Industry Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Mr. Cotton.

[Carl Cotton]

I'm thinking in the context of the whole bill. The idea that all measurements made by these people or persons are conducted uniformly is not really within the context of the whole bill. It should be “inspected or examined”, so that blah, blah, blah.... “in the same manner and that all inspections“ or “all examinations”, to keep it in the context of the whole bill. “Measurements” doesn't really fit in with the context of the idea of having mandatory inspections, right? Looking at it on the spot here, it seems to me that “examinations” would fit better. I think “examinations” would fit better.

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

So you'd replace the word “measurements” with the word “examinations”.

Mr. Chair, can we treat that as--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think Mr. Cotton said “examinations and inspections”.

[Carl Cotton]

I think the word that is current now is “examinations”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Let's go to Mr. McTeague.

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

I need to have that repeated, guys. Words mean everything in law.

[Carl Cotton]

I apologize for making it sound like I'm not agreeing with you any more. I still agree with you. I think it's a matter of getting it right within the context of the rest of the amendments, and the rest of the amendments talk about examinations and not measurements.

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

Can I read it one more time then for Mr. McTeague?

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 examinations made by these persons are conducted consistently.

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

I see no trouble with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

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

I have a question. Mr. Cotton, in your view, what's the difference between an inspection and an examination?

[Carl Cotton]

In my mind, they're synonymous. But “measurements” is a different beast altogether. To my knowledge, I don't believe it's set out in the Weights and Measures Act as an obligation in terms of inspection. Initial inspection, approval, calibration, and certification of standards would be in there, but while it deals with measurements, the notion of measurements as an obligation is not explicitly set out. That's why I think “inspection” or “examination” would be the way to go.

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

And you're saying “examination” is the word that's used--

[Carl Cotton]

I'm saying “examination” because my understanding of the current wording for the concept of inspections--and I may be off base here.... Because of the Jarvis decision, there has to be a clear designation of when an inspection becomes an investigation, and “examination” is the word that's been chosen to best describe the process of inspection.

I can see it's giving you heartburn. I apologize

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

Well, it is. It's only because your own wording here, in terms of the inspection types defined, inspection types used by Measurement Canada.... “Time spent by an inspector on the first inspection and all subsequent inspections until the device has been certified”. The word “certification”...that's the device itself. We're talking about certification of the individual.

I'm wondering, you're saying “measurement” doesn't exist anywhere in your nomenclature.

[Carl Cotton]

I'm not sure what you're looking at, sir.

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

It's the appendix that you sent me about inspection types, various types of inspections, but you have monitoring.... I don't see the word “measurement” other than Measurement Canada.

[Carl Cotton]

That's pre-Jarvis. I would imagine that at some point that would need to be changed from “inspection” to “examination”, but I don't think it affects the intent of inspections.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Let me check with our staff here. We can, in the bill, insert “examination”, and if you want to bracket “inspection”, that's fine.

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

That would be fine. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There seems to be agreement around that. Can I dispense with reading it once more?

You'd rather have it re-read. If you need assurance, then fine.

Mr. Lake, I think we agreed upon “examination”, then in brackets “inspection” right after the word “examination”.

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

I want to make sure that we're consistent with the bill, and as I was looking at the bill, right away I noticed the word “examination” in what I would guess to be proposed section 13. I don't even know what the numbers are here. In proposed subsection 14(5), the word “examination” is used.

It does seem consistent to use the word “examination”. It doesn't talk about inspection at that point. I don't want to confuse things by adding something in parentheses afterwards and introducing two terms where one is used otherwise.

I wonder if having the word “inspection” in brackets afterwards might actually cause us more problems down the road. If the word “examination” is used, we should use the word “examination” to refer to the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McTeague.

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

It's consistent with the bill. The language I've used is in the bill. Mr. Cotton suggested that in light of the Jarvis decision, somehow we have to change those words. There's nothing here that I've used in any of this that doesn't work lockstep with what the existing legislation had suggested.

I'm not sure what the problem is, Mike.