Bill S-3

An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations

This enactment amends the Weights and Measures Act to, among other things, clarify existing powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Industry and inspectors, provide the Minister with certain powers, including with respect to sampling when devices are examined and with respect to corrective and preventive measures, and provide inspectors with certain powers.
It also amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to, among other things, broaden the definition of “meter”, provide the president with the authority to grant certain exemptions, clarify the steps required to put a device into service, clarify existing powers, duties and functions of the Minister and inspectors, provide the Minister with certain powers, including with respect to sampling when meters are examined and with respect to corrective and preventive measures, and provide inspectors with certain powers.
It also repeals certain provisions in the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations . Finally, it includes transitional provisions.

Weights and Measures Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Taxation; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Pharmacare.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, I would like to make sure that I get unanimous consent from the House to split my time with the member of Parliament for Edmonton Southeast.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at first glance, Bill S-3 looks like one of those technical bills that only policy specialists would read cover to cover, but the truth is that it touches something Canadians care about very deeply: fairness in everyday transactions. Measurement is money, and we cannot manage what we do not measure, at the end of the day. The two go hand in hand.

When a family pulls into a gas station, the number on that pump is not an abstraction. It is the difference between what they plan to spend and what they actually spend. When a parent buys groceries priced by weight, such as fruit, vegetables and meat, the number on the scale and the label is not a suggestion. It is the basis of the price at the checkout. Thinking about product inflation, that is what this means at the end of the day. That is why trade measurement laws exist in the first place: to protect consumers, to ensure fair competition and to maintain confidence that the marketplace is honest.

Bill S-3 is presented as an update to that system, an attempt to modernize the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and to repeal outdated fee provisions in the regulations.

“Modernization” is not a bad word. In fact, it is necessary. These statutes were last substantially updated decades ago, and the world has changed. Measurement today is more digital, more software-enabled and more complex than the world of paper processes and legacy devices that shaped the original framework. The key question is not whether modernization is needed, because it is. The key question is whether Bill S-3 would modernize the system in a way that improves transparency, protects affordability and avoids creating new layers of red tape, or whether it shifts too much power into discretionary processes that Canadians cannot easily see, understand or challenge.

My Conservative colleagues and I support modernization that protects consumers and supports innovation, but Parliament must ensure that the tools are accountable and not overreaching. That is the lens through which I will address this bill today.

Bill S-3 contains a set of targeted amendments that can be grouped into a few themes.

First, it would update and clarify the roles and authorities of the minister, inspectors and, under the electricity and gas statute, the president of Measurement Canada in the approval, verification and inspection of trade measurement devices.

Second, it would introduce the ability to inspect devices and meters by sampling: examining a representative set of devices of the same class, type or design and applying the results accordingly.

Third, it would create temporary permissions to allow certain measuring devices and certain electricity or gas meters to be used on a temporary basis under conditions set by the regulator, even without the usual approval or examination steps: again, under defined conditions and with notice and an opportunity to make representations in the event of suspension or revocation.

Fourth, the bill would expand and modernize inspection powers, including the ability to access and reproduce data from computer or telecommunication systems, and it would treat remote access by telecommunication as a form of entry for the purposes of inspections. It would also enable telewarrants in certain contexts.

Fifth, it would add compliance tools aimed at preventing or remedying contraventions, such as orders requiring corrective or preventive measures and directions regarding compliance procedures.

Sixth, it would repeal certain outdated regulatory provisions, including prescriptive fee schedules and legacy requirements, and it would introduce mandatory reviews every 10 years, with reports to be tabled in Parliament.

That is the architecture of the bill, and it is precisely because the bill would create new tools, new flexibilities and new forms of rule-making that transparency and affordability have to be at the centre of our scrutiny.

For Canadians, the system works only if it passes what I call the trust test. Do Canadians believe that when they pay for 50 litres of fuel, they get 50 litres? Do Canadians believe that when government changes the rules, those changes will protect them, not increase costs that get quietly passed on?

Let me give the example of biofuels. When we bought 50 litres of fuel at a gas station, it used to be petroleum fuel, and we got a certain distance with it. When it is watered down with biofuels, we get less distance. Therefore, when buying a tank of fuel, are we really buying a tank of fuel or are we buying the distance from A to B? Suddenly, that distance got shorter with the government-imposed clean fuel regulations, and Canadians did not seem to notice.

That is where governments lose trust. Suddenly, we are paying more and getting less. That leads to inflation. It leads to costs to society. It leads to inefficiencies throughout society.

Those questions may sound simple, but they are fundamental, because the moment consumers lose confidence, it is not merely a technical failure. It becomes a cost-of-living issue, and that is why I want to highlight something that came out clearly during the Senate committee study of the bill.

During the banking, commerce and the economy committee's hearings, Senator Elizabeth Marshall, an auditor by profession, put her finger on the public mood. She noted that when she spoke to people about what Parliament was studying in Bill S-3, people were suspicious and feared it would end up costing them more. It comes as no surprise, but that cynicism exists for a reason. Canadians have lived through too many examples where modernization meant new administrative costs, new compliance burdens and new uncertainty, and then those costs appeared later in higher prices. The task before the House is not simply to update a framework. It is to ensure that the updated framework actually produces confidence, clarity and affordability.

I want to step back for a moment, because there is a broader principle here, one that connects directly to consumer trust and affordability.

Trade measurement works, because people believe the rules are fair and the system is transparent. When the rules are clear, published and consistently enforced, people have confidence. The same principle should apply to government itself, especially when it comes to public money. Canadians deserve clear, transparent reporting about how government presents key fiscal indicators, because those indicators are used to justify spending decisions, borrowing decisions and policy decisions that affect affordability for every household.

One reason Canadians get frustrated is that fiscal headlines can be built on different definitions that produce very different impressions. Even in the public debate, we can see dispute about how to measure debt and how to compare it across countries.

For example, Statistics Canada reports net debt measures in ways that can include or exclude major public pension funds, like the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, precisely because those funds are different from other financial assets and are not supposed to be available for general spending to the government. These are Canadians' pensions, not the government's slush funds. Commentators have pointed out that when we include pension fund assets in net debt comparisons, it can materially change the picture, sometimes making the country appear less indebted on that metric than it would under a normal debt approach. At the same time, reporting bodies like the Parliamentary Budget Officer may treat pension plans differently when assessing assets held by the federal government.

My point is not to litigate every accounting standard in a speech. My point is simple: Canadians deserve transparency. They should be able to see what measure is being used, what is included, what is excluded and why. When definitions change and when headline numbers rely on assumptions that are not clearly explained, trust erodes. When trust erodes, cynicism grows. Cynicism matters, because it shapes how Canadians respond to policies that touch their wallets and therefore their lives.

The message is: Show your work, publish the assumptions, use plain language and make it easy for taxpayers to understand. That is how governments earn confidence, and that is how we protect affordability, not just at the pump and at the checkout, but in the long-term decisions that shape our economy.

Lastly, the bill before us deserves serious committee study focused on transparency, guardrails and cost impacts, and why the Liberal government should proceed in a way that has put consumers and affordability at the centre of the work here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, consumers and the issue of affordability is the primary motivation for bringing the legislation forward and looking at what the Senate has done. I welcome the opportunity to see the bill go to the standing committee where some of the questions can be posed and concerns can be expressed. I do believe in the importance of the legislation and how it would protect trade and commerce here in Canada.

Does the member have some specifics already that the Conservative Party is looking at bringing forward in the form of amendments, or is it just more of a general comment at this point in time?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the specifics are going to be determined at the industry committee, so there are many questions here about how we make sure we maintain trust in the measurement systems across the country. Those analyses, as my colleague across the way knows, happen when we dig into the legislation and make sure we bring forth the amendments that would maintain trust. In the House here today, we have gone through a question and answer session about how we need to build on the principles, but the details, as he knows, will be ironed out at the committee level.

I believe it is the industry committee. If he would like to attend, I am certain the committee would enjoy having him there.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very interesting speech.

I have two questions for him.

First, in my colleague's constituency of La Pointe-de-l'Île, there is a company that has had problems with Measurement Canada. The appeal processes proved to be truly ineffective, inefficient and flawed, and justice was not done. I wonder if my hon. colleague would be in favour of creating an appeal process for Measurement Canada decisions that is more accessible so that businesses can defend their right to have their say and to have decisions reconsidered. Would an ombudsman be an option?

Second, Bill S-3 appears to grant greater powers to the minister. Is giving the minister more powers in this area a good thing for us, as parliamentarians?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the first question, namely whether there is too much red tape in the Measurement Canada process for our colleague's constituents. Yes, we need to be more efficient in resolving the situation.

Regarding the second question, which touched on the minister's regulatory powers, I believe Parliament is more focused on legislation. Perhaps this aspect will be explored in greater detail by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which is due to examine this matter.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre for bringing some more information to this very interesting subject.

Is he aware whether the government has done a cost analysis on the cost to government and industry for these changes in the regulations?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have not asked the government for any kind of cost analysis. Whenever we see these bills, and often as parliamentarians we get to see these bills, we get to scratch into them. I did not know before I looked at this bill that there was a president of Measurement Canada and a whole bureaucracy around it. I imagine the cost of the administration of that is one thing. I hope that cost is not going to go up in this bill's examination, that it contains the cost of that structure and does not build another empire here. That is one of the main things I want to make sure we accomplish at the committee level.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear that Parliament is debating a bill about weights and measurements, gas pumps, grocery scales and utility meters, they might assume this is a technical issue, but the bill touches something Canadians experience every day, the moment they pull up to the gas pump, the moment they scan their groceries and the moment their utility bill arrives at the end of the month. The bill touches on trust, because at the most basic level, Canadians expect one simple thing: that if they pay for something, they should get what they paid for.

Bill S-3 promises to modernize Canada's trade measurement laws, legislation that has not been touched meaningfully nor updated since the 1980s. The bill would update how we regulate gas pumps, grocery scales, electricity and gas meters. It would introduce tools like sample-based inspections. The bill presents reasonable objectives. Modernization is necessary. Technology has changed. The economy has changed. Our laws should reflect this reality.

Conservatives believe in a fair marketplace. We believe in protecting consumers. We believe that when Canadians pay for a litre of gas, a kilogram of food or a unit of electricity, they should receive exactly that.

We support the bill, but there are some concerns. We are right to ask whether more government power means better outcomes for Canadians or just more bureaucracy. We support fairness. We support modernization, but we need to look closely to ensure that the bill does not come at the expense of accountability, transparency and affordability. This is exactly why the bill needs to be studied in committee.

Committee is where Parliament does its real work, but committees in this place are changing. Over the past number of days, serious concerns have been raised about how committees would be structured and controlled. Conservatives have been clear that if the government uses its forced, unelected majority to limit scrutiny, it could weaken transparency and accountability. If committees stop functioning as places of independent scrutiny, then where does accountability happen?

I sit on the science and research committee. We have worked well together and addressed important issues because there has been a balance. We can have critical views of current policy, as this is how we test these policies. Like many committees, that balance is at risk. There may be two new Liberal members. While I have no ill will toward the individuals, changes to committee composition would give government the power to shut down debate and critical thinking in the committee room.

The bill would expands powers. We need to examine how these new powers would be used and whether Canadians would be properly protected. That only works if committee is allowed to be critical. The government cannot ask for more government powers while controlling the very committees meant to hold the powers accountable.

The bill is very important, because it is about ensuring Canadians get what they pay for, but Canadians across this country are asking a much bigger question: Can they afford what they are paying for at all? Right now, Canadians feel like they are paying more and getting less. Grocery prices have risen dramatically. Food inflation has reached levels not seen in decades. Gas prices have gone up. Utilities have gone up. At the same time, wages are not keeping pace, savings are shrinking and families are relying on credit just to get by.

Families in my riding are having to choose between paying their bills and putting groceries on the table. Grocery prices are up 25% over just a few years. Prices are still rising year after year. Beef, vegetables and dairy continue to climb.

The average family is expected to spend over $1,000 more for food this year alone. Families are cutting back. Parents are making difficult choices. Seniors on fixed incomes are stretching every dollar.

What is the government doing about this? Canadians got the answer yesterday. The Prime Minister's spring economic update unveiled what can only be described as a costly credit budget that would double the deficit left by the previous Liberal government. That means more cost, more taxes, more debt and more inflation for Canadians. Canadians are now paying $59 billion a year just in interest on the debt. That is up by 10% in a single year. It is now more than we spend on health care transfers and more than the government collects in GST. Members can think about that.

Every Canadian family is effectively paying about $3,400 a year just to service the federal debt. That is money not going into groceries, not going into housing and not going into savings. Yesterday alone, the government added another $37 billion in new spending. At a time when Canadians are struggling with affordability, the government is pouring more fuel on the fire, so when Canadians feel like everything costs more, they are right.

This bill would modernize the inspection framework at the gas pumps. The government regulates these pumps to make sure that people are getting the exact amount they are paying for. This would make sure that Canadians are not being ripped off, but Canadians are not thinking about inspection frameworks when they are standing there watching the numbers climb. They are thinking, “How much is this going to cost me?” Gas prices do not affect just commuters. They affect everything. They drive up the cost of food, goods and transportation. Those costs are built into the price of everything Canadians buy.

That is why the Conservatives are calling for real relief. We are saying to scrap the federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, remove the fuel excise tax, remove the GST on gas and diesel, remove the industrial carbon tax and remove the fuel standard tax. That would mean real relief of up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 of savings for a family this year. The bigger issue is not just whether the pump is accurate; it is whether Canadians can afford to use it. Instead of following our plan, the Prime Minister cut only a third of the taxes for a third of the time. Again, the Liberals care more about regulations and control than they do about Canadian wallets.

This bill is about trust, but trust is not built through regulations alone. Trust is built through outcomes. At its core, Bill S-3 is about trust in the marketplace. It is about making sure that, when Canadians pay for something, they receive what they pay for. Canadians deserve a marketplace that is fair. They also deserve a government that is transparent, restrained and focused on making life more affordable.

We will support this bill moving forward. We will ask hard questions, push for accountability and work to ensure that the legislation serves Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this legislation's primary purpose is to not only modernize a very important aspect of our measurement and weight system but also to protect our consumers. The government is very, very much aware of the affordability issue. It is one of the reasons, for example, that we have the groceries and essentials program. It is one of the reasons that we continue to support relief at the pump. It is one of the reasons we are giving a substantial tax break to literally millions of Canadians.

This legislation is meant to continue to reinforce the importance of consumer confidence. We recognize that there are some serious issues out there. It is important that the legislation passes.

I understand the member opposite supports the principle of the legislation and would like to see it go to committee. I applaud him on that, and I look forward to the bill going to committee.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we, in essence, support the legislation. We support the rationale behind the legislation. Conservatives support the idea that consumer fairness should be at the core of every step the government takes.

The hon. member raised two questions: one about the rebates that they are offering to Canadians and one about the bill being studied in the committee. Our position is to scrap all of the carbon taxes. The Liberals are just half listening to us. They only decided to get rid of 15¢ per litre. We are asking for 20¢ per litre. That would save a family over $1200 per year.

Why do we not leave more money in Canadians' pockets so they do not have to look to the government for rebates and they do not have to look to the government for handouts?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill S‑3, I want to hear my colleague talk about the context in his province. At home in Quebec, we have Hydro-Québec and Énergir. In the new context of a majority government, we are going to see more than ever the government, in this federal system, try to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions and give itself more powers. The Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Hydro‑Québec and Énergir are at least heard in committee. We want to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected and that the minister refrains from interfering even more.

What does my colleague think about our desire to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected in this area?