Industry committee  Forgive me for speaking in English, but it will be easier for me to answer. We are talking of two separate amendments here. One amendment is for ENG, which would in theory drive uniformity, and one amendment for weights and measures. When we are talking about the ENG amendment, that's the one I'm suggesting is not required.

Industry committee  Yes. We don't see the need to formalize a training process for ENG at this point, and I'm not sure I would envision it occurring at any point. Another thing I would add is that we've had very significant consultations with stakeholders in a variety of sectors, including the electricity and natural gas trade sectors.

Industry committee  I would see this as having resource implications for Measurement Canada: if it's something that's stipulated in this statute, it's something we would have to monitor. We would have to formalize the reporting processes that we use under our accreditation program that indicate that there is no problem on the ENG side.

Industry committee  That is a responsibility of the organization that accredited them. In English, we would say: The proof is in the pudding. When we do the audits, —excuse me for switching to English— if someone has been named as a meter shop verifier or is listed as a meter shop verifier as part of their accreditation program, we will interview that individual as part of our audit process.

Industry committee  Yes.

Industry committee  That is the procedure for electricity and gas. The accreditation program requires a quality management system that has to be put in place, and that includes the way the inspectors are trained and the work instructions, the work procedures. Measurement Canada does audits of the system every year, and audits of the products.

Industry committee  But we're dealing with two different issues here. What you're speaking about is electricity and natural gas, which is covered in a different statute and in which we have an accreditation program that is mature and has been in place for close to 25 years and in which compliance rates are high.

Industry committee  We'd see it as the implementation of smart regulations, of tailoring the requirements to the particular sector that you're dealing with, which is a government objective. For electricity and natural gas, we're dealing with larger stakeholders, larger utilities. They have very strong associations that have a gas measurement school on an annual basis.

Industry committee  Pardon me?

Industry committee  Yes, it would be, because the mechanism for delegating the verification and reverification authorities under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act requires the implementation of a quality management system, so it will encompass how they manage their meter shop verifications, their training procedures, and their nonconformance corrective action process.

Industry committee  And we'll be addressing that mostly through the Weight and Measures Act amendments. With ENG, electricity and natural gas, as I've said, compliance rates tend to be higher, and the process we've had in place doesn't demonstrate that there's a need for formalizing a training process that Measurement Canada would monitor and oversee.

Industry committee  First, to clarify this, the particular clause we're looking at applies to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, not the Weights and Measures Act. So fuel dispensers won't be covered by this particular proposed amendment. The other thing to point out is that I'm not entirely certain that this would be the best section to address that concern.