.
When there is a measurement accuracy element, we will dispatch inspectors to go and confirm if that measurement device is defective or not properly measuring. As Nathalie said, we then work through our enforcement policy with the owner of that device to move it back to compliance.
Senator Yussuff: Coming back to the gas and electricity sectors, which, as consumers we all deal with on a regular basis, I notice there are some provisions in lag and when they will have to meet their obligations. Is the requirement for gas and electricity being seen through a different lens in regard to their obligations as to how they provide a retail transaction to consumers?
Ms. Monteith: The enforcement policy is similar for the weights and measures and the electricity and gas sides. For electricity meters, for example, generally, the rate of compliance is very high, or there is catastrophic failure, and it is quite evident that the meter is not working. So the reliability of these devices is actually quite high. In the case of a complaint, we would send an inspector to look at the accuracy of the meter. They would not get involved in any dispute settlement, but they can attest to whether the meter is measuring accurately.
Senator Yussuff: Would that be the same for gas?
Ms. Monteith: It would be the same for gas.
Senator Marshall: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I was surprised when Senator Varone said it has been 40 years since there have been major amendments to the legislation. I am very concerned about the 10-year time frame that is outlined in clause 44. It talks about a review once every 10 years. Will the report be out every year, or will the report be in year 10?
Mr. Massie: Thank you for the question. When we conduct a legislative review, we would work, as proposed currently in the bill, on a 10-year cycle, and then we would prepare a report based on that legislative review. I will say that Measurement Canada has gotten into the practice as well with annual reports that we publish online that report back on our business and the different elements we do as well. So there is also that transparency through annual reports that we publish.
Senator Marshall: But it is not specific to this legislation?
Mr. Massie: The statutory review report would only be after that 10-year mark.
Senator Marshall: I won’t ask why you are extending it to a 10-year cycle. The review that will be carried out once every 10 years — who carries out the review? There is very little information in that clause. It talks about a review, but it doesn’t say anything with regard to what the review is going to cover, so it leaves the impression that it could be a very superficial review. Why is it so general? Why is there not more specific information with regard to what is going to be covered in the report and what the review will cover?
Also, it is a 10-year report, so we have to wait 10 years, but then it says that the minister has 15 days to table it, after waiting 10 years. I’m just disappointed in that section on the reporting and the review. Who is going to do the review?
Ms. Shankarraman: The obligation to do the review is on the minister, so our department: the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The review is conducted by the department just like it was done this time.
Senator Marshall: Okay. So it is not an external review?
Ms. Shankarraman: No. It is a review of the act to, again, see how relevant it is, what is working, what is not working and what needs to be amended. That is the purpose of reviews of acts.
Senator Marshall: But it is not an independent review?
Ms. Shankarraman: No.
Senator Marshall: Are there consultations?
Ms. Shankarraman: Of course.
Senator Marshall: Okay. I was disappointed with that section, but I do have one last question.
Was the Canadian Federation of Independent Business consulted? I think some of their members would certainly be impacted. Were they consulted?
Ms. Shankarraman: I can recall that the Consumers Council of Canada was consulted, but I would have to get back to you on the list.
Senator Marshall: Yes, I would like to know, because they would be impacted. Those are my questions.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for being here this morning in such large numbers. I was at the technical briefing and I recognize parts of it. I have two questions. Four or five pages of the bill focus on the power of inspectors, first in the first act and especially in the second act. Why are there currently problems with inspectors’ powers? Were there any impediments? What is the problem you’re trying to solve here?
Ms. Campeau: There are few problems, but, on a number of occasions, inspectors have had to clarify the authority to enter. That authority to enter has been clarified primarily for telecommunications. As we mentioned in the opening remarks, it’s about making sure the system and applications can be accessed remotely. This will help the situation. Or, for example, the definition of a vehicle has been clarified. Some provisions exist to clearly identify the authority to enter.
Senator Dalphond: Inspectors couldn’t take photographs before?
Ms. Campeau: They had to ask permission to take photographs.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that the definition of place does not include the residence; judicial authorization is required for the residence.
Ms. Campeau: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: My second question is about temporary permissions.
The minister may permit a trader to use a system on a temporary basis. Why is that power being given to the minister and not to the president? What falls somewhere between the president and the minister? This seems to be a very operational issue.
Ms. Monteith: I could clarify that. Essentially, certain ministerial powers can be delegated to the president and even to the vice presidents when the matter is operational. Typically, these are cases consisting of a lot of transactions in terms of volumes and the complexity of decisions; it’s quite routine, actually, as a decision. So it’s the minister’s choice, and the minister can decide to delegate powers to the president.
Mr. Massie: I would add that, when projects are drafted from afar, it’s a way of granting the minister power. There is a delegation instrument within the department to delegate that power. Traditionally, in our department, the power has always been delegated to the president of Measurement Canada and then subdelegated to the right level within the workforce of Measurement Canada to enable them to do their work.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that the minister is not going to issue temporary permissions, but I hope she will delegate this power to focus on more important things, as Minister of Industry, under the current circumstances. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Varone: One of the new inspector powers that I thought was very relevant was the use of telecommunication, such as electronic and digital means of inspection, which did not exist in the 1980s. That will really ramp up the ability of inspectors to do more in a wider bandwidth.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: I’ll take a moment to apologize for being late; I was at another committee. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. My question is about cybersecurity.
With the digitization of measurement devices, how does Bill S-3 take into account cybersecurity risks that could have economic or operational consequences for businesses?
Ms. Monteith: We are very aware of cybersecurity risks. In the department, we need databases and the information Measurement Canada has. So everything complies with the requirements of cybersecurity laws and policy.
As far as databases go, with the digitization of our inspection processes, we are definitely building new applications — in fact, there is a new one that should be completed this year for electricity and gas inspections. All data collected will be retained and will comply with our policies on access to information and privacy legislation.
For measurement devices themselves, we are seeing more and more digitization of functions; relevant consultations have been held recently on ways to assess metrological components, those that relate to measurement in software that is part of a measurement device.
The issue of cybersecurity came up during the consultations; we’ll look at it more closely, but it would be a matter of, for example, putting in place a rapid response process within Measurement Canada if a software security breach in a measurement device occurred, so that the manufacturer can immediately update the software and remedy the problem, and do so very quickly by notifying Measurement Canada so that we are also aware.
A whole consultation system currently exists that will be used to put these guidelines in place.
Senator Henkel: Do you have an idea of how long it will take to put all this in place, as it is very important for businesses in general and for everyone?
Ms. Monteith: I think that, since we already have a lot of digital information, some measures have already been put in place, and we’ll probably clarify them through administrative policies.
Senator Henkel: Bill S-3 modernizes the trade measurement framework, which may result in new technical and administrative requirements that are much more difficult for both SMEs and large businesses to absorb.
What concrete assistance and support measures are planned to help SMEs understand this new framework, but also comply with it?
Ms. Monteith: When it comes to the implementation of measuring devices, SMEs work primarily in the weights and measures sector. For electricity and gas, we’re talking about larger companies. In terms of our engagement with SMEs, we are raising awareness of Measurement Canada’s requirements.
I would say that the bill seeks to clarify certain measures and to clarify terminology. In particular, it gives new powers to inspectors that will enable us, in many cases, to reduce the administrative burden on these SMEs.
Weights and measures sampling, for example, would help us speed up the inspection of a batch of equipment. In that case, the burden would be reduced, not increased.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Thank you for coming today. I am delighted to see the modernization of these measures moving forward, and I hope that we will see more on a regular basis. I am curious to know who and where are the people involved in the conversation of globalizing the standards. That would give our businesses more opportunities for more global trade, for example.
In the old days, a Chevy could only take a Chevy wrench and a Ford could only take a Ford wrench. That’s how it started many years ago. We certainly evolved, but then we went backwards with the Apple phones and the Samsungs. Then we finally got the USB-C, so we could all move toward using a general plug.
For everyday Canadians, what is on the horizon? How will you motivate whatever global council? What will you assimilate next? Will the same plug finally take my hair appliances in London, so I don’t blow up my curling iron, as I have done?
I want to know, for real Canadians, what are you working on? Who is charge of that kind of globalization?
Those are just funny examples of easy standardization, in my view, but it is a big opportunity for Canadians to globalize their businesses when they know we are meeting a global standard, in particular, in Europe and Asia? Who is working on that, and what is on the horizon?
[Translation]
Ms. Monteith: There’s a lot to say on the topic.
[English]
Thank you for the question. It is a very good question. In fact, the International Organization for Legal Metrology was created for just this purpose: to ensure that, as countries develop their standards for measuring devices, there is a certain consistency in harmonization, globally. The organization’s technical committees look at, for example, electric vehicle charging stations and say:
We need to harmonize our requirements. Where would the displays be located? Where would we measure the transfer of energy, at what point and in what way?
They publish international guidance, which includes, essentially, voluntary standards at a high level, but then they ensure a common level playing field so that each country can use those standards and implement them in their own regulatory frameworks.
You are absolutely correct. This would facilitate a Canadian manufacturer developing a measuring device, respecting certain norms and specifications. To the extent these specifications are the same as they are in Europe, there is much easier access to the European market if we have similar requirements.
Canada is a very active country in the OIML — this international organization. There are also technical committees, some of which have developed a certification system. If it is certified in one country, all other countries can use the certificate and say it is OIML-tested. That can expedite the approval as well.
Senator Pupatello: Given the information that you house in what these futuristic items would be, how does that information get down to the business level so business people know what is on the horizon so they can take advantage of the opportunity? You house this. They will look at it and, being entrepreneurs, they will say, “Oh, I can do something with this.” So it is really the leap. How do you get it to business people?
Ms. Monteith: As a regulator, we face situations where often industry is ahead of us in terms of innovation and in terms of wanting to push the envelope and coming up with new technologies. The challenge would be more about how we keep up with these innovations and make sure that they respect a certain minimal standard and that the energy consumption is well represented or, in the case of weights and measures, how it is measured.
How do we inform businesses of these requirements? They are quite sophisticated, and they would be aware of what would be required. With the manufacturers of electric vehicle charging stations, we are in dialogue. They share information with us on what they are doing, the challenges they encounter and where the technology is going. As a regulator, we are aware of these challenges and take them into account as we develop the specifications.
I would say it is not so much that we operate independently. There is a very strong and ongoing dialogue between the business community and Measurement Canada as a regulator.
Senator C. Deacon: If you can’t give me a fulsome answer to this question, maybe you can follow up with the clerk. That would be super.
I want to keep building on the question earlier regarding that it took three years for the issue of EV charging stations and the measurement standard that was used to become recognized by Measurement Canada and ISED. I want to understand the consultation process and how it happens because it clearly wasn’t working at that point in time. Otherwise, that would have been resolved quite a bit more rapidly, one would expect, because of the major federal government investment.
Of the things I have noticed at ISED is that there are a lot of one-on-one interviews. You don’t pull stakeholders together in one room and have conversations where you would really get a better picture of the ecosystem in the marketplace. Are you contemplating changing how you consult? I ask because this is a foundation issue, a plumbing issue, that’s really important. I respect the importance of your job entirely, but I am concerned that there doesn’t seem to be a connection with the Competition Bureau and others, where there are really agile information-sharing systems, to live up to your objectives of anticipating innovations and addressing agility. Can you give us some confidence regarding your consultation methods?
Ms. Monteith: Certainly. Thank you for the question. There is a formal consultation registry that announces which consultations will be taking place in the upcoming quarters. We feed into that process as well. That is fully transparent from our website.
We realize, however, that this can be relatively passive because we post something and we wait for the comments to come in. So we also have a distribution list, which encompasses the majority of our stakeholders, where we push out information when there is relevant information on the website that has been posted, to raise awareness.
We have standing committees, especially in electricity and gas, called Electricity Process Advisory Committee and the Gas Advisory Policy Committee, that meet on a regular basis, which have stakeholder industry representation.
We also have bilateral engagement with other associations on more specific issues. Last year, in November 2025, we had a weights and measures forum, where we invited representatives from across the industry that have an interest in weights and measures to participate in information sessions and ask questions of interest. They could also share their insights as to where the industry was going. The intention in 2026 is to have a similar forum on the energy side. That’s with our external stakeholders.
In terms of our engagement with government partners, recently, on the electric vehicle issue, we’ve had strong engagement with Natural Resources Canada on new investments in the charging infrastructure and with Environment and Climate Change Canada. We are also reaching out to Transport Canada. We work closely with the National Research Council Canada when it comes to standards and developments in that field. We are fairly well integrated and very aware of future upcoming investments so that we can leverage these partnerships to also raise awareness of our requirements.
For example, there is a trade conference coming up, in which Natural Resources is thinking of having a booth. Measurement Canada is working with them so we can have representation in our own booth jointly with them to present a comprehensive picture of what the government requirements will be on electric vehicles.
Senator Marshall: Tell us something about Measurement Canada. I understand you’re a separate agency of the department, but I am specifically looking for your budget and the number of staff. Can you give that number of staff in terms of full-time equivalents? Could you give us some information on that?
Ms. Monteith: The operating budget last year was just over $38 million. The great majority is on salaries, approximately $31 million. The balance is on operational costs because we have inspectors across the country. Travel related to inspections is a significant cost. Another significant cost is the investment in specialized devices. We have laboratories that require specialized equipment in order to approve new measurement devices.
Senator Marshall: What is the number of staff?
Ms. Monteith: Staff is in the order of 320 full-time-equivalent positions.
Senator Marshall: How many of those would be in administration, as opposed to the inspectors you have across the country?
Ms. Monteith: Of the 320, we have approximately 175 inspectors and about 40 scientists and metrologists, so laboratory technicians. Support staff is also very important because of the ongoing travel, purchase of equipment and so on.
Mr. Massie: It is also important to realize that, in addition to the Measurement Canada staff, we certify alternative service-delivery providers across the country. There are 225 of those across the country that work with us. We certify them and make sure they are up to the right standards and make sure they fulfill their obligations.
Senator Marshall: Would that include people who inspect the elevators?
Mr. Massie: No. Most of them are in smaller businesses. According to the statistics I have here, they have about 707 recognized technicians who work across the inspection workforce to the alternative service providers.
Ms. Monteith: They perform the majority of inspections. Approximately 95% of inspections are done through these third-party organizations that are accredited by Measurement Canada to do these inspections.
The Acting Chair: Colleagues, this concludes our first panel. I remind you that this committee will be doing a clause-by-clause examination next Wednesday. Any answers that have been required but could not be delivered and any additional information should be sent to the clerk by Tuesday, please. We would appreciate that.
Senator Varone, thank you. Mr. Massie, Ms. Monteith, Ms. Campeau and Ms. Shankarraman, thank you very much.
For our second panel, we have Francis Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada; Cameron Chan, Supervising engineer, ENMAX Power Corporation, Electricity Canada; and David McConkey, Senior Director, Operations, Safety & Security, Canadian Gas Association.
Mr. Bradley, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Francis Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada: Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Francis Bradley, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Electricity Canada.
[English]
I’m joined today by my colleague from ENMAX, who is also the chair of the metering committee at Electricity Canada, so when we get into the discussion and dialogue, we have someone on the ground who works for a utility company who has a great deal of depth and experience in this space.
[Translation]
Electricity Canada is the national voice of Canada’s electricity sector. Our members produce, transport, distribute and market electricity in every province and territory. These members are small and large utilities, system operators and emerging service providers. Together, they support electrification, electric vehicle charging and the modernization of electricity grids across the country.
[English]
While we support the objective of Bill S-3, we propose targeted amendments to improve regulatory certainty and ensure that Measurement Canada’s scope remains where it matters: metrology. Canada’s electricity system is changing and changing rapidly.
Electricity is increasingly digital, bidirectional, and integrated with new technologies, such as electric vehicles, distributed energy resources, advanced metering and grid automation. At the same time, electricity infrastructure is long-lived. Grid investments are designed to operate over decades, not short regulatory cycles.
In that context, utilities need a clear, stable and focused measurement framework — one that protects consumers while enabling investment and innovation.
Bill S-3 largely moves us in that direction. However, there are two areas where modest legislative clarification would strengthen the bill and reduce the risk of unintended consequences.
First, the bill expands the definition of “meter” to include software and any part of an apparatus used to obtain the basis of a charge. Without clarification, this language could unintentionally extend federal oversight beyond measurement accuracy into downstream software and IT systems. These systems receive and process data after measurement has already occurred. They do not perform measurement functions and cannot affect legally relevant metrology results.
Extending regulatory oversight into these areas will increase compliance costs without improving consumer protection and potentially slow grid modernization and digital innovation.
Our recommendation is straightforward: refine the definition of “meter” so that Measurement Canada’s authority remains clearly focused on the measurement function.
Second, we propose a framework to provide more certainty regarding legal units of measurement. The act proscribes a limited set of units for electricity sales. While the minister may authorize additional units by regulation, those regulations expire after three years. A three-year authorization window is incompatible with real-world utility operations.
Temporary measurement authority creates uncertainty, raises the risk of stranded assets, complicates cost recovery and increases billing complexity and customer confusion with no benefit to Canadians.
Since changes to legal units of measurement directly affect how electricity is priced, transacted and understood by customers, Parliament should retain oversight of substantive changes.
We propose to preserve regulatory flexibility while introducing a structured, legislatively anchored review process that allows Parliament to consider whether new units should be added permanently. We cannot modernize the grid without certainty.
Lastly, Bill S-3 provides significant additional regulatory powers to Measurement Canada in different areas, including contractors and inspections. We must ensure we have the right regulatory and legislative framework that enables predictable and adequate regulations that support investment and innovation.
Additionally, the inspectors’ order-making powers should be restricted to actual cases of actual non-compliance.
[Translation]
Bill S-3 represents a major step toward modernizing Canada’s framework of measures. Through targeted legislative amendments, the bill can provide greater certainty for investors, better protect consumers and clearly maintain Measurement Canada’s role as a guarantor of measurement accuracy.
These recommendations reflect the operational experience of electric utilities across the country. Their goal is to ensure that the modernization of the act supports a reliable, innovative and affordable electricity system for Canadians.
Thank you for your time this morning. I look forward to your questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Mr. McConkey, do you have opening remarks?
David McConkey, Senior Director, Operations, Safety & Security, Canadian Gas Association: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.
My name is David McConkey, Senior Director, Operations, Safety & Security at the Canadian Gas Association. I’m here on behalf of gas meter manufacturers and natural gas utilities, which reliably supply 40% of Canada’s energy needs.
[Translation]
Electricity and gas meters are truly the cash registers of the energy sector and are essential to building affordable, reliable and well-designed energy systems.
[English]
Measurement Canada’s regulatory processes span pre- and post-installation. Many manufacturers avoid entering the Canadian marketplace because of complex rules, uncertain requirements, long approval timelines and high costs. This limits Canadians’ access to advanced technologies that improve safety, efficiency, accuracy and emissions performance. We have a detailed paper on this issue available for review.
Regarding the development of regulations, Measurement Canada utilizes a committee-based structure and ultimately holds the pen on the final design. However, most modern regulatory systems use a consensus, standards-based approach overseen by the Standards Council of Canada. Moving towards this model would benefit consumers, regulators and industry. We urge the committee to consider how this could be enabled by the new law.
I would now like to outline three areas of priority in our analysis of the bill.
Number one, enhancing consumer protection. While the primary purpose of this legislation is to protect the consumer from measurement error, which, I note, can sometimes actually be in favour of the consumer, the broader project of consumer protection involves safety, environmental protection and other consumer interests such as privacy. Numerous adjustments to the bill are required to address these broader interests. One example is the proposed change to recertification cycles to move anniversary dates from the end of the calendar year to the date the inspection took place. This would dramatically increase costs for utilities and consumers without delivering meaningful benefits.
Another concern is the expanded definition of meter, which risks pulling unrelated devices such as modems into regulation. The definition should be limited to components that directly perform metrological functions.
Number two, enabling innovation and modernization. Bill S-3 is a generational opportunity to modernize Canada’s energy systems. Some provisions do this well, but others maintain outdated requirements for physical actions. For example, while virtual inspections are appropriately enabled in the bill, as discussed previously, other sections call for physical seals to be applied in the field. Digital or software-based solutions would reduce costs, improve efficiency and reflect modern technology.
We also encourage moving towards event-triggered recertification, digital-first compliance and clearer guidance on the treatment of software within metering systems. New powers around sampling and temporary approvals are strong steps forward and will help innovation thrive.
Number three, levelling the playing field between energy sources. Senator Varone noted that these laws are essential to the fair, efficient and competitive operation of the marketplace. We agree and believe this principle should apply across all energy forms. Fairness between energy systems is essential. Today, gas meters must be recertified every seven years, while electricity meters follow an eight-year cycle. Experts cannot explain this discrepancy. A harmonized period, potentially 10 years, would better balance risk, accuracy and cost.
Approval timelines for meter devices also differ sharply: 200 to 700 days for gas devices compared with 90 to 200 days for electricity. Even medical devices, which carry far greater public safety considerations, often receive approval in around 120 days. These differences create inequality and hinder competitiveness in the marketplace.
To conclude, we have noted a concern that meter manufacturers avoid the Canadian marketplace. A standards-based approach should be used to develop measurement specifications, balancing costs of compliance with actual benefit to the consumer, greater provisions for enabling innovation and fairness between gas and electricity meters. We believe that adjustments need to be made to align legislative language with the intent of the bill, and anticipate that Measurement Canada will in good faith utilize policy instruments to bridge the gap. However, we urge legislators to address these issues now, ensuring clarity, fairness and an enabling environment for innovation.
Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to provide these remarks.
The Acting Chair: With regard to your detailed paper, I have checked with the clerk and we have not received that paper. It would be a good information piece, so if you could forward that to the clerk as soon as possible, we would appreciate it. Thank you.
Now we move to our question-and-answer session.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for being here. It has been very insightful.
My question is on trade competitiveness and market access. We have all seen, and are aware by now, that trade diversification is essential to Canada’s prosperity. In this context, aligning our regulatory frameworks and technical standards with international best practices is not just prudent, it is strategic, and we should be, and do want to become, an energy superpower.
How would the proposed changes in the current act — and I have taken note of the amendments that you have proposed, Mr. Bradley, and your comments, Mr. McConkey — improve interoperability with foreign measurement systems and support cross-border trade in electricity, natural gas and emerging energy products?
I will ask all my questions now, and then you can take the full five minutes.
To what extent do differences in measurement standards currently create barriers to trade or increase compliance costs for Canadian energy exporters? Would greater alignment with the international metrology standards help Canadian firms compete more effectively in global energy and clean technology markets?
Who would like to start? Mr. McConkey, maybe you can take a first crack at that. Thank you.
Mr. McConkey: Thank you very much.
There are two aspects. Number one is the approval of measurement devices themselves, and then number two is the regulations around the management of those devices.
My two comments are similar to what I started off with in my remarks. Many manufacturers of meters avoid the Canadian marketplace because of the complexities around regulations: timelines, uncertainty and the relatively small size of our marketplace. They just will avoid our marketplace because it represents too much of a liability and not much of a compelling case. That is really unfortunate.
We have one particular Canadian manufacturer of meters that takes great pride in being Canadian. There are very few of them. A changed regulatory environment would make a great difference, and we need to consider what needs to be done there.
The second is that here we are talking about the act, and eventually the conversation will lead to the regulations and how all of it gets pushed out. At that stage, our feeling is this: Why not use the Standards Council of Canada’s consensus-based standards approach to develop all of those detailed implementation-level rules? We heard from Measurement Canada that they are involved with the European OIML organization. We know that a strong relationship that exists there, and we think that is a very good thing.
There were many questions previously about the consultation that Measurement Canada undertook. We were certainly consulted, as noted, but our feeling is that much more needs to be done to consider how to bring experts together to build regulations that will be favourable.
Mr. Bradley: I thank the senator for the question.
I think Mr. McConkey has addressed where we would see impact, and that is with respect to suppliers and vendors within the community. In terms of the trade of electricity, which was also part of the question, the trade in electricity between Canada and the United States — we only trade with one country because that is as far as our wires go — is not impacted one way or another. Specifically, in terms of that trading relationship, the $4.5 billion of electricity trades that go back and forth across the border on a daily basis would not be impacted in this instance.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Henkel: Good morning and welcome. Mr. McConkey, this question is for you. Bill S-3 makes it possible to extend the period between inspections for certain types of efficient gas meters. Will this administrative relief result in lower rates for small commercial customers, or is it just a financial gain for the large distributors?
Mr. McConkey: I hope I understood the question correctly.
[English]
The question was in respect to meters having differing periods of time for recertification. We certainly feel that it should be the same between different types of meters — so gas and electricity — and that it should be longer. As noted, technology has changed greatly. Batteries last longer, and devices are more accurate for longer periods of time.
Senator Henkel: Regarding the cost, is that cost going to benefit the small companies or the people who will actually have access to that, or is it going to be retransferred to the larger distributors, the channel? That is what I was looking for.
Mr. McConkey: Thank you for restating the question for me.
The cost ultimately will be borne by the consumer. So relative to the compliance efforts that organizations need to meet, all of those costs from a utility regulatory perspective find their way ultimately to the consumer. The irony that we see is that, although Measurement Canada is working hard, as they should, to ensure accuracy, ultimately, it’s at a cost to the consumer. They’re improving accuracy by a small degree that could actually cost the customer more on a monthly basis. We’re concerned about those kinds of perspectives.
Senator C. Deacon: I want to thank you and commend you for the clarity of your opening comments. It is something we love to see but do not see as often as we would like. It was really clear, direct and specific.
It is balancing opportunities and risks that regulators in Canada do not do as well as they need to. It is like you have a belt, suspenders, duct tape and rope keeping your pants up. There is so much effort put into managing risks, but nobody is looking at the opportunity cost that extra effort is creating. I think that is what you are identifying.
The objective they clearly stated is to anticipate innovations and address agility. Those are clear objectives of this bill. I think that your proposals and amendments fit within that entirely. But I am wondering about the recertification time because there must be evidence. Please help me with this. There must be evidence as to the need or not. When you are recertifying, you are checking the calibration, and you must have fairly good data in both organizations about what an appropriate time would be and what would trigger that.
Mr. McConkey: Absolutely. Your comment touches on an overarching sense that the industry has, which is that we’re not out to get the customer. Measurement Canada has their role, and it is of critical importance, but a stronger recognition of the positive perspective that utility companies have in serving their customers, I think, is missing.
You are absolutely right. There is a lot of data. That is occasionally a conversation that we have with Measurement Canada. They are collecting their own set of data over here, but data exists en masse through the utility companies and the manufacturers over there. There’s a disconnect, and it appears as a lack of trust, but I wouldn’t really couch it that way. There is the possibility of working together in a stronger fashion and sharing it.
Senator C. Deacon: Sharing the data would make the organization more agile, which, I would expect, is an objective.
Are there opportunities, from your standpoint, to change the consultation process to get to these ideas? I ask because I’m very concerned. I heard the focus is on one-to-one consultation defining parameters by ISED rather than hearing what is possible from the marketplace and balancing opportunities and risks.
Mr. McConkey: I definitely agree. The consultation is undertaken and occurs in good faith.
For example, we found ourselves having to write a letter to Minister Joly in September of last year with our concerns. I think that represents the dynamic that we were not heard in our efforts, so more needs to be done. Yes.
Mr. Bradley: Yes. To your first comment about our briefs, thank you. I would note that, in our briefs, we have included specific recommendations in terms of amendments.
For experience with respect to the certification, there is only one person sitting at this table who has meters and customers, and that would be Mr. Chan, so I would suggest we hear from Mr. Chan on this.
Cameron Chan, Supervising engineer, ENMAX Power Corporation, Electricity Canada: Thank you for the question, honourable senator. The thing we have noticed across the years is that as technology improves, the components that have gone into them, on the electricity side at least, have actually improved the performance of our devices at the end of the day. We started with electromechanical meters relying on spinning disks and gears, and through testing, we found that, over time, they break down. They actually tend to slow down in performance, so they are underbilling customers. Therefore, some customers might be perceived as getting a break on their bills, while others are being billed at the accurate rate.
With the more modern meters that rely on digital components, we do find consistency, even for the older ones. In our first generation of electronic meters, we found that when our provincial regulator determines what their end of life is and we do their end-of-life tests, we actually found that they’ve still been performing almost as well as the day they were issued based on the certificates from the manufacturers and our current measurement certificates. In that respect, we have seen that there is a good avenue for providing evidence to argue for the extended service life of meters, given what we have observed.
We’re more than willing to share. It would be one of those things that could be very beneficial as we coordinate with Measurement Canada in that they do have somewhat similar programs, although it would be nice to see them further their reach with brand new introduced products to the marketplace. They start with an initial verification period of six years. However, if you engage with them about a certain model and tell them that you might be interested in participating, they could later prove that out and extend it to a 10-year recertification period, for example.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chan.
Could you send that data to the clerk as soon as possible? Thank you.
Senator Marshall: I was interested in the consultation process. Mr. McConkey, you mentioned that there was consultation, but you felt it could be more robust. I am trying to condense what you were saying.
Mr. Bradley, could you clarify, with regard to Electricity Canada, whether they were also consulted?
Mr. Bradley: If I understand the question, it’s whether or not we have been consulted in the development of —
Senator Marshall: — of the legislation, yes —
Mr. Bradley: — of the legislation. Yes, absolutely. The folks from Measurement Canada who were on the panel prior to this did mention us specifically. Yes, we have been in conversation with Measurement Canada on what we’ve hoped to see in legislative changes for a decade and a half. Our conversations certainly go back a very long time.
Senator Marshall: Is your opinion similar to that of Mr. McConkey? You felt that the consultation should have been more robust? Are you happy with the legislation?
Mr. Bradley: Oh, yes. No, I’m happy with the legislation.
As I said in my opening comments, we think, directionally, this is going in the right direction. In fact, a lot of our previous concerns have been addressed, and that’s why, as you see in the brief that we provided, there is just a very short list of what we see as changes that are required to the legislation.
We think the thrust is correct. We think the direction is correct. We just want to make sure that, first, we are narrowing what the definition of a meter is, which, by the way, this is a major improvement to where we were previously, where it was —
Senator Marshall: Yes. It has been 40 years, they told us.
Mr. Bradley: Yes, absolutely. But the definition of a meter was so restrictive that it gave us a great deal of problems. We have certainly addressed that. The question we have is this: Has it gone too far in terms of the definition? Then there is the issue about legal units of measurement, or LUM, use.
In terms of consultation, we’ve been involved in consultation pretty much constantly, certainly, for the last few years.
Senator Marshall: Can you just briefly give us an idea as to who you are representing, because you are two witnesses here today, and the utilities — for example, Electricity Canada — are you representing the Crown corporations across Canada and the private-sector utilities like Emera?
Can you briefly give us some idea as to whom you are here representing?
Mr. Bradley: Certainly. The short answer is yes, all of the above. We represent the 44 largest electricity generators, transmitters and distributors across the country — all 10 provinces, all three territories, Crown corporations, investor-owned companies and the largest of the municipal governments.
Senator Marshall: Mr. McConkey, quickly?
Mr. McConkey: The same question about representation?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Mr. McConkey: Essentially, all natural gas companies, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, so Crown corporations are certainly a part. Then we also have our membership, which includes the manufacturers and distributors of the devices as well.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator McBean: To some extent, I have the gist of this, but I will start with you, Mr. Bradley.
How prepared are electricity distributors and suppliers to implement the inspection and measurement changes proposed in Bill S-3?
Mr. Bradley: Madam Chair, that is an excellent question, and, similar to a previous question, the good news is that we actually have somebody who has the meters sitting at the table. I would ask Mr. Chan to give us his views on this, because you will get it from, essentially, the horse’s mouth.
Mr. Chan: That is a little bit of a loaded question, as Mr. Bradley did previously refer to. We do look after all the utilities in the country, so they are in varying stages of technical advancement. You will notice that you will have your frontrunners, like Hydro-Québec and BC Hydro, who are looking at their next generation of advanced metering technology and developing their technology systems to account for the changes, and then you do have plenty of smaller utilities, which are still, actually, looking to advance their first stage from — I’m going to say — non-centralized communication infrastructure meters, and they will be on a very accelerated path to try and incorporate the new technologies that come about.
But as far as Electricity Canada goes, generally what we try to strive for is to help each other and collaborate to solve problems to ensure that each of the members can be brought up to speed in an appropriate manner.
Senator McBean: Hopefully, the ones who are lagging can skip the middle and go right to the modern approach.
I will come back in a second on this, but I will put the same question to you, Mr. McConkey. From the perspective of the natural gas utilities, how do you see the implementation of the inspection and measurement changes proposed in Bill S-3?
Mr. McConkey: The thoughts that come to my mind are, for example, the one that I referred to where it is, I think, subsection 12(1)(1.1), where it changes the date of recertification from an annual basis to a daily basis. That presents massive challenges, because now you have to track millions of meters down to the day as opposed to the year. It takes six months to certify all of these meters, so you have a massive additional responsibility. They will have to update their software systems, which will cost millions.
We understand that the intent is not actually to put it down to a day. The intent is to have it still on a yearly basis, but the language in the bill is troublesome. That’s one example that could present challenges.
Another example, in terms of going to someone’s home, the element about being able to do that virtually is wonderful. That will reduce costs, and it will be efficient.
After COVID, there were stories of folks not wanting the gas utility or the utility to come to their homes, so the utility then can’t be in compliance because of that conflict. Having virtual options there are wonderful. Those are just some examples of the implementation.
Senator McBean: The second part of the question to both of you is this: What are your views on the potential cost implications of the new regime? You said that could be millions for some, but I will start with the gas.
Mr. McConkey: Thank you.
There are many elements that need to be adjusted to avoid the potential for greatly increased costs. The other example is where sealing is required. You have to go out to the meter and put the little stamp on it or the little metal thing. You are rolling trucks. You are moving people. Another way of doing that is administratively. You have a serial number, and you are tracking the dates of devices, and you don’t have to go out there to do that.
There is the potential for significant added costs, but, having said that, there are many improvements that we are pleased with. I want to make sure I give the impression that we are pleased with the direction, as Mr. Bradley said.
Senator McBean: I want to give Mr. Chan a chance to talk about the potential costs for implementation.
Mr. Chan: For sure. On the electricity side, it is also fairly similar, in that, yes, there are going to be some points of relief. The streamlined methodology of revalidation will definitely help, in that there is less administrative oversight. With the trust that the data would give you on the performance of the devices, that would also help utilities manage their businesses in a slightly more efficient manner in managing to align their product life cycles with what provincial regulators tend to issue.
We do find that there is some commonality in that. I know we are crossing over into some different jurisdiction lines, but we find that, in the industry, they also tend to feed off one another for general best practices and suggestions.
The other aspect that is probably a little less tangible, though, is the fact that we are in an area where we are trying to promote technological improvement, and that is one of the big benefits of the act. It is not so much a question of cost, but having very clear ideas about what is capable, what you can actually implement and how you can efficiently design your systems and not lose the money that you are investing into your current fleet of technology. With the way the old acts and laws have been written, you actually have issues when you are going to a bid proposal stage, and you are looking at your devices and saying, okay, is this actually going to match, or am I going to be doing a massive redesign, not just of our metering systems, but of our communications systems as well as the back-end systems that actually deal with the billing and the transfer of data from the meter to the marketplace?
The Acting Chair: We are limited in time, and we have many senators who still have not had the opportunity to ask questions, so a little more discipline in regards to our question-and-answer period would be welcome.
Senator Wallin: I have two questions for Mr. Bradley and Mr. Chan.
You talked at the beginning, and I think it was at the core of one of your amendments, about the issue of regulatory leakage, basically, and whether this is now going to apply from the meter into the software.
Can you give us a real-world example of what the concern is there? What kind of data would be leaking that could be problematic?
Mr. Chan: On the electricity end, we find that the data processing system is an area that tends to be somewhat underappreciated in what is considered in modern metering systems. What we expect Measurement Canada and the legislation to address is purely to do with accuracy. From a legal unit measurement perspective, we want to make sure that the end device has proper measurement capabilities.
When you get into other aspects of billing in, let’s just say, bidirectional energy flow, different provinces have different techniques on how to actually apply credits or have a time-based measurement, for example, for your energy. For example, when you are billing off-peak hours of consumption, that brings into the concept the idea of time, which is managed through the IT system and not so much the accuracy of the device itself.
There is also the aspect that each province has a different billing structure that is handled by those back-end systems, whether it be calculated values off of those meters, implementing certain aspects, such as the power quality or whatnot.
Senator Wallin: So when we’re talking about the leakage from an actual meter to the software, then what rules around regulating meters would be problematic for software? I’m not sure I understand the distinction because they just seem to be on a continuum.
Mr. Chan: Right. For the electricity side, one of the concerns is the fact that “software” is not properly defined. There is performance measurement software and then there is the actual processing and billing back.
Senator Wallin: Thank you for that clarification.
To you, Mr. McConkey, on your general point, and to follow up on what Senator Deacon raises on an almost weekly basis, we are talking about innovation and science here. You are giving us examples of the regulatory choking off of development of new technologies in this country and the unwillingness of new technologies to come into this country because of the regulatory burden. Do you see something reflected in this piece of legislation that would help that?
Mr. McConkey: Thank you very much for the question. I will give one brief example, conscious of time. With regard to devices and rate of innovation, in some cases, by the time the device is actually approved for use in Canada, it is already out of date, and the technology has moved beyond that. That’s the reality.
But in the bill, there are stipulations for allowing temporary dispensation, temporary approval, of devices in the field, and that’s wonderful. It allows devices to be brought into the field and to come into the marketplace even though the approval process is still under way.
Senator Wallin: If it’s temporary, that is also a resistance factor, because why come in for three years?
Mr. McConkey: Right. There is still some uncertainty, yes.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
Senator Varone: Mr. Bradley, reversible hydrometers and bidirectional meters are approved and allowed for use in the Canadian marketplace. Is this a homeowner’s or a business owner’s right, or is it a privilege granted by the respective hydroelectric authority?
I ask because, years ago, as a volunteer, I built a long-term-care facility that would include a third-of-a-megawatt cogeneration plant. The optics were to heat the hot water, heat the floors that the seniors would put their feet on in the winter, and the excess power would be sold back to the grid.
We fought like crazy. It took a three-year battle to get in a reversible meter, in a world of climate challenges, empowering homeowners to put up any kind of system that they think would help climate resilience. Again, is it a right or is it a privilege based on the hydroelectric authority that you are dealing with? Because I get it from both sides. I see “yes” and I see “no,” that some utilities do not allow it, even though it is fully approved. What’s your position?
Mr. Bradley: The determination of the market structure in any jurisdiction with respect to electricity is a matter of provincial authority, not national. The issue here is one of constitutional powers. It is up to individual provinces and regulators within those provinces to determine the structure of their market. We may have a view from a national perspective about market structures, but that doesn’t determine what the market structure will be. This is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction to determine what that market structure will look like. That’s why we essentially have a dozen different-looking markets when it comes to electricity and different rules from province to province.
Senator Varone: That’s still not your position. Would you consider it, on behalf of all the utilities that you represent, as a goal to achieve: reversible meters for all homeowners and businesses in the face of the climate crisis that we have?
Mr. Bradley: I agree that there is technology that would certainly be helpful in that instance, but as a national association, I will not tell provinces what to do, nor do I think the federal government has done that in this space as well. Once again, in terms of the actual market structure and what kinds of meters and what kind of market structure they will have in any jurisdiction is not a matter that is in the purview of either a national association or a national government. This is a provincial matter, quite simply.
In reality, this is the situation from a constitutional standpoint that faces us. We could wish it to be otherwise, but this is the situation that we have. It is up to the provinces to determine their markets.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
Mr. McConkey, I want to go back to something you said earlier just for my layperson’s understanding. A gas meter and an electricity meter are not the same thing. They measure different outputs, to a large extent. I understand the desire for alignment, but from the technical side of this, we should also appreciate that they do measure different things. Eight years here should be eight years there. That seems like a fair plea, but in reality we should accept there are some other technical aspects that should be considered. I don’t know what the department came up with when they said seven versus eight, but that should govern how we respond to this plea you are making. Would that be fair?
Mr. McConkey: I appreciate the comment. I would start by just saying this: If you press — and I encourage you to do so — I suspect you won’t get a sufficient answer as to why one is seven and one is eight.
Senator Yussuff: Exactly.
Mr. McConkey: Having said that, if you look at the approval of meters before they go into the marketplace, the reality is — I am not sure this would be in line with your assumption — that gas meters are more complicated than electricity meters. They take longer to approve, and we acknowledge that. We do think Measurement Canada should staff up to have an equal playing field, but hopefully that answers part of your comment.
Senator Yussuff: I come back to some of the suggestions that have been made here. Clearly, in a modern society with modern technology, costs are involved. Utilities are recognizing they have to amortize it over a period of time. But the consumers are not here to advocate for themselves on whether they think they are being treated fairly by the utilities. Sometimes they may argue that they don’t feel they are being treated fairly.
Clearly, the utilities operate on the basis that, yes, there are costs. We understand that is the nature of what they are doing. They are running a business, and we understand that. The legislation has had a time lag; it’s been 40 years since it was updated. I know you guys have not been sleeping for the last 40 years; you’ve been doing all kinds of great things, I assume, on behalf of your clients across the country.
What have you been advocating for in the last 40 years that you think we missed? Clearly, now, we are considering a legislation that is so outdated, fundamentally, that there has to be some recognition that somebody has not been doing something. If you have been screaming for changes to which the government has not responded in the federal jurisdiction, I would be very much interested in knowing that.
From the consumer side, they may have their own set of arguments about whether these regulations should be updated more frequently. Equally, are they being given a fair opportunity to comment on how the utilities treat them as the consumers here?
Mr. McConkey: It is a wonderful question and instructive in itself. I appreciate it.
To start, briefly, at the beginning of Confederation, which is the timeline we’re talking about, the government was the expert. Now, the industry member is the expert.
We heard in the previous discussion that Measurement Canada is trying to catch up, right? It is a losing battle.
Similar to the consensus-based standards approach that I mentioned, if we build a structural partnership between industry members and the regulator, that will go a long, long way.
A big thing that, I would say, is missing is all around bringing in new technologies, as I mentioned, into the marketplace in Canada, structuring the law so that is enabled in a maximal way so that we are not turning away.
For example, on gas meters, there are meters that have automatic shutoffs that can prevent a problem like a fire or something worse in someone’s home. In some cases, those meters are very much delayed getting into the marketplace because of the regulatory environment.
So the accuracy needs of the customer are one element to their needs, but there is also safety, environmental protection and all sorts of things. It is a balancing of the risk that Measurement Canada is dealing with. It is not just inaccurate measurement, which can go in the favour of the customer.
Senator Yussuff: We have the CSA standard, which is the hallmark for industries and everybody to participate in. It brings everybody to the table, and you can sit down and argue about your differences. Ultimately, you come to a solution.
What role does CSA play in regard to guiding both industry and others to sit down and say, let’s agree on what we think makes sense, but, more importantly, let’s try to then advocate for government to do the following?
Mr. McConkey: It’s critical. I would broaden it to say all standards development organizations — UL is another great Canadian example — play an absolutely critical role. You have Standards Council of Canada provisions, a matrices-based committee, so you have the regulators at the table, those who are regulated, and then general interest, and they all work together on a consensus. That would go a long way to improve the environment that we have currently.
Senator Fridhandler: I have a general question to both of you.
Many of your constituents are in regulated businesses. When they look to spend capital, the regulator gets in the way sometimes and won’t include new meters in their rates, or won’t include meters that haven’t lived their whole lives, and they don’t want to deal with accelerated obsolescence.
How much of that is an issue in implementing better technology? Second, likewise, you have already identified this, but the supply chain on meters is also very problematic in getting us up to speed.
Can you comment on the blockages that regulators provide, and some of the utilities don’t want to deal with in terms of including the rate and the supply chain?
Mr. Bradley: I can start on that and see if Mr. Chan has anything to add, and then Mr. McConkey from the gas perspective.
The senator raises an interesting question. Rate setting in a regulated monopoly is enormous in its complexity, certainly.
In some instances, it is a question of what a regulator will and will not allow to go into rate base. In some instances, it is driven by provincial policy and priority, similar to previous questions about bidirectional meters. That’s certainly the future that we are going to head towards. The timing of it is not going to be determined by anybody other than provincial authorities and, in some cases, regulators.
In terms of what the impact looks like, in terms of regulation and rate-making, I don’t know if Mr. Chan has experience to share from a perspective in Alberta?
Mr. Chan: Yes. It is a very good question. It is not one I can cover in a small matter of minutes, but I will do my best to give you a high-level overview.
Each province has its own mandates, which depend on how it wants to take care of its rate making. In Alberta, right now, they are trying to push for a means of adding additional affordability into the marketplace.
It doesn’t come down to just the advancement but allowing the advancement to fit into the bigger piece, and how they utilize the data to feed the engineering systems to help you manage the grid is how Alberta is looking at it. They are looking at the flow of energy, where it actually tends to push the dollars and whether or not they are being transacted correctly.
So at a slightly larger transmission level, that’s where one of the aspects comes into play, where, okay, does the technology enable us to have a greater level of savings in that respect.
It does depend on how the province is trying to mandate their strategy to actually advance the grid and provide real value, also taking into account the new requirements they want to do to try to incorporate and move towards net-zero ideas.
On the supply chain, the one huge benefit we will see is, as our counterparts on the gas side have noted, there are issues with the supply chain, partially due to the number of players that are willing to be in the Canadian marketplace due to the restrictions we have.
Aligning with international standards will be big, and you hopefully will see more players and competition enter that marketplace to lessen the monopolistic effects. On the electricity side, there is only a small handful. For those of us who are looking at the next generation of smart metering, I feel like there are fewer than 10 major vendors that contribute to any RFP that comes into play.
Mr. McConkey: Rapid obsolescence is something that we talk about, where you are getting rid of meters that are perfectly fine. It is a significant concern.
Then, briefly, there is a specific kind of meter: pressure factor meters. There is a lot of discussion around the specifications governing that. I think that a standards process that we have talked about would help — to answer part of your question.
Senator Pupatello: Some of those comments you made regarding clauses you wished were in there — can you see them being addressed through regulation even if it is not in the act itself? Inspection, for example, with the physical seal when the inspection could well have been digital — can that be addressed in regulation? Is that something that could still be considered?
Second, have you considered the advent of AI, all of this digital fraud, et cetera? How you will stay ahead of it when you have acknowledged that the government is struggling to stay ahead of making changes in time for what is happening in the industry?
The Acting Chair: I am sorry that I have to interject, because otherwise we are going to lose our technology to pursue this. We are limited in time. Please reply in writing to the question from Senator Pupatello.
I also want to highlight, Mr. Bradley, that we have received your brief. It is being translated right now. As soon as the translation is done, it will be forwarded to all senators.
Last, but not least, on behalf of all our committee members, we want to thank you, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Chan and Mr. McConkey, for your presentations. As usual, if you have something additional you want to transmit to our membership before we move to a clause-by-clause consideration, please forward it to our clerk.
Colleagues, we will meet again on Wednesday, February 11. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)