THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 25, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy met with videoconference this day at 4:20 p.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; and, in camera, to examine and report on access to credit and capital markets for small- and medium-sized businesses as the basis for growth and improved productivity in the Canadian economy.
Senator Clément Gignac (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Clément Gignac. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy.
I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
Before proceeding any further, I would kindly ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Varone: Senator Toni Varone from Ontario.
Senator Loffreda: Welcome to the Canadian Senate and our Banking Committee. I am Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
Senator Yussuff: Senator Hassan Yussuff from Ontario.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean from Ontario.
Senator C. Deacon: Senator Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
Senator Marshall: Senator Elizabeth Marshall from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Martin: Hello. Senator Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
We continue our study today of 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.
I wish to welcome the witnesses with us this afternoon.
Representing the Canadian Fuels Association, we welcome Lisa Stilborn, Vice President, Public Affairs, and Devin O’Grady, Director, Fuels.
I understand you have some opening remarks to share with us. Following your remarks, we will then move on to a question period.
[English]
The floor is yours.
Lisa Stilborn, Vice President, Public Affairs, Canadian Fuels Association: Thank you so much. Good afternoon Chair Gignac, honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
First, I will give a brief word about who we are: The Canadian Fuels Association has been the voice of Canada’s transportation fuels sector for over 30 years. Our members account for virtually all petroleum products and nearly 80% of biofuels produced in Canada, operating 16 refineries and 15 facilities that produce biofuels. The sector also operates around 80 distribution terminals and supplies over 11,500 retail and commercial sites nationwide.
To open my remarks, I would like to make three key points: First, Canada’s transportation fuels sector powers our economy. It supports more than 115,000 Canadian jobs and helps keep every part of the economy moving, including agriculture, manufacturing, mining, retail, tourism and emergency services.
Second, transportation fuels are traded in an open and integrated North American market. Canada is self-sufficient in conventional fuels, but we are increasingly reliant on imports of biofuels, primarily from the United States.
Third, a reliable domestic supply ensures stability for Canadians. A strong Canadian fuel sector helps keep energy affordable and dependable for Canadian consumers and industries, especially when it matters most. Our refining and distribution network, together with a growing low-carbon fuel sector, provides consistent supply across the country. They support economic growth while ensuring Canadians have access to the fuels they need, today and in the future.
These three realities — our economic role, our exposure to imports and the need for stable domestic supply — are why modernizing our regulatory framework is so important.
Canada’s transportation fuel mix is evolving, with a growing reliance on lower-carbon fuels. For this reason, CFA supports the proposed Bill S-3, which would modernize the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act.
I would now like to hand the floor to my colleague and our Director of Fuels, Devin O’Grady.
Devin O’Grady, Director, Fuels, Canadian Fuels Association: Thank you, Lisa. I would start by saying that these changes mainly affect our distribution terminals as well as the retail network where Canadians fuel their vehicles.
Over the years, our members have sold much of their retail assets but still operate about 30% of retail sites across the country. Between the distribution terminals and the retail sites, these regulatory changes remain important to our members.
For the past two years, CFA has worked closely with Measurement Canada as higher volumes of biofuels have been introduced into the fuel supply. Existing regulations were not flexible enough to recognize this changing fuel mix. We believe the proposed amendments, including remote inspections and testing by sampling, will encourage innovation and provide flexibility while maintaining safety and accuracy in the downstream fuel sector.
As our sector introduces new low-carbon fuels, including sustainable aviation fuel, to meet the federal Clean Fuel Regulations and provincial renewable fuel policies, we need to ensure other enabling legislation, like the Weights and Measures Act, is aligned to facilitate a seamless system.
While Bill S-3 is an important step forward, it is only one part of what is needed to support a competitive and innovative fuel sector. We are working with the federal government to streamline and simplify regulations to reduce the regulatory burden. This includes simplifying project approvals under the Clean Fuel Regulations, including testing protocols; and aligning reporting schedules and definitions across all four federal fuel quality regulations.
Streamlining regulations and providing certainty will help attract investments in Canadian fuel production and infrastructure. Other factors such as fiscal policies also play a role in attracting capital investments.
We have commissioned a study to examine factors affecting the sector’s competitiveness, which we will release later this year. Modernized regulations and competitive investment conditions will help Canada produce more of its own lower-carbon fuels at home, strengthening our energy and economic security.
In closing, thank you for your attention. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. I suggest limiting each intervention to four minutes. We’ll start with our deputy chair and the sponsor of the bill, Senator Varone.
Senator Varone: My office is near the Finch and Keele depot, where you see all those humungous petroleum-type vehicles. We get tractor-trailers upon tractor-trailers coming by our office. I have noticed cautiously that a lot of companies are now carrying 3% biodiesel, 5% biodiesel, 10% biodiesel and so on.
In your opening remarks, you reflected on the biodiesel community. How does this bill help or hinder confidence? For example, if they are claiming they are selling you 3% biodiesel, how can you be sure? How can Canadians be sure that is the product they are receiving? Is the legislation reaching out to that part of the product, where the mixing is taking place?
Ms. Stilborn: Thank you very much for the question. Before I turn it over to Devin, I will note that you’re situated near probably one of the single largest pieces of energy infrastructure in this country. That infrastructure helps serve the Ontario market and the Quebec market. It’s quite remarkable, with billions of dollars of investment. But I’ll let Devin answer the question on the fuel.
Mr. O’Grady: I think there are a few elements we can highlight. First, though it’s outside this legislation, I spoke to the federal Clean Fuel Regulations, and that is driving the increased percentages of biofuels at large in the fuel mix. All of our members have to report, within that regulatory construct, the percentages of fuels that they are providing in the marketplace in Canada.
Separately, you also have an Ontario biofuel regulation. In a similar fashion, our members are having to report on the percentages of biofuels that they offer in the Ontario marketplace.
Within the constructs of the Weights and Measures Act, we have been working with Measurement Canada officials because there was an inconsistency that was discovered within the weights and measures regulations around what kinds of metering devices can be used to measure petroleum diesel versus new, more renewable diesel products. There was almost two years’ worth of analysis that went back and forth between CFA. Some of our member companies, like Suncor and Imperial Oil, were physically providing the product to Measurement Canada officials so that they could do their testing and analysis.
And it came back that — happily, for us — the same measuring devices could be used for both products after all the testing was done, and no inconsistencies were found between the volume of the two products between the measuring devices.
So that’s one example where we have seen good teamwork with the officials within Measurement Canada. I think the legislation here, in providing modern frameworks and flexibilities, will further advance that as we see more renewable products come into the market.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you for being here today. In our study of this bill, we have been talking about new technology, new devices and new legislation. I’m an auditor by profession. It makes me think about people who are usually very suspicious.
How do you deal with the cynicism when people respond? When I talk to people about what we’re studying here, Bill S-3, they’re very suspicious that it will end up costing them more.
Is that something you take into consideration? How do you address that issue?
Ms. Stilborn: I’ll start. Thank you for the question. Generally, I would say, Senator Marshall, measures to modernize and streamline regulations are probably going to reduce business costs — and also consumer costs, as the costs of regulation are passed along. They are the costs of doing business so they’re passed along to the end user.
Senator Marshall: They do not believe that.
Ms. Stilborn: Well, we try to tell people that, if you have any advice for us on how we can be more persuasive.
But we like the general direction and that it should reduce the resource demands on government as well in terms of digitizing —
Senator Marshall: But cynicism is still there. Mr. O’Grady, I don’t know if you want to add any comments to that.
Mr. O’Grady: Sure. We see the proposed amendments as continuing what we feel is a seamless system. When I go to fuel my vehicle, I see the Measurement Canada stickers on the pumps; I’m not having to think about it. I trust the system as it is. Maybe it’s because I’m not a cynic about it. However, I think most Canadians want to feel that they’re getting their amount of fuel into their vehicle without having to worry about the mechanics behind it, and trust that the product is flowing through at the correct measurement.
I think the amendments proposed here will hopefully continue that seamless system.
Senator Fridhandler: I’m learning from my auditor colleague, Senator Marshall, to be cynical about things.
Historically, on the fuel side, we deal with a lot of fuels that are maybe mixed, and it’s a different measuring approach than equipment measuring and calibration of equipment in that when you sample-check the equipment, it’s pretty precise. When you sample-check fuel or fuel mixes, they know you’re coming. Do you spot-check? Or do they know you’re coming, and you’re going to measure whether the ratios are as expected?
Then, when you’re going to sample, as opposed to more regular work, are the penalties severe enough for people to play games around this? I would think that the penalties would need to be more severe when you’re sporadically checking as opposed to checking more broadly. Can you comment on the diligence here?
Ms. Stilborn: Those are interesting questions. How can I say this? I think the integrity of the fuel system has been established in Canada quite well. As Devin said, it’s quite transparent. I can’t speak for our members, but I can tell you that regulatory compliance at all times is a must. If one of our members were here, they would tell you that if there is an issue with compliance risk, that is something that could be elevated up to the CEO of the company. They take compliance very seriously.
There are a lot of auditors in our companies. There are a lot of lawyers and a lot of engineers. Devin is an engineer. The idea of legal compliance is a very serious one. The issue of the quality and integrity of our fuels is a very serious one.
Devin, do you want to comment?
Mr. O’Grady: I think our industry is heavily regulated. Just within Environment Canada, there are at least a dozen regulations that our members adhere to.
For example, something like sulphur in gasoline is enforceable. Environment Canada enforcement officers can show up at any time they would like. We have a lot of experience with these other regulatory constructs where we are adhering all the time to these regulations, many of which are under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which come with very serious consequences, like jail time.
To sum up, we’re very aware of and want to be in compliance with these measures.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, once again, for being here and for your opening remarks.
In today’s economic environment, costs and competitiveness are important. My question is this: What are the anticipated compliance costs for your members under this updated framework? If they will impact fuel pricing or competitiveness, particularly for smaller operations, how will they do so? We talk so often about the small- and medium-sized enterprises and the difficulties they are facing, such as access to capital, et cetera.
Do these amendments help reduce the red tape and the administrative burdens, or do they introduce more complexities? Small- and medium-sized enterprises sometimes don’t have the resources to get around these complexities for fuel distributors and retailers.
Ms. Stilborn: Those are great questions. I will reflect back to a point that Devin made earlier. We don’t actually represent the retail sector, even though some of our members do have retail operations; those tend to be the larger members.
When it comes to small- and medium-size enterprises, I would recommend that you reach out to the Canadian Energy Marketers Association, which has the smaller stations in its book of business, as it were. The Canadian Convenience Stores Association also has some.
So we look at it primarily from a larger business lens. But I think, just to reflect on what we said earlier, for the large operators where you have economies of scale — so we operate terminals, and these regulations apply to terminals — there is a cost associated, but the measures, streamlining and modernization regulations should not add costs. I think that’s fair to say. Devin?
Mr. O’Grady: Lisa, I’ll pick up on your point around the distribution terminals. We have had consultations with our members on this bill, and we’ve sent it around to them. We’ve received no positive or negative feedback.
In general, to the point around costs, one member, a larger one that operates several terminals, did comment on an example where further reduction of red tape would be useful. I think the amendments in this proposed bill would help with that.
This company cited the cost of installing certain equipment that is required under one part of the Weights and Measures Act, as almost $20 million across their terminals. I think with the ongoing work we’re doing with Measurement Canada, and through this bill, that could probably be alleviated.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks for being with us today. I was intrigued when we heard from the electricity meters group and the gas meters group that there are different cycles for recertification for those two devices. One is seven years, and one is eight years; I think electricity was eight years.
It seemed to me that there wasn’t necessarily evidence underlying why there was a recertification on those given schedules.
I would imagine that as devices change, maybe new devices are less effective and are more likely to go off. But I have to believe it is based on the devices themselves. I know my wonderful friend Senator Marshall is concerned she is putting 70 litres of fuel in her 50-litre tank, but I have to believe it has to be by meter.
In terms of innovation and moving to new types of measurement, do you think there is enough flexibility in this bill to allow for adjusting those sorts of cycles to be the most efficient for everybody involved, as well as secure?
Ms. Stilborn: That is a great question. In general, I would comment that you speak our language in terms of aligning some of these standards and regulations. You don’t have the time today, but we could sit here for hours talking about the regulatory misalignment between departments, provinces and the federal government. That is an extraordinary thing. But I don’t know that we have a lot of direct experience with metering technology that we can speak to.
Senator C. Deacon: Just to drill into the standards opportunity, on another point, regulators own the table when they create a regulation. But when the standards are developed, it is a shared table with regulators added.
Ms. Stilborn: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: The use of incorporation by reference is something we need to expand in this country, and it puts an onus on industry to come up with a standard that could be more consistent across provinces, across the country and across industries. What are your thoughts there?
Ms. Stilborn: I think the way you describe that, you’re speaking our language again. If you have more room to do that kind of alignment, we would be more than willing to be at those tables. There are quite a few federal-provincial working groups that are really on a number of issues to do with regulations that Devin alluded to, and they are trying to promote that type of regulatory alignment.
Senator C. Deacon: So this is legislation that enables that to occur, in your opinion?
Ms. Stilborn: I don’t see why not.
Mr. O’Grady: I don’t have specifics with respect to this legislation, but we do have that experience under other constructs, like the Fuel Quality Regulations. Environment Canada sets that regulation. Our members sit at what is called the Canadian General Standards Board, or CGSB, table, and we come up with the actual parameters. Then, those are, like you mentioned, by reference in the regulation. And it happens in provinces too. So that CSGB table — the standards boards are used for that purpose. I don’t see why that could not exist within this construct.
Ms. Stilborn: And it could be replicated. There is a great model that could be replicated in a lot of areas.
Senator McBean: Mr. O’Grady, I noted in your testimony you said you would like Bill S-3 to streamline the regulatory burden. Can you speak to any specific provisions in Bill S-3, such as certification, that you think could be clarified or adjusted to reflect the operational realities of the fuel sector?
Mr. O’Grady: Thanks for the question. Specifically, we like the aspect of remote inspections and also not having to undergo specific sampling of every single device — and just looking at certain devices.
I think that provides flexibility for both the government staff that have to go do the inspections, as well as on the industry side. That helps reduce the burden, I think, shared across government and industry. Those are some of the examples that we look to as positive.
But other pieces that are in the legislation or proposed legislation haven’t been brought to our attention by our members.
Senator McBean: Ms. Stilborn, you gave a head nod.
Ms. Stilborn: I thought Devin answered very well. Thank you very much, Senator McBean.
Senator McBean: The bill would expand the inspection powers and allow for more modern compliance approaches. How do you see those changes affecting fuel retailers across Canada in macro companies, like CFA? Also, could you speak for the smaller, independent operators?
Mr. O’Grady: I think, unfortunately, what I answered previously is kind of the same. Maybe for the smaller retail side, that could have significant advantages where sometimes it is a very small entity that operates on these retail sites. That ability to have remote inspections, or whatever would be the case, should certainly help them with their limited resources.
Ms. Stilborn: That certainly applies in smaller communities. We have heard a lot from political representatives like yourselves that small communities are losing retail infrastructure in the sector. So the more you can reduce their burden through approaches like this, the better. Thank you.
Senator Wallin: I have a couple quick points. Is the conflict between federal and provincial reporting systems being resolved in another way? Did this legislation help, or is there no resolution?
Mr. O’Grady: That is a big one. I think it is beyond the study here. There will, unfortunately, always be reporting inconsistencies.
Senator Wallin: So that is just an issue there.
Just on another point that you mentioned, Mr. O’Grady — that for one company or one operation, there would have been a $20‑million cost, potentially — you said that you thought that would be managed somehow. How was that managed? Is the government prepared to write you a cheque?
Mr. O’Grady: No, I think the proposals here will help to manage that cost and the instalment of specific devices in this case.
We were already working with Measurement Canada, even before this proposed bill came out, looking at this. I think this legislation will help with that specific circumstance.
Senator Wallin: Obviously, a $20-million bill doesn’t apply to a service station in Wadena, Saskatchewan, but can you give us a rough idea of what might this mean or help for a single operator, maybe part of a chain?
Ms. Stilborn: It’s hard for us to answer, Senator Wallin. I’m sorry. From speaking to the clerk, I know you have limited hearings on the bill. But I recommend maybe reaching out to Jake Enright. We feel we can’t speak for them.
Senator Wallin: Got it. Thank you.
Senator Martin: I heard you say that you don’t represent small- and medium-size retailers. Is that correct?
Mr. O’Grady: For the most part, yes.
Senator Martin: I had some questions related to that. It’s my understanding that the bill grants the President of Measurement Canada authority to suspend or revoke certificates or registrations with notice and an opportunity to make representations. So for businesses in the fuel sector, such decisions could have certain operational impacts. From your association’s perspective, are the procedural safeguards in the bill sufficient to ensure fairness and predictability? What would constitute a reasonable opportunity to respond in a way that allows companies to correct issues without disproportionate disruption?
Mr. O’Grady: That is a good question. Up to this point, that hasn’t been the case. We’ve never had a case where the President of Measurement Canada has come to our members and had to issue a closure of a distribution terminal, for example.
That would have significant impacts on moving fuel, obviously, like at the one at Finch and Keele, for example. That has not been the case in our membership.
On the second part of the question, I don’t know that I have any specific comment.
Ms. Stilborn: I think it goes back to the fact that regulatory compliance is very important. We have instances. I don’t have a proof point for this bill. Members have different reasons. I’ll give you an example. During COVID, demand for fuel was so low because people were not driving — were not going to work or leaving their houses — so we reached out to the regulators to alert them to the fact that we couldn’t comply with some of the fuel regulations. We said, “We can’t comply; we are looking for a waiver.” We tried to do it before it got to the stage of a heavy‑handed hammer where you had to maybe curtail or cease operations.
Senator Martin: I’m the critic of this bill, and in my technical briefing with officials from Measurement Canada, my sense was that there was a real cooperative, collegial, supportive relationship. You’re saying the safeguards are there and procedurally it’s in the best interest of the sector and the industries, so you don’t have any concerns.
You said you had been consulted along the way. Are no gaps or concerns with what is in the bill?
Mr. O’Grady: Our members have not raised any gaps or concerns to us on this specific bill. We have been and are still working with Measurement Canada on certain elements, but that was before the bill text even came along.
We’re hopeful that it will just make it a more seamless and efficient system.
Senator Martin: Across the board, there are always comments about the burden of red tape. Does this bill streamline and reduce that regulatory burden from your point of view?
Mr. O’Grady: From our perspective, it does. I don’t have specific feedback from the members. I point to the remote inspection opportunities and the less specific sampling. There was also another piece that allows newer technologies to be approved more readily. Those pieces are the most helpful for our membership.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Most of what is in this bill has already been compliance for most of your members. It is not new; it is something they have been doing; they are ahead of the game.
Consumers are always the ones I try to think about, so how do they relate to what we’re doing here today? Is it fair to say that, given what this bill tries to do in modernizing the standards, consumers could expect the measurements they encounter and deal with — as they purchase, in your case, fuel — should be accurate? That is what this bill is about.
If you’re buying a litre of fuel, you want a litre of fuel. You don’t want a litre and a half; you don’t want less than a litre either. You will take a litre and a half if you’re not paying for it, but ultimately, they want to ensure they get a litre. In that regard, should consumers have total confidence that this bill ensures, whoever the retailer is in their jurisdiction, that they will get what they are paying for at the end of the day?
Ms. Stilborn: The short answer is yes. Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for that. The relationship between the fuel system and the consumer is one that encompasses reliability and integrity with a focus on compliance.
That’s one of the successes of our fuel distribution network across Canada over the last 130 to 140 years. The answer is yes.
We don’t represent the consumers, but my anecdotal experience is that consumers are very concerned about fuel prices but not about the reliability of and integrity and high quality of the fuels.
Senator Yussuff: Not so long ago — I am old but not that old — when you went to buy gas at the gas station, to give the consumer confidence, there was a little gas on the side of the distribution meter, and it used to have to be full. If it wasn’t full, you knew you weren’t getting the gas you were paying for. That has disappeared. Modern gas stations don’t have it.
Ms. Stilborn: I probably remember that too.
Senator Yussuff: This speaks to the fact that the system has been modernized for the good of the consumer but also for those distributors at the end.
But in the context of costs, it is normal in the practices of business that costs associated with updating your equipment are part of doing business.
Those things are not unusual. It is part of the cycle of buying new equipment. There is an expectation that those front-line retailers have this cost of doing business in this country; it is nothing unusual. This legislation doesn’t add any additional burden. It sets out the way we will do this in the future. You don’t need an inspector every day to do the following. If you have accurate equipment, you should expect accuracy in what the consumers are paying for.
Ms. Stilborn: Absolutely. Many of the upgrades made at the equipment level are not just related to efficiency and streamlining practices but also to improving safety at the pump and at terminals. The safety standards are very high. Devin could comment, but some of the changes made also reflect the fact that the fuel mix is changing.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
Before we move on to the second round, I would like to make sure that those who wanted to speak in the first round have been able to do so.
[English]
Senator Varone: Under the former act, the compliance and enforcement tools were limited and tended to be more punitive than preventative. The compliance remedies were not scalable, and this often resulted in penalties that were not always suitable for the offence, meaning that penalization for being offside was greater than the actual infraction. Do you find that the bill corrects this and tries to equalize the penalties to the infraction?
Ms. Stilborn: That is a good approach. We don’t have any specific insight from our membership on that, but it is certainly a good approach to balance the infraction with whatever punishment is given. More of a risk-based approach to the enforcement regime is also really good. We haven’t had specific conversations with our members on this.
Senator Varone: Fair enough.
Senator Loffreda: Let’s go to the other side: consumer protection and trust. Trust is the currency of every relationship and is so important.
From your perspective, do these legislative updates strengthen consumer confidence in fuel measurement and pricing transparency? Are there any gaps that remain in ensuring consumers are protected from inaccurate measurements or unfair practices?
You mentioned fraud, and there are criminal penalties for that, but can you elaborate further on the efficiency of these measures when it comes to consumer protection?
Ms. Stilborn: That’s a really good question. Certainly, on the side of having spot checks or digitization approaches, there is still a very high level of protection in terms of a protective framework. I don’t know if Devin has anything to add.
Mr. O’Grady: Sorry, I don’t think we can necessarily comment on the consumer protection parts. It’s not something we’ve dived into very deeply.
Senator Loffreda: Are there any gaps that you see that need to be covered or legislated with respect to anything the distributors — you said not retailers — can get away with?
Mr. O’Grady: I don’t think so. We haven’t identified any through this exercise.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. That’s a good answer.
Senator Varone: I have heard snippets of this, that you have consulted with your membership. I want you to put on the record that the Canadian Fuels Association is in full support of these changes to Bill S-3.
Ms. Stilborn: That’s fair, absolutely. We are in full support of the changes. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Colleagues, on your behalf, I thank our witnesses from the Canadian Fuels Association. That was very helpful.
We turn now to our second panel.
[Translation]
Colleagues, we now welcome two witnesses from the Sub‑metering Council of Ontario: Christopher Holz, Spokesperson, and Jordan Hamilton, Vice President, Quality, Safety and Innovation, CARMA Corp.
Welcome to our committee, and I invite you to deliver your opening remarks.
[English]
Sir, the floor is yours.
Christopher Holz, Spokesperson, Sub-metering Council of Ontario: Thank you, chair, for the opportunity to present to the committee our strong support for the timely passage of Bill S-3.
We commend Measurement Canada and the department for advancing Bill S-3 to modernize the 1980s-era Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. Passage of the bill will permit the establishment of a modern, flexible regulatory framework that preserves consumer protection while eliminating unnecessary costs and red tape for industry and, ultimately, consumers.
I serve as the secretariat for the Sub-metering Council of Ontario, an organization that has grown nationally, across the country, representing sub-metering providers that now operate in multiple provinces.
I am joined today by my colleague Jordan Hamilton, Vice President, Quality, Safety and Innovation, CARMA Corp.. We will share introductory remarks, and we certainly welcome your questions.
I will tell you a bit about sub-metering as an industry because this may be new to you. Sub-metering providers play a central role in advancing conservation and transparency in commercial and multi-residential buildings across Canada. Our members include nearly 1,000 professionals across Canadian companies, which include CARMA Corp., Metergy Solutions Inc., Provident Energy Management and Wyse Meter Solutions.
For more than 40 years, Canada’s sub-metering industry has been an innovator in R&D and manufacturing in this country, and we are responding to evolving market and policy needs.
Sub-metering is the measurement of energy use, such as electricity, gas, or thermal energy, at the individual unit level in a multi-residential or commercial building. Modern interval meters automatically record consumption, ensuring that customers only pay for their actual usage, apportioned from the building’s main bill.
The benefits of sub-metering are well documented. Independent studies have demonstrated that electricity sub‑metering can reduce consumption by up to 40%, making it one of the most effective conservation tools ever deployed. That’s a study in Ontario that demonstrated that, when we look at sub‑metering and when we implement it in a bulk-meter building, the energy conservation is 40%. That conservation is persistent over multiple years; in other words, it’s not a one-time thing. These savings translate into reduced system costs, lower emissions and better alignment with Canada’s and the provinces’ energy and climate objectives.
As many senators have noted, Bill S-3 updates legislation that has remained largely unchanged since the 1980s. A lot of things have changed since the 1980s, and this legislation should, too. It provides Measurement Canada with the flexibility to respond to emerging, innovative technologies and market developments, allowing the agency to meet the speed of innovation that happens in Canada. This is particularly critical with respect to the Weights and Measures Act, which currently requires inspection models developed for stand-alone industrial devices but not modern in-suite metering systems.
Of particular importance is the authority proposed in clause 10 of the bill, which would allow Measurement Canada to use examination by sampling rather than mandatory 100% inspections. This would enable the agency to meet its consumer protection mandate effectively and with lower costs for inspections, reverification, recertification and new installations. This issue is especially important and pressing given current requirements, which Jordan will now outline.
Jordan Hamilton, Vice President, Quality, Safety and Innovation, CARMA Corp., Sub-metering Council of Ontario: Many of us in this industry have worked together for over a decade, and regulatory compliance and consumer protection are foundational to how we operate. All of our companies are registered with Measurement Canada, all equipment is agency-approved and some organizations are accredited to perform inspections for electricity and natural gas and soon will be for thermal energy meters.
It is important to note that, historically, the Weights and Measures Act was never designed for in-suite, residential applications. That is precisely why the amendments in Bill S-3 are required for our industry.
Under the current framework, every installed thermal meter must be inspected individually, a requirement that creates serious logistical challenges in multi-residential buildings. Inspectors must coordinate building access, security, tenant consent and in‑suite entry, making individual inspections impractical at scale. For example, in a single building with 675 fan coil units, inspections would take approximately 57 days to complete. That is just for one building. When extrapolated nationally to 189,000 thermal energy meters, it becomes obvious that the cost and disruption would be significant.
This approach is outdated and unnecessary. Sampling has long been used successfully under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, and the same principles apply here. Thermal energy meters are Measurement Canada-approved, tested for accuracy at the manufacturing stage and produced under quality management systems regularly audited by the agency.
Residential installations are also highly standardized, with only a small number of recurring configurations in any given building, making sampling a reliable indicator of overall compliance. Mandating 100% in-suite inspections would impose significant costs and disruption on residents, with negligible additional accuracy benefits.
Bill S-3 is a necessary and overdue modernization that will equip Measurement Canada with the flexibility it needs to regulate new and emerging technologies effectively. By enabling tools such as sampling-based, risk-informed inspections, the bill strengthens, not weakens, consumer protection, while ensuring oversight is practical, scalable and responsive to innovation.
We strongly support the swift passage of Bill S-3 because it strikes the right balance: maintaining rigorous protections for Canadians while modernizing the regulatory framework to reflect today’s technologies and marketplace realities.
Thank you. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. As with the previous panel, I suggest having four minutes each. We will start with the sponsor of the bill, Senator Varone.
Senator Varone: Thank you. My question is for you, Jordan, but, Christopher, you took the thunder right out of my question. However, for the sake of my colleagues, I’ll go through with what I prepared. Sub-metering has been a point of interest for several years now, but I look at it through a different lens. My lens is that of the private and public rental affordable-housing lens.
There are approximately 600,000 rental units in the GTA; 350,000 of them are of a high-rise nature, many of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s, and 70% of these units have bulk metering of utilities. Bulk metering forms part of the rental cost. Given that they are billed proportionally and not by consumption, for these rent-controlled apartments, bulk metering takes conservation out of the control of the tenants.
I have long advocated for the decoupling of utilities from rent. Rent should be predicated solely on the cost of the build and the cost of the land, which will drastically lower the cost of rental housing. Consumables such as utilities should all be separately metered and separately billed to the tenants to empower them with choices to lower the overall cost of their occupancy.
Municipalities have followed the old regime because they get to charge the landlords bulk fees, and it is shrouded. Before landlords can catch up, they have to go through a regulatory process to get above guideline increases.
Jordan, the question is for you specifically. You have launched a product that is called ENP+ that, in your statement, you claim achieves better energy efficiency. Has this new sub-metering technology reached a proficiency where it can shift the paradigm to lower rents if you individually meter all these old apartment buildings?
Mr. Hamilton: Thank you very much for the question. Electricity meters have advanced with smart metering and advanced meter infrastructure in Canada over the years. And with the ability to sub-meter — as mandated in many provinces, making sure that individual users and residents can see their usage — that allows them to reduce and also help buildings and Canada reach their climate and energy conservation goals.
So, by using smart meters such as the ENP+, these new technologies allow the sub-metering industry to effectively deliver reliable, accurate metering. These devices are Measurement Canada-approved, and consumer protections exist. Then it’s on the consumers to conserve and adjust their behaviour.
Mr. Holz: I will add to that very briefly. The value of sub‑metering we have discussed, but in some provinces — I’ll give Ontario as an example — the value of it was profound enough that the province changed the legislation to actually mandate that all multi-residential buildings, whether rental or condominiums or what have you, must now be sub-metered and/or suite‑metered. That was back in 2010. Actually, a little before that, in fact. A former colleague, Donna Cansfield, introduced that.
The point I’m making is the value has been identified for some time now, over 40 years.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thanks for your opening remarks. They were excellent. You were saying the benefit of sub-metering is it lowers usage for conservation, so I understand that. And you’re saying now you can do sampling so you don’t have to do visitation, so that will reduce costs. But it can’t all be positive. What are the negatives? We heard the good part. Can you tell us the other part?
Mr. Holz: That’s a great question. Let me go first. Before this, it appeared this was not going to be great, and I say this solely because the legislation is from the 1980s. A lot has changed since the 1980s. The requirement of doing individual inspections of every single unit — to get approval from the tenant and the owner, that’s a big production. The cost of doing so is pretty big. There are huge savings.
The fact that this legislation has been introduced and that there is a regulatory regime that will be developed — codes and things that will be developed — that’s a huge improvement. If the legislation doesn’t pass, that would be a serious problem. But we’re very supportive of the fact that Measurement Canada has taken such a strong position to develop this legislation.
That’s not answering your question directly, but we’re definitely supportive of the legislation. We really do think that the flexibility in designing a regime that in different contexts fits the need is important because if it’s that rigid, the challenge is that we can’t really address the speed of innovation, which is a real thing.
Senator Marshall: What are the disadvantages? You haven’t reached utopia. You might think you have, but there are going to be issues; privacy might be an issue. What kinds of issues are there? You must have some idea. It’s not going to be perfect.
Mr. Holz: The reality is that it’s not entirely up to us what the regime will be. Measurement Canada will implement that. We’ll provide a lot of input into that process, and others will as well. I don’t want to get into this, but it’s possible an approach might be very costly to implement. That would be something that might be a challenge.
In all fairness, our Measurement Canada colleagues have been fairly responsive. We don’t always agree on things, but they have a pretty open door, and they work with industry and certainly consumers. I’m more than hopeful. I think the evidence would demonstrate that they have taken —
Senator Marshall: There won’t be any problems?
Mr. Holz: If there are problems, we’ll come back and certainly have this discussion, but I would say it that way.
Senator Fridhandler: The metering equipment is also becoming more and more sophisticated and aggregated. I believe certain utilities might use it for things like selling products and collecting specific data.
One question is about the concerns and the downsides around the implications of the sophisticated equipment we’re getting that aggregates more than just measuring how much electricity or gas you might get.
Second, are there regulatory barriers to implementing around who is paying the costs of all the new metering? Typically, the utility would, I believe, which then goes into the regulated rates. There are issues with regulators from time to time on how much you can change and leave stranded assets that haven’t lived out their depreciated life. I don’t know if you’re seeing any of that as we try to get better metering and measuring.
Mr. Hamilton: Do you want to address any concerns with rates?
Mr. Holz: So we’re filling a market need, and we have enough confidence to make the investments to implement this kind of metering technology. The reality, too, is recouping the cost of that investment happens over a good period of time.
There has been a fair amount of advancement, and candidly, some Canadian companies have been involved in that process.
Mr. Hamilton: As it relates to the relationship or the reason why we do this, the sub-metering industry itself has a very important role to play. We actually help facilitate the fair trade of energy between the building primary consumer bulk meter and the end consumer residents. That whole process is registered with Measurement Canada, and we have to ensure regulatory compliance is maintained. We enter into relationships in these buildings for a period of time, and we are able to recover the cost of the equipment and the investment that we make. We do implement new technologies, such as thermal energy metering. Our specific push for the benefit of Bill S-3 is a new technology that has come in. The buildings are looking for this type of support to help run their buildings more efficiently, and Measurement Canada has brought in regulation over this new industry in Canada. It has existed in Europe for decades.
So, from that, we comply. We’re following this, and Measurement Canada has approved these meters. We’re willing to invest in them and make sure that we fill this need in the market.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks to the witnesses.
I want to ask a similar question that I asked the last panel. It’s about the use of industry standards as a way to keep our regulatory structures more agile.
I want to get a sense from you of the extent to which this legislation will allow for that. The reason I think it’s important is because regulations are developed solely by government regulators, where standards are developed with government regulators at the table but not the sole participants, so it’s a more collegial and inclusive approach. We have a history of Measurement Canada not adjusting in some very basic ways over the years that have been, I think, damaging to our sales of EVs and charging stations, where there is no market for charging stations in non-provincially regulated utility situations.
Give me a sense of the importance of that and the ability of this bill to help that to occur going forward and maybe get some interprovincial alignment with a federal standard.
Mr. Holz: From a standards perspective, we have some role in standards, but typically, it’s the regulatory stage where, as an industry, we’re certainly trying to work with department officials and with Measurement Canada in the case of something like Bill S-3 and a new regime. The more there is an openness to hear from us, the better off we are.
Certainly, in other examples from this industry, often there is an openness, but when there isn’t, there are consequences, meaning division of a particular legislation or a regulatory regime. There is a flaw in it that becomes evident on the second day that it’s introduced.
To the extent that there is the opportunity for industry to provide early input and help shape some of this — it doesn’t mean that regulators have to agree with everything, but we at least have the opportunity to do that, as well as other groups — the better off we will be.
Senator C. Deacon: Surely, there are CSA, or Canadian Standards Association, standards or laboratory standards and other standards built into your equipment.
Mr. Holz: Sure. Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: And those could play a role as they evolve, forming a lot of the regulatory burden or baseline regulations and incorporating that into the regulatory framework so that it’s more agile. That’s sort of where I’m pointing to.
Mr. Hamilton: You have to look at the mandates of the different regulators. As you mentioned, there’s the CSA, though there is the Standards Council of Canada, which is responsible for all standards in general. There is safety compliance and then there is accuracy and measurement compliance.
Senator C. Deacon: You don’t cover that?
Mr. Hamilton: Measurement Canada’s mandate is measurement — as in their name — though it would be beneficial to industry if there were some sort of deregulated lab where you could test devices at a single location. Measurement Canada does provide a really important role in ensuring with their laboratory in Ottawa that the devices are accurate and provide consumer protection.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you once again for being here with us.
My question is on sub-metering and innovation. If you can elaborate, how does Bill S-3 support or hinder innovation in sub‑metering technologies, especially in multi-residential and commercial buildings? Are the current regulatory frameworks flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies? Today, technology evolves so quickly — smart meters, real-time data systems and so on.
Mr. Hamilton: Thank you for the question. Bill S-3 will really help, as has been pointed out, to update that out-of-date legislation.
The Weights and Measures Act, under which the thermal energy meters are to be regulated, was not originally designed for the sub-metering environment. It was originally designed primarily around point-of-sale and stand-alone device transactions with multiple customers. Thermal energy wasn’t really contemplated in that environment.
Bill S-3 will allow us, as an industry, to bring in sampling — once Measurement Canada has the authority, of course. This bill gives Measurement Canada authority that it didn’t have before under the Weights and Measures Act. That will allow them, with consultation from us, to come up with those sampling specifications and policies. We can then make sure we can deliver our mandate on this new thermal energy metering technology. We can make sure that the marketplace and Canadians are better served with new technologies.
Senator Varone: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: With my first question, I need to clarify this: You said that your sub-meter is applicable in commercial and housing. You are not referring to a single home, correct?
Mr. Holz: No.
Senator Ringuette: You’re talking about multi-housing units?
Mr. Holz: It’s possible a house could be split into three units or something, but you probably would not do that. But, yes, it applies to multi-residential buildings and commercial buildings.
Senator Ringuette: In a multi-residential building, electricity is certainly involved, but for heating and cooling purposes, there might also be the use of natural gas. You would have two different sub-meters because of the two different energy entities? Is that right?
Mr. Hamilton: Yes. Basically, to provide a little more clarification, most members of the Sub-metering Council of Ontario meter all types of energy, as well as water. The types of energy that would enter a residential unit or a commercial unit would be electrical energy, chemical energy in the form of natural gas and thermal energy in the form of heated or cooled water delivered through a local district heating system.
The thermal energy that we’re talking about is basically district heating; just the district is contained within the building. We would also meter potable water for food preparation, bathing and so on.
We try to help provide the bridge between the bulk meter, as it’s referred to, or the primary consumer meter at the main of the building. There would be one each of those for electricity, gas and water, but not always thermal, though. If the building is built in Vancouver or Toronto right now, there are some district heating systems.
But in the case of taking it down a level into sub-metering, we then can install these electricity, water, natural gas or thermal district heating-type meters where the district plant is within the building, and the heating and cooling are delivered to the individual residents. In that way, again, we form that bridge in a regulated way to help the building meet its energy conservation and climate reduction —
Senator Ringuette: You indicated that, on average, after the installation of these sub-meters, there was a 40% reduction in energy conservation or in cost.
Mr. Holz: For electricity conservation, yes. I’m referring specifically to the study called Navigant, or Guidehouse. That is publicly available; I can share a copy.
The bottom line is that is the drop in electricity usage even within a month of the installation, which is pretty profound. Some cost savings are associated with that in the sense that the bill payment, rather than being caught in rent or condo fees, is now apportioned to the individual unit.
When we implement sub-metering in, let’s say, electricity, at the end of the day, the cost of the bulk bill is divided based on the usage of each of the units. If you love electricity and use a lot of it, you will pay more, but if you use are a conserver, you will pay less.
The Chair: We move now to the critic of the bill, Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: My colleagues have asked some of my questions already. I just have a few remaining.
Bill S-3 allows exemptions for classes of contractors under specified conditions. In the sub-metering space, smaller operators may work alongside larger firms. In your view, how should the criteria for exemptions be structured so that the regulatory burden is right-sized for smaller operators while maintaining consistent consumer protection across the sector?
Mr. Holz: That is a great question. As an industry, we are more high-touch with our Measurement Canada colleagues. When I recall this being part of the consultation process, this was meant more for organizations that would have far less interaction with Measurement Canada. Candidly, the burden for those organizations shouldn’t be as high, necessarily, as USMPs, or unit sub-meter providers, or others that would have even higher burdens than we do.
The legislation is intended to have that variety. It’s not to say that we want high-touch, but we have a good relationship with our Measurement Canada colleagues. It provides them with flexibility so that every smaller organization does not need to have the high-touch that is necessary.
Senator Martin: That’s good. I’m always looking at small- and medium-size businesses or entities because it is a big burden on them, trying to compete with the larger ones, so that’s good to know.
I am looking ahead. I don’t know if you’ve thought about this — I’m sure you have in your own ways — but Bill S-3 requires a legislative review every 10 years. This modernization is long overdue, as we know. This is an important accountability tool.
From your perspective, what key performance indicators or metrics should Parliament examine in those reviews to assess whether modernization has delivered tangible benefits for both consumers and industry?
Mr. Holz: That’s a great question, senator. The cost of inspections is important. Inspections are important, but the oversight regime and its costs versus the accuracy are important measures. I’m just saying that generally. There will be other things, of course.
Part of the process in a 10-year review is ensuring that industry and consumers absolutely have a role early in that review process. Typically, Measurement Canada has been very good that way. I’m saying that because they’re watching but also because we like them.
There are other measures. There will be evolution between now and 10 years from now. A point may come before 10 years when a legislative change is required.
One of the good things about this bill is the overall flexibility built into it. That is really important because I suspect, in the next 10 years, a lot of different developments will require flexibility to address them relatively quickly. They could catch up with new and innovative technologies that cause a significant amount of demand two years from now. That is just a theoretical example, but that is happening a lot.
Senator Martin: The technology is advancing so rapidly, and 10 years is a long time from now. How long was the consultation process for this bill?
Mr. Holz: There was dialogue before the formal consultation process. Don’t quote me on this, but it was maybe 60 days, though there was a lot of pre-consultation. We had ongoing dialogue with our Measurement Canada colleagues, including after that.
They were pretty open and fairly robust. If there was a delay, the delay to today is not because of a lack of effort. The parliamentary process is complex.
Senator McBean: Thank you for your testimony. It has been making sub-metering clear for us. Sometimes when you open one door, it ends up having the effect of closing another. Bill S-3 will, among other things, modernize the definition of “meter.”
From your perspective, how will that change affect sub‑metering companies operating multi-unit residential and commercial buildings in Ontario? Do you see anything in the modernization of that language that could unintentionally slow innovation or the adoption of new metering techniques or create other issues?
Mr. Holz: There was something about software, and I know this is a question that came up from senators before and one we also raised with the department and Measurement Canada colleagues. There was some concern about that in that it might be more expansive beyond metering and into billing systems software and other things unrelated to metering. That was a bit of a concern. Candidly, in the discussions we’ve had, that is not really the intention.
I raise that because that is one where we were concerned that it would make things more rigid and more challenging, but that doesn’t appear to be the case, based on what we’ve heard.
Mr. Hamilton: To add, it’s to provide more flexibility to Measurement Canada. As the industry innovates, a meter may not necessarily look like the bubble meter, the socket meter from 100 years ago, but could be distributed in some way that they can still wrap around that and say that this is the point of the trade where they have to do their accuracy measurement.
Our hope or expectation is they don’t go outside the actual point of measurement because there are other regulatory protections in place, many at the provincial level. It would be difficult or could add cost to the industry if they go outside that.
As long as it’s contained to the meter, them having flexibility makes sense.
Senator McBean: The definition needs to modernize yet not be so flexible that —
Mr. Hamilton: A meter might not look like a meter in 5 or 10 years. There are thermal energy meters with multiple components and a calculator involved with them. It doesn’t necessarily look like a single thing that you would historically see, so the key is that, when a new technology comes along, Measurement Canada has some flexibility to wrap their arms around it, and as long as they stick to their mandate, it will serve everyone well.
Senator McBean: Trusting that they stick to their mandate, is there anything you think should be a key component of the definition?
Mr. Holz: Electricity Canada brought a recommendation at the last meeting, which is a bit of pruning around the software question, and we’re supportive of that. So long as the software is tied to the meterology, we’re okay with that. The concern would be if it becomes more expansive and goes beyond, as we said before.
The one thing about flexibility is that anything is possible. The downside with flexibility: anything is also possible. So the latter is one we’d like to avoid. We would be supportive of that recommendation from Electricity Canada. I think they have submitted that.
Senator Yussuff: I live in a building just around the corner from here, not too far, so I’ll tell my own story, but it speaks to the industry you represent.
The electricity cost was a bulk purchase system. The building was built at a time when sub-metering didn’t exist. It was not adopted.
Of course, once the building was adapted, the condo fees dropped significantly because we had to account for our own use of electricity.
In that context, it was a sea change, but I subscribe to the point that you’re making. It also brought consumers into the responsibility of conservation. In a new building being built in Toronto, very close to my neighbourhood, it’s now built into the system due to the tremendous effect of provincial regulation.
Given that sub-metering is seen as a very positive development for consumers, meaning tenants, why isn’t it promoted more, especially for older buildings that could benefit from this? Many people with limited incomes are struggling to deal with costs, and when it gets divided, it is not divided fairly. Those who are trying to turn the lights off and do the right thing are being burdened with the overall costs of the building.
How can we ensure that this legislation will have a positive impact on quickly moving this forward in places where the system is slow to respond?
Mr. Holz: That is a great question. Boy, I wish we had spoken last week. The legislation itself does not address this. What would address this might be incentives for buildings, more awareness for buildings.
I wouldn’t go so far as saying a mandate that all buildings build before a certain year should convert. Incentives and education might help. It could be at the provincial or municipal level in the city of Toronto or other municipalities.
We know the conservation impact is significant. It’s good to hear that your experience has also been so, but we know this from the customers that we serve.
This bill doesn’t address this, but incentives from buildings or information from the province or the municipality could encourage this. You might ask what the further-on benefit would be. The conservation benefit at the individual level is great, but the conservation benefit at the city level is very significant. We have to build a third transmission line to downtown Toronto. We have a downtown gas power plant. If we were to implement more conservation in a city like Toronto through something like this, we could reduce the amount of energy we would need or the timeline for that new transmission line or another gas plant that might need to be built.
Senator Yussuff: This is not related to the bill itself but is about sub-metering technology. It’s costly in a sense that those who get into business can amortize it over a period of time. Where does the technology come from? Who is the biggest source of sub-metering technology?
Mr. Holz: That is also a great question.
Mr. Hamilton: There are many Canadian manufacturers of sub-meters because of the opportunity in Canada to provide sub‑metering, and it has spurred innovation. CARMA, Metergy and many others are Canadian companies that actually manufacture and supply these meters.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, both.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that they are not Chinese models that can be monitored from abroad. They are done in Canada and all that.
Is there a check that you do between the sub-meters and the bulk meters to see that if you add up all the sub-meters, they are more or less equal to the bulk meter?
Mr. Hamilton: That is a great question. Yes, depending on how the sub-metering system is deployed, we will routinely add in common-area meters as well to help the property, in its energy conservation mandate, identify where the other common-element energy is.
But it is routinely part of our reporting to report the main meter, report the sum of the sub-meters and then report the common area. And the common areas do closely align in many of the properties. If they have a pool or something that has extraordinary energy use, it will be an outlier, but there are those reports and metrics put in place to ensure what is collected is representative of what should be collected.
And then, of course, the meters themselves are Measurement Canada approved and inspected. We have all the checks and balances in place there.
Senator Dalphond: This means technology that is expensive and may take a few years to recover. What do you mean by apartment or unit? How much is the cost?
Mr. Holz: Just on that, the cost of the bulk bill is allocated based on usage, so there is no markup. In the case of electricity, the electricity commodity charge, the regulatory fee, the transmission distribution fee — there is an admin fee we charge because we have to own the asset and are responsible for maintaining it. We have to do the bill collection and bill issuance. There is also regulatory.
But as a pass-through, there is no markup on the bill on energy use. So that is an important point, just to be clear.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Pupatello: Welcome. It’s good to see you putting all that history and experience — I wouldn’t say it is a clean, perfect process in Ontario, but you learn when you make a lot of mistakes. So the Ontario Green Energy Act was a lot of the genesis of the new industries that were built, as with your sub‑metering industry, which was a direct result of government policy, so it was great to see it at work.
I want to ask you about a couple of comments. You said that you would support the electricity industry, the association, when they were talking about refinement or controls around the definition of “meter.” But given your own history with legislation, you probably recognize that it can be well done in regulation once the bill is passed because that meter, as you mentioned, will change over the years, so it could be a meter that talks to you and you need to incorporate that into the definition or something. I think that could likely happen. If it were done in regulation, you’d be comfortable with that?
And second, the gas association was also recommending or noting they needed to have or wished to have an alignment around the certification process, regulatory processes, et cetera for gas and electricity. Do you have a comment on that, or could you speak to what happens when you don’t have that alignment?
Mr. Hamilton: Thank you for your question. We definitely see that as we perform reverification to make sure meters still meet accuracy requirements. We do have to track different seal periods, so it would be beneficial if there were a standard amount of time.
I’m very confident that the technology has advanced over the past few decades, with devices now being electronic and solid state as opposed to mechanical gears and whatnot, where the devices, with time, would age and not be as accurate. We see quite a high level of performance in the meters when they’re brought in for reverification.
Going off script a little bit, California, it’s 10 years for all utilities. That seems consistent with Measurement Canada when you get what’s called seal extension, an unconditional 10-year seal. So Measurement Canada does have provisions to get to a 10-year. There are just a few steps you have to go through. But, yes —
Senator Pupatello: As far as the alignment between gas and electricity?
Mr. Hamilton: It would be helpful if there was consistency to help manage these assets.
Senator Pupatello: So you would promote that around regulation when it gets to that point?
Mr. Holz: Yes.
Mr. Hamilton: Definitely.
Senator Marshall: In your previous remarks, you talked about how there will be cost savings because now you can sample for inspections as opposed to doing actual visitations. Has there been any assessment of the impact on the sub-metering workforce? You have a lot of members, so what kind of work have you done with regard to staffing implications?
Mr. Holz: That is a great question. Senator, we know what the regime is currently and what we are required to do to implement the inspection regime. Jordan provided an example: For one building, it will take 57 days. We have 189,000 thermal energy meters that have been installed as of now. That is just with our four members. There’s probably more than that. That will take a long time, and the cost of that would be pretty extraordinary. From a staffing perspective, that is a significant amount of staff.
But once that is concluded, those staff may disappear because we would have to do it on such a large scale in such a short period of time. Moving to a sampling regime is a superior process, but also the cost avoidance will be significant.
Senator Marshall: Are you able to give us some indication of the extent? Are you able to say, for example, for every five employees, you’re now only going to need one? How many people are employed by your members in total?
Mr. Holz: That one I can answer. It is 1,000 employees and professionals across four companies. We’re mid-sized companies, just to be clear, so about 1,000.
Mr. Hamilton: This mandate around thermal energy metering — which is our main push for acceptance of Bill S-3 and sampling — is a new mandate that Measurement Canada is bringing in. There’s been consultation. We’re aware, but there is a timeline for getting everything compliant, which basically means doing all these inspections.
The inspections weren’t originally contemplated as we deployed many of these assets, so now we’re having to go back and retroactively inspect assets. That’s where there’s this cost avoidance or concern because, ultimately, the cost will reach down to the consumer, and we want to avoid adding unnecessary inspections if we implement a practical sampling process, which Measurement Canada will have the authority to do through Bill S-3. That will help prevent cost increases that would ultimately be borne by the consumer.
Senator Marshall: I was more interested in the impact because there are people watching this meeting who are employed by one of those companies. They are wondering what the impact on the workforce will be and if they will lose their jobs.
Mr. Hamilton: It is the other way around. We don’t have to ramp up. It is a very difficult task for us to meet the present timeline.
With the amount of staffing increase and training needed, it would be a much better solution to implement a low-risk sampling situation.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Thank you to both of our witnesses for your testimony. That concludes this panel. Your testimony will be taken into consideration by the committee.
We will now move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)