Industry Committee on June 17th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Johnston and Mr. Masse.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What prompted all of this, including this proposed bill, seems to be the sampling of a number of pumps over time that indicated that roughly 94% were within tolerance, 2% were out of tolerance in favour of the consumer, and 4% were in favour of the retailer—if I understood correctly.

Actually, I'm getting more interested in the data on which this was analyzed, because we heard testimony on Tuesday from a couple of organizations that represented independent retailers in Quebec and elsewhere, and there seemed to be a couple of variables—I don't know if they're in your database—that I certainly didn't know anything about. One of them had to do with the kind of pump it is. Mention was made that a certain type of pump, called a Tokai Oppenheimer pump, tended to favour the retailer—I don't know if this is correct—and that the Gillbarco kind of pump favoured the consumer.

Assuming that is correct, and I don't know if it is, in your database, where you've done all your checks, do you identify what kind of pump we're talking about?

[Alan Johnston]

No, we don't have that information.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Okay. That's not available.

[Alan Johnston]

Let me just clarify, though, one point that you made. We had been working on developing changes to the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act prior to the article that came out. We had it in the 2006-07 Industry Canada departmental performance report for priorities. We have been consulting since 2000. We've done a number of trade sector reviews.

So we were working towards making a recommendation to the government of the day that we needed to make changes to the Weights and Measures Act. It wasn't just as a result of the article.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Okay. In both cases, we're talking about wear and tear, but wear and tear that favours either one or the other. That's my understanding.

You also said that in going after these pumps that were sampled, in some cases it was random, and in some cases it was based on complaints.

One of the groups from Quebec was asked on Tuesday about the two-thirds, one-third ratio. They said that frankly, they couldn't understand why it wasn't half and half, and so did the others. I guess that would depend in part on the distribution of these different types of pumps.

One of them brought up an interesting point: that if there's a lot of testing based on complaints, usually complaints will be based on somebody feeling that he or she was shortchanged rather than given too much. That doesn't usually prompt somebody to complain that they're getting too much.

Do you have any kind of breakdown in terms of random versus complaints-based? I'm trying to understand this two-thirds, one-third--although, as I say, it would help to know what kinds of pumps we're dealing with. And do we know the distribution in this country of these two different kinds of pumps? I'm trying to understand the data a little better.

[Alan Johnston]

I don't know the distribution of how many are Gillbarco or Tokheim pumps in Canada, but I'll stand by the inspection data that indicates there is a bias, the two-thirds, one-third. Most of our inspections are random, unbiased—that is, we are out there in the marketplace doing inspections. We respond to all complaints. If anybody complains to Measurement Canada, we'll do a follow-up inspection and determine whether the complaint is founded or unfounded.

I don't have the exact numbers, unless my colleague does, but by far the large majority of the inspections are random, unbiased. They're not complaint inspections.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Can I clarify with the chair whether we will have access to the data on which the 94%, 2%, and 4% figures were based?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes, we can get that for you.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'll hand it over to my colleague to continue. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

On that very point, is it safe to say that in some cases...? We don't have the data, it has not been verified statistically, and I'm very concerned that the variation you're referring to may not be as significant or statistically significant as what is presented, which gives rise to this legislation. I appreciate that the criminal prohibition or the criminal penalty is very difficult to enforce, and I think we can have a civil remedy, with some judicial discretion, obviously. But I'm concerned about the fact--in terms of the knowledge I have of several stations I have since spoken to for several weeks--that when inspections took place, it was on one or two pumps of a plaza that may have had as many as 20 to 30 pumps and that the inspection in fact took place at one of the outside pumps that don't get as much activity as ones that would be closer to the actual cashier, if payment was not made at the pump itself.

The random and extensive pump analysis, the 48,000 you refer to, was that 48,000 specific, or was that 48,000 one checked out of a group of 20? Of course, what I'm driving at is the need for us to examine the data.

[Alan Johnston]

Again, when we do an inspection of a service station, we normally would inspect all of the pumps. We would not do one or two unless it was related to a complaint inspection, and sometimes we get specific information from the complainant who says, “I was at pump number four at this station and this pump didn't start dispensing gas until it was at $2”.

Then because of limited resources we'll go out and do the inspection, because we have to respond to the complaint. We will give that individual a response, but for the most part it doesn't make sense for us to go and do one or two pumps and leave.

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

But that's my concern, that there may be the potential for extrapolation. There are 25 pumps, 20 pumps at a service station at Port Union and Highway 2 in my riding having the highest throughputs, and you'll see my follow-up questions deal specifically with that. Your calibration request every two years doesn't take into consideration the possibility of a sliding scale.

I appreciate that in my colleague's riding, Anthony Rota's riding, or Mr. Braid's riding, Mr. Brown's riding, you might have the old mechanical pumps that might not get as much use and might have a throughput of, say, a hundred thousand litres a year. Obviously that's fairly low, but there are places where--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

He'd be out of business.

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

It depends. It depends on if he's not selling a lot of potato chips. But I only have so much time here, Mike.

What I want to drive at is whether you have in your capacity the ability to distinguish, on the two-year mandate, the possibility of a sliding scale that would say companies that provide a greater throughput, say 15 million litres a year at a given station, would be subject to more frequent calibration, as is the industry standard, whether it is the law or not?

[Alan Johnston]

No. The answer would be we would require all of them to be mandatorily re-inspected every two years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate you coming back. I believe you gave all these answers in your first round when you were here, and if those who weren't here read the blues, they'd know that.

Let's get right to the crux of the matter. This bill, regardless of its title, requiring them to do service stations and others... I think that's another point we need to make: we're talking about service stations, and they're going to look at your data, whether it's in the 94% or the 2% one way, 4% the other. But in the municipality of Burlington or any other municipality, when the truck goes across the weigh scale at any of our quarries in our area to build roads, for the rock that they're going to use to build roads, those could be out significantly and the taxpayer could be paying more money for road repair and new roads than they have to.

So this bill doesn't just deal with gasoline. It deals with others. But in fact for Measurement Canada this bill will help you do a better job in terms of making sure the consumers are getting what they're paying for. Is that correct?

[Alan Johnston]

Yes, that's very correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So the sooner we're able to get this bill passed, the sooner you'll be able to present the regulations and the sooner we will be able to get on with the job.

I don't think the opposition will oppose this in the end. It would be tough for them to oppose fairness to consumers, but you never know. What is the timeframe between this bill actually seeing the light of day and getting royal assent and it actually taking effect in the marketplace?

[Alan Johnston]

That would depend on the regulations. We are drafting them. We are required to consult on the regulations and then we are required to go through—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

But what is your hope? What would be a ballpark? You must have a plan.

[Alan Johnston]

We would hope it would be by sometime towards the end of 2011.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, 2011. Thank you.

[Alan Johnston]

We're building into it that there are requirements—