Evidence of meeting #38 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
I'm wondering if “uniformly” would be better served by stating “consistently”. Thinking back to some of the discussions I brought forward earlier about manufacturers versus service organizations and the different contexts, “consistently” may be a better word
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Where would you use the word “consistently”?
12:15 p.m.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
Other than “uniformly”. It would be everything you said up to “uniformly”, and then replace “uniformly” with “consistently”.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
He's suggesting what I said, but then he would replace the word “uniformly” with “consistently”, which I have no problem with.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Yes, “consistently” is good language. That's fine.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay. Do we have agreement, then, on the first subamendment: “qualified” instead of “certified”?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
So do we have agreement then that for the first subamendment we have “qualified” instead of “certified”? We pretty well agreed, and we'll say that the second subamendment contained all the wording that was accumulated between Mr. Lake and Mr. Cotton.
Monsieur Cardin, was there something you wanted to clarify?
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
12:15 p.m.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
Here we're talking about the sectors that are regulated under the Weights and Measures Act. There are eight sectors...
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
That's what I thought at the outset. A section in the Weights and Measures Act applies to all sectors affected by that Act. When we talk about particular sectors, we mean something specific. So the section being amended corresponds to all the sectors affected by the Weights and Measures Act.
So why are we talking about particular sectors?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Program Officer, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
If we talk about all sectors rather than particular sectors, that means they are all treated uniformly. But the oil sector has its ways of doing things and its way of doing inspections. It is uniform in that sector, but it has nothing to do with what happens for scales. By making that distinction, we are not requiring that inspectors be fully trained for everything. The people who deal with volumes don't have the same approach as people in the chemical products field or the people who verify scales in the forestry sector.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
That means that someone, somewhere, is going to decide that in a particular sector there will be trained and qualified people, but there won't be in other sectors.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Program Officer, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
No, as I understand it, various inspection methods apply to various types of instruments. A person who verifies volumes does not have the same inspection methods as another person who verifies scales. Inspecting a scale and inspecting a gas pump are two completely different things. They are devices that work differently. With a device that measures length, you aren't going to verify a gas pump, other than for certain specific aspects. You aren't going to require that a person who does inspections dealing with length receive the whole training, including training for volume, that they will never put into practice. That is how we understand this aspect, sir.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
We might refer not to particular sectors, but to training and qualifying these people based on the standards in the sector concerned. I have the impression, here, that the intention is to create differences among the sectors. It's the standards in each sector that are different.
12:20 p.m.
Senior Program Officer, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
It's hard to find a really accurate formulation on the spot. But that is the intent. I don't have the exact word.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
If it were possible to understand the intent clearly, it wouldn't cause any problems for me. But I don't feel that's the case here.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
To elaborate on that and just to make sure we have it right, when we're throwing out wording like that for each particular sector, it makes sense in the context of our conversation here in an hour and twenty minutes that we've been discussing it, but I just want to make sure that wording makes sense in the context of the entire bill. So if there's any suggested change to the way I've worded that, this would probably be a good time to throw that out.
October 19th, 2010 / 12:20 p.m.
Alexia Taschereau Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
From a legal perspective, we'd have to go through the bill, but I don't think there's an issue with that. I think it's okay.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
If there's some legal problem, we have one more chance, at the Senate committee, to have it amended. So it's good as long as you're comfortable with it as it stands right now.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
The purpose--and I just want to reiterate,
so everything is clear—is that this bill involves people who are outside the system. The idea is to train them and grant them certification. We are talking about the people who are going to do the inspections in particular.
It's really important that we get this correct, because you're asking people who hitherto have not had experience, and for greater certainly the point has to be made on ASPs, the outside workers, the outside inspectors. This is critical to making sure this works. I appreciate that Mr. Cotton and I agree, notwithstanding some changes to the wording, but I think it's important that we get this correct for the sake of recognizing that we don't want to leave up to a particular untrained retail gas station attendant dubious inspections that might lead to the possibility of prosecution or conviction or penalty.
Thanks.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
For confirmation that our legal clerk has the right wording, Mr. Lake, could you read it once more please?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Sure.
The Minister shall ensure that, for each particular sector, all persons designated under subsection (1) are trained and qualified in the same manner and that all measurements made by these persons are conducted consistently.