Evidence of meeting #22 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 measurement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.
Madam Huzar, I'm just taking a look at the specific comments you've made here. I'll deal with them one at a time.
On the AMPs versus the increased sorts of criminal fines, I guess, in a sense, and the difference between the maximum penalty being at $2,000 versus the more serious criminal offences at $20,000 to $50,000, I think we're talking about two different things. We're talking about—
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I think it's important to differentiate, because Mr. Boag talked about the difference between things just being mechanically out of whack a little bit versus someone deliberately committing fraud, which is certainly not the normal situation when we're talking about the pumps being out of whack.
In a situation where there's an inspection done after a couple of years and there's simply a mechanical failure—they're a little bit out of sync—is it not reasonable that there would be more of a fine, like you'd pay a speeding ticket, a little bit more, obviously, with a maximum of $2,000? Would you not see that as sort of a reasonable way of approaching a gas station, a private retailer? It's that simply after a couple of years their pumps are measured and are just not measuring properly.
10:40 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
I think that from a consumer's perspective I don't care whether it's fraud or the thing failed. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make any difference to me at all. I'm not getting what I thought I was paying for.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
And I take your point that most of the issue here, I gather, is not around fraud; it's around mechanical failure. But as I say, I don't really care. The issue we're raising is that with a fine of a maximum of $2,000 for a violation, where's the incentive to make sure my stuff is inspected properly?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I think, though, that the intention of the act is to ensure compliance and to get higher compliance rates. Obviously if you get fined $2,000 the first time around for having a pump that's not measuring properly, and you haven't fixed it, and down the road you deliberately don't fix the pump and have all these pumps that are measuring inaccurately, of course you would then expect that there might be a case of fraud.
That's if you know your pumps weren't measuring properly and you didn't fix them over the course of time, but the idea of these lower penalties in that first case, as it was explained by the officials when they were here the other day, is that it's unreasonable to expect that we're going to go through months of criminal proceedings to attack a private retailer who simply didn't know he had a pump that wasn't measuring properly over two years but then eventually got fixed.
I think that's why we've seen less compliance or less conviction, I guess, on these things. It's because it's simply not practical, given the way the process works. This AMPs process will certainly see increased compliance, I think.
In terms of the compliance agreements, you were talking about admission of guilt possibly resulting in a reduction of the penalty amount, either in whole or in part. We might have a gas station with 16 pumps, for example, and maybe something is wrong within the system. They get an inspection done, and there's a problem. Something within the system identifies a problem that is affecting all of the pumps at the same time. Rather than fining that retailer for every single one of those pumps--whatever the penalty is, times 16--there might be a discussion around how the fine might be adjusted to affect the practical reality of that situation.
Does that seem like a reasonable approach? It would not be if there was a fraudulent, intentional manipulation of the pumps to the benefit of the retailer or to the detriment of the consumer, but it would be if a systematic problem was identified after a couple of years through a regular inspection process and the retailer immediately fixed that problem.
Does that seem to make sense?
10:40 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
There are several things going on here.
Let me first address the issue of the retailer with two pumps and the retailer with 16 pumps or 25 pumps. My reaction is that if you have 16 pumps, you have 16 times the obligation to make sure it's right--
10:40 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
--so I don't buy that. My reading of the legislation may not be as knowledgeable as it might be, but are you applying it per pump? Is that what it is? Is it per retailer...? You seem to be saying that--
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
It's the measurement inaccuracy, right, so--
10:40 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
If measurement is inaccurate on every pump at my gas station, do I then have a maximum $2,000 fine for every pump? Is that what it says?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
It would be a fine for every pump as opposed to just a fine for the retailer who's running that operation.
10:45 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
Again, if you're running 16 pumps or 25 pumps, then you just have a greater obligation to make sure they're accurate. Again, I'm talking about consumer expectations.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Then you and I would agree.
You and I would agree on that. I think that we would--
10:45 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
As to the amount, again, if the act is set out to deter fraud and to encourage compliance, then I'm sorry, but I don't think a $2,000 fine does it.
Although this is totally unscientific, at the other meeting I was at today, I went around the table with the people there, who happened to be a bunch of builders, and they all agreed that if it was $2,000, they didn't think so, that it didn't sound reasonable.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Again, though, just to clarify the difference, we're not necessarily talking about the $2,000 fine situation, the AMPs situation, in relation to fraud. Let's just clarify that. If we're talking about fraud, then we're talking about those bigger penalties.
10:45 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
If I could just clarify, then, when I read the act, the big fine was around stealing the mark--
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
Okay. So that's one thing, but that's a separate thing from having your equipment not operate properly.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
Chair, Energy Committee, Consumers Council of Canada
I'm overstating, but why is it okay in terms of fines--it's just a little bit--to have your equipment not be up to snuff? You don't catch it because you know you only have to inspect every two years, so it's only every two years that you inspect. This is not the normal... I mean, All legislation is out to catch the bad guys. We're not out to catch the good guys.
If we were all good, we wouldn't need any laws at all. We're talking about the bad guys and $2,000 doesn't do it.
