Industry Committee on June 15th, 2010

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Sorry for the interruption.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on the same topic. I don't know who brought this to the committee and who wants to circulate it, but if you're saying that we'll have to wait until it's available in both languages...

The Liberals brought this, am I right?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Yes, I brought it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

If they want to keep that document for their own purposes, to refer to it, I have no problem with that. On the other hand, if it is not in both official languages, it should not be circulated.

With respect to its relevance and its content, we'll see, if someone provides an explanation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Cardin. I absolutely agree with you.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I wasn't referring to the individual. It's obviously a ten percenter from—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We'll have it distributed when it's in both official languages. And secondly, I'm asking the analyst right now if he could bring forward the cost for you, Mr. Masse, at the next committee meeting, or before, to endeavour to do that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I don't want to take up any more of Mr. McTeague's time, and I have no objection to his bringing this up. But there's been lots of discussion in the House of Commons about the use of ten percenters, and it appears we have a government member, just from what I'm looking at... As soon as I flickered up, I had an idea—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

A point of order. This is not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Just one moment.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

—because I've seen Conservative templates done before and it appears to me it's information that has been propagated out there already, influencing—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I've heard your point. I've already told you what I've decided to do, as chair.

We'll now go to Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I won't mention the member—you can see that, it's pretty self-evident—but it's a number of members, obviously, from the Conservative Party using it as a template.

What I would ask the witness...

I'll say this in French. It says here that for every dollar invested in pump inspection—this will probably be a question put by the NDP—consumers will get $11.

Do you agree with the comments in the pamphlet from the Conservative Party?

[René Blouin]

It's difficult to answer that. In Quebec, in our situation, the government does not pay the inspectors; the retailers do. As in this bill, the government certifies inspectors who have to verify and calibrate the pumps. The government does not pay for that service in Quebec.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Merci.

I'm going to turn my questions now to Ms. Savage from CIPMA.

Option consommateurs, on page 46 of its report, well before the Glen McGregor uncorroborated Measurement Canada view on faulty pumps, pointed out that a full 82% of Canadians, back in 2002, felt very confident or somewhat confident about the accuracy of gasoline pumps. Given that, and given what you've just told us about the prospect, the reality of wear and tear, which I've tried to explain to some of my colleagues here, certainly on the government side, how satisfactory or how relevant or pertinent is it for the government and Measurement Canada to boast inspections every two years when throughputs and volumes at some stations in Toronto and Montreal might exceed volumes that would in fact trigger the need for more frequent inspection and a more mandatory inspection, as opposed to this two-year catch-all? It seems to me that they obviously didn't look before they leapt. If you're going to have a station with 14 million or 15 million volume throughput every year, those pumps could wear, obviously depending on the number of pumps that are there.

Do you have any comment on that, Ms. Savage?

[Jane Savage]

As I understand it, the two-year inspection cycle is not in Bill C-14 but will be decided in the regulatory regime. From our perspective, the two-year cycle is a logical cycle for the large urban sites. As I mentioned, the greater the volume going through a pump, the more it wears, and logically the more often, from a statistical point of view, it should be calibrated. Some of the rural sites that we are involved with and that many of you here are familiar with would have one-twentieth the volume of a large urban site.

If we have a one-size-fits-all regime--a two-year cycle for all sites in Canada--the rural sites will have a disproportionate burden of the cost of this regime. Again, as I mentioned, we look forward to working with Measurement Canada in the regulatory phase to ensure that there is some understanding of the way pumps wear and of what logical inspection cycles would look like so that we don't burden rural sites with the cost of this bill.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Ms. Savage, in your view, what would be the advantage for someone if they could break through an electronic pump? I understand it's very difficult to do. I don't know if we'll have Gilbarco or Dresser Wayne here, but in your experience, what is the prospect? Why would there be an incentive to play with volumes? In the abstract, if they were to tamper with the pumps, would it not create a skew for a retailer that might cause irreparable difficulty for them?

[Jane Savage]

Absolutely. The current regime in weights and measures is clear that deliberate fraud and deliberate tampering are absolutely unacceptable. A retailer is also a business person with integrity, and that person worries about the volumetric balance in their gas station as well as the integrity of their business. Without question, tampering with a pump--especially with a Measurement Canada seal or an inspection seal on a pump--is an egregious act that would be very detrimental to their business. In my view, they would not undertake it.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Finally, I understand that refineries' deliveries to terminals habitually use a tolerance level in their contracts of 0.2 litres or 200 millilitres for every 20 litres of gasoline. Measurement Canada allows a lot more flexibility; it can be up to 1,000 millilitres for every 20 litres, or half of one per cent. Does it concern you that the tolerance level itself is irrelevant in today's modern exchange of product?

[Jane Savage]

The tolerance level is very relevant from an understanding of the mechanical workings of all these meters. The meters are different, depending on the sector, as well as the volume that is being delivered and as well as the material that is being delivered. All these things have an impact on the tolerance that should be defined for each sector, and indeed for each product and each type of meter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Madame Savage.

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Go ahead, Monsieur Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. And thank you for coming here this morning.

My first question is for Ms. Marcotte. Perhaps Mr. Blouin can expand on her answer later.

From what I understand, you're saying in your brief that Quebec already has regulations that provide for obligatory monitoring of retailers. In that case, Bill C-14 is an overlap.

Could you tell us more about this?

[Sonia Marcotte]

Yes. The Safety Code in Quebec's Building Act provides for calibration every two years. Retailers have to undertake that calibration. A seal is then put on the pump.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

And this works well?

[Sonia Marcotte]

Yes it does. I believe Mr. Serge Harnois can give you more details.