When this issue first appeared with Glen McGregor's article, it was apparently a study by Measurement Canada, which neither Measurement Canada nor anyone has been willing to acknowledge took place.
Knowing how gasoline works when you remove it from the ground, I know that if it's not done in a proper way, it is liable and suspect, and possible errors can happen. Exposing gasoline that's at an ambient temperature in a tank to outside temperatures could have the effect of contracting or expanding it and therefore making the process of calibration certification a bit redundant and perhaps even useless, if not suspect.
I'm going to ask you, Ms. Huzar, in your opinion--and I won't ask you about calibration--is it conceivable that the government's position with respect to the penalties may have something to do with individuals who may have had one of their pumps malfunction not as a result of something they'd done deliberately, so that's why there's a difference in the fines, a difference between $2,000 and $20,000?
Has your organization considered that unwanted and unintended mechanical failure is captured by the legislation's saying there are circumstances that warrant a lower penalty or fine versus a higher mandatory, which your organization seems to support?