Honourable senators, I rise today as critic 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.

Let me state that I support the overall aims of this bill.

Modernizing Canada’s trade measurement system is not only timely; it is long overdue. The laws governing weights and measures and electricity and gas meters have remained largely unchanged in their core structure since the 1980s, an era before the internet, before mobile devices and long before today’s digital innovation.

In the meantime, technology has transformed how businesses operate and consumers buy and sell goods. We need to update our framework to reflect this new reality and align with international practices so that Canadian trade remains fair, efficient and globally competitive.

Trade measurement affects Canadians in countless ordinary transactions, from the gas pump, to the grocery store scale, to the electricity meter on the side of the house. When you pay for a litre of fuel or a kilowatt hour of power, accurate measurement is what ensures you receive what you are charged for. These statutes are the foundation of consumer confidence and a fair, competitive environment for businesses across the country.

It is with that in mind that I welcome the intent of Bill S-3 to update our measurement laws for the digital age.

I also recognize that stakeholders have been calling for these updates for some time. In 2023, the government undertook public consultations to gather input on how to modernize these acts. These consultations included a range of industry stakeholders who generally agreed that modernization is overdue. They see this bill as crucial to keeping pace with technology and international standards.

The feedback was clear: Canada’s trade measurement framework needs to be more flexible and better suited to today’s marketplace.

However, I note that input from small consumer organizations was more limited during those consultations. We should always be mindful of the consumer perspective, especially for ordinary Canadians who rely on these measurements but are not often directly involved in consultations. Modernization must work for consumers and small businesses just as much as for large industry players.

Honourable colleagues, as critic for Bill S-3, I support the bill’s objectives and commend the government for addressing this important area of the economy. My role is to offer constructive scrutiny, ask questions and flag issues where implementation needs to be done right. In that spirit, I will outline a few key concerns and questions.

First, I want to focus on procedural fairness. My main concern is not simply that the bill grants broad powers, but also how those powers will be used in practice and whether people who are affected will receive clear explanations and a genuine opportunity to respond when their rights or livelihoods are at stake.

Bill S-3 would give Measurement Canada and the responsible minister significant flexibility to manage approvals and permissions. Under a new subsection 6(1) of the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the President of Measurement Canada would be able to “. . . suspend or revoke any certificate issued under subsection 6(2).” In practical terms, the president could cancel a contractor’s registration under that act, effectively removing their ability to operate in the regulated electricity or gas market if the requirements are no longer met.

New section 6.2 would then allow the president, “. . . under any conditions and for the period that the President specifies . . .” to exempt any contractor or class of contractors from the application of provisions of the act or its regulations other than subsection 6(2).

On the weights and measures side, new section 8.1 would permit the minister to allow:

. . . a trader to use, or have in their possession for use, in trade, any device on a temporary basis for any period and under any conditions that the Minister specifies, without approval or examination.

I acknowledge that there are situations where this kind of flexibility is both sensible and necessary. If a registered service provider for weighing devices or meters is consistently underperforming or acting improperly, Measurement Canada must be able to intervene.

Likewise, when a promising new technology appears, it is reasonable to allow it to be used on a pilot basis rather than holding it back for years in a lengthy approval queue. The question is how we can be confident that these powers will be exercised in a way that is fair, transparent and consistent.

The bill does include procedural safeguards, which are important. Before suspending or revoking a permission or certificate, the minister or the president must provide written notice, give the affected person a “. . . reasonable opportunity . . .” to make representations and take those representations into account before deciding whether to suspend or revoke. That is a valuable starting point.

What is less clear is how this will work in practice. What will count as a reasonable opportunity in terms of timing, information and process? Will affected contractors receive reasons that explain the decision in a way that allows them to meaningfully object or correct misunderstandings? Will there be clear and accessible avenues to seek a review or reconsideration beyond the internal process?

Under the proposed amendments to section 23 of the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, if a person who receives a certificate of findings is dissatisfied and gives notice to the inspector within the prescribed time, the inspector must refer the matter to the president for reconsideration in the prescribed manner. New subsection 23(4) provides that “The president’s decision on a matter referred to them under subsection (3) is final and conclusive.”

In practice, this means the president is the final decision maker for these disputes and, in other areas of the amended act, also acts as the original decision maker on suspensions, revocations and exemptions. That concentration of authority heightens the importance of getting the notice and representation process right, because for many affected businesses, this may be their only real opportunity to be heard.

Procedural fairness also matters in how inspection powers are modernized. Under the amended acts, inspectors would be able to enter any non-residential place, including a business site or vehicle, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an activity regulated by the act is being conducted there or that something to which the act applies is located there. Once on site, inspectors may examine the place; examine or test devices and goods found there; seize and detain items; use any means of communication; use computer or telecommunication systems on the premises to examine data; and reproduce electronic records and prepare documents based on that data.

Under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, there is a specific carve-out that prevents inspectors from seizing a meter that is in service, which reflects the particular realities of electricity and gas supply.

The bill also expressly recognizes that inspections can be carried out remotely by clarifying that an inspector is considered to have “entered” a place even if they access it remotely by telecommunication. This remote inspection authority is innovative and, in many cases, a practical way to deliver more timely and cost-effective oversight using digital tools.

I agree that we should make full use of technology to make compliance checks more efficient, but that makes it even more important to have clear internal policies and training to ensure that these powers are used proportionately and only for legitimate inspection purposes.

Regulatory inspections of businesses have long been recognized as an exception to the usual warrant requirements based on the logic that those who choose to engage in regulated commercial activities accept a higher degree of oversight and a reduced expectation of privacy compared to a private home.

The bill appropriately maintains the safeguard that entering a dwelling still requires either consent or a warrant issued by a justice. Even so, in a commercial context, Charter protections, notably section 8 on unreasonable search and seizure, continue to apply to prevent abuse.

I fully acknowledge that modernizing inspection powers is necessary. Done well, these changes will make inspections more efficient and help prevent future cases of non-compliance. The challenge and the concern I want to underline is to make sure that as these broad powers are rolled out, the processes around notice, explanation, the opportunity to respond and internal review are robust enough to give businesses and the public confidence that the powers will be exercised fairly and proportionately, not arbitrarily.

One of the positive elements of Bill S-3 is its focus on reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on low-risk, small-scale operators. Our current system can indeed be heavy for small businesses, especially those for whom selling measured goods is just a minor part of what they do. The bill introduces a more flexible approach under which the president may exempt certain contractors or classes of contractors from the application of some or all provisions of the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and its regulations, subject to conditions.

However, when we open the door to this kind of flexibility, it becomes even more important to be clear about how it will work in practice. I fully support the principle of rightsizing the regulatory burden, but we owe it to small operators and consumers alike to be very clear about how these exemptions will be defined and applied. Proposed section 6.2 would empower the President of Measurement Canada to grant exemptions for “any contractor or class of contractors” under conditions they specify.

In practice, this gives the president a fair bit of discretion, and it will likely fall to regulations or policy guidelines to spell out which kinds of contractors might qualify — for example, what counts as a small or low-volume business eligible for exemption? Are we talking about businesses under a certain revenue or sales threshold, or those for whom metered sales are only incidental? It would be helpful to know the criteria up front so that we ensure this relief is targeted properly.

Moreover, we need to be confident that consumers dealing with an exempted business are not left vulnerable. The bill provides regulation-making authority for:

. . . prescribing the requirements to be satisfied before the president may grant any exemption, approval, permission or authorization under this Act . . . .

This is intended to ensure that any exemption is tied to clear conditions and safeguards.

I also have a concern from the standpoint of competitive neutrality. If one business receives an exemption and a direct competitor does not, that could easily be perceived as unfair. My understanding is that the policy intention is to exempt classes of businesses that meet clear, objective criteria, rather than to select individual winners, and it would be helpful to have that confirmed.

In the end, this kind of flexibility can be very useful, particularly as our economy sees more innovative business models and energy projects. The key will be to implement the process in a transparent way, with a clear description of who qualifies and how consumer protection will be maintained.

A central theme of Bill S-3 is support for innovation. We want to create space for new kinds of measuring technologies to come forward. On the weights and measures side, proposed section 8.1 would allow the minister to permit a trader to use a device in trade on a temporary basis for any period and under any conditions that the minister specifies “. . . without approval or examination.” Under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the president would have the ability, for example under proposed subsection 12(3), to permit any meter or meters of a given class, type or design to remain in service for a specified period and under stated conditions without reverification or resealing.

In practical terms, these tools would let Canadians access cutting-edge technologies sooner and help businesses test new solutions in real market conditions. We do not want a system so rigid that a device is effectively outdated by the time it clears every approval hurdle. Properly implemented, this kind of temporary permission model could make Canada a more attractive jurisdiction for developing, introducing and testing innovations in the measurement field.

Bill S-3 will not implement itself. Its success will depend very much on how Measurement Canada and the department translate these new powers and flexibilities into day-to-day practice for inspectors, businesses and consumers. The bill points to preventative control-type plans, risk-based inspections and new digital tools. On paper, these are constructive ideas. In practice, they will require clear guidance, updated procedures and steady communication so that everyone understands what is expected of them.

Departmental officials have noted: While the bill introduces the legislative framework and broad amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, the detailed translation of these changes into practical application will be largely driven by subsequent regulatory amendments. These regulations will address the specifics of compliance, exemptions, powers and operational procedures stemming from the updated acts.

From my conversations with officials, I was encouraged to hear that the approach to non-compliance is intended to be gradual, with an emphasis on education, dialogue and corrective measures before any severe sanctions are considered. That philosophy is important.

Small businesses in particular need to know that if they fall short of a new requirement, the first response will usually be to work with them to fix the problem, not to immediately revoke a certificate or shut down operations. I would ask the government to confirm how that stepped approach will be reflected in policy and in the training that inspectors receive.

Implementation is also where costs and benefits will be felt. Modern digital meters and systems can improve accuracy and reduce administrative burden, but they also involve investment. We should be attentive to the risk that compliance costs are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. If we get the implementation right, Bill S-3’s goals can reduce red tape and improve fairness in the marketplace, rather than simply shifting burdens around.

The world of weights and measures is a global one, and Canada should be a respected player in metrology internationally because our businesses and consumers benefit when our standards align with those of our trading partners. Bill S-3 rightly emphasizes moving toward a more flexible, future-focused legislative framework. One aspect of this is how we incorporate evolving international standards. Measurement technology standards are often set or benchmarked by international bodies.

These standards will continue to evolve as technology changes. We should not end up again in a situation where the law stands still for decades while the marketplace moves ahead.

The requirement for a legislative review every 10 years is a positive step, because it means we should not wait another 40 years before reassessing these statutes. The amended Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act will require the minister to cause a review of each act and its operation to be completed before the tenth anniversary of the relevant coming-into-force date, and every 10 years thereafter, and to have a report of that review tabled in both houses of Parliament.

At the same time, even between those formal reviews, the regulatory system needs to be nimble enough to respond in real time to innovation and international best practices. In my view, that is the purpose of moving toward a more outcome-based, technology-neutral framework. Canada should be able to adopt new technologies quickly rather than falling behind our partners or becoming a destination for outdated equipment.

I want to underline how important that is, and I am encouraged that Bill S-3 moves us in that direction.

Honourable senators, I have spoken to several themes, including procedural fairness, the shape of business exemptions, the balance between innovation and consumer protection, how the bill will be put into practice and our alignment with international standards. These are precisely the kinds of issues that the Senate, as the chamber of sober second thought, is well placed to scrutinize.

None of the questions I have raised undermine my support for this legislation; rather, they are intended to reinforce how it will work on the ground and to build public confidence in it. Bill S-3 already contains many welcome measures that will strengthen protections for consumers and modernize the framework that underpins our economy, helping Canada maintain confidence in its measurement system and keep our industries competitive abroad.

What we must do now is ensure that, as we implement these modern tools, we also maintain our commitment to fairness and accountability. I am encouraged by the government’s collaborative approach so far, including consultations and openness to feedback. In fact, during my technical briefing with officials, I saw in them a sincere dedication to being collaborative with industry and businesses, with the consumers in mind. I was quite impressed with their responses.

I highlighted some of the concerns that could be raised, for absolute certainty, but I felt quite confident in the responses that I received from officials. I wanted to make that clear as well.

In conclusion, I encourage all senators to allow this bill to be sent to committee with a strong endorsement of its goals, coupled with a clear expectation that the concerns raised will be addressed. Canada’s marketplace depends on accurate, trustworthy measurements; it is a foundational piece of our economic infrastructure that we sometimes take for granted.

Measurements are everywhere. As I was preparing for this speech, I looked at how this would impact businesses across Canada, small and large. With this bill, we have a chance to bring that foundation I mentioned up to date. Let us do so carefully and thoughtfully every step of the way. Thank you.