Industry Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I think Mr. Boag—

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Boag, did you want to respond that, too?

[Peter Boag]

I just want to clarify that the legislation actually puts the onus on the retailer to conduct the mandatory inspections, and the legislation does provide for the delegation of responsibility onto an alternative service delivery type of model, where private sector inspectors are accredited by Measurement Canada to carry out these inspections.

So it's not Measurement Canada, in my understanding, that will be carrying out the mandatory inspections, but the onus is placed by this legislation on the retailer to conduct that inspection in accordance with an inspection cycle that will be developed by regulation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you for that.

Now, I wanted to follow up on the issue of authorized inspectors and ask both of your organizations about the following. As the Consumers Council has raised, there's some confusion or ambiguity around who would be an authorized inspector. I'd like to come back to that issue, perhaps first with the Petroleum Products Institute, and ask if you share that concern about some confusion or ambiguity around authorized inspectors.

[Peter Boag]

In my initial and subsequent readings of the act, I didn't come away with that kind of ambiguity.

Clearly there's a system that's going to be put in place by regulation that will allow for the accreditation of private sector inspectors by Measurement Canada. Measurement Canada will clearly have its own employees who are still inspectors. There is some differentiation within the act in terms of the powers that delegated inspectors have versus those who work for, or are actually employees of, Measurement Canada.

So to me, I think there was relative clarity on that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Ms. Huzar.

[Joan Huzar]

I think that's what we picked up from the act: that it just isn't clear. It could be clearer about what powers these inspectors have. We have no problem with assuming—and it's a big assumption—that Measurement Canada sets out the standards for the accreditation of inspectors, sets out what their reporting responsibilities are, and sets out what their record-keeping responsibilities are, and then monitors how good a job they're doing. But we would say that the act just isn't very clear about what those responsibilities are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

Do you have another brief question, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Do I have a few more minutes, Mr. Chair, or a few more seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Just a brief question.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My final question has to do with compensation. Consider what happened in the past and the fact that consumers lost money. Do you feel that it is appropriate to contemplate some form of compensation to make up for past mistakes?

My question is for both organizations.

[Peter Boag]

It's not a question that I'm really in a position to answer, Mr. Julian, unfortunately.

[Joan Huzar]

I'm sorry, I'm mystified as to what compensation you--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Compensation for consumers being shortchanged in the past.

[Joan Huzar]

Offhand, sure, it's a great idea, but how am I going to do that? Yes, of course you want to be compensated. Having said that, logistically I don't know how you'd do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

One could always initiate and certify a class action lawsuit.

Mr. McTeague, we have just two minutes left, so you get the last question.

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

I understand Mr. Julian's point. Administrative monetary penalties are great for the government, but those who are aggrieved obviously don't get compensated if they're ripped off. The mechanism would be very difficult.

Chair, I noticed your intervention on what Measurement Canada had said about the $20 million. I'm a little baffled, because my reading of the 70 billion to 75 billion litres of fuel dispensed in Canada every year with a tolerance level of 100 millilitres on every 20 litres means there is a potential rip-off to the Canadian consumer annually of over $250 million a year, assuming a $1 per litre purchase price.

Mr. Boag, I want to ask a final question about your organization as to whether you're satisfied that Measurement Canada is in a position such that the inspectors who are calibrating are sufficient in number to be able to meet the demands of the legislation. We've spoken to Measurement Canada, and a briefing provided by Mr. Lake said this would be a two- or three-year process.

With a tolerance level of 100 millilitres of gasoline on every 20 litres, do you find that there is an acceptable prospect of your having inspectors who may not necessarily meet the test but who give a quick inspection, a quick okay to the pump, only to see the pump break down three months later so you're now subject to the full weight of the law...?

[Peter Boag]

Mr. McTeague, could you rephrase that question? I'm not sure, actually, what you were asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

He was asking how we are going to have enough inspectors out there and who's inspecting the inspectors.

[Peter Boag]

Well, in some measure, that will ultimately depend on the regulations. To answer that question right now, I'd have to make too many assumptions to make that answer meaningful. Really, it's going to require much more clarity on what the actual regulations will say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. McTeague and Mr. Boag, and to our other witnesses for appearing. I apologize for the delay in starting this part of the meeting. I appreciate your testimony and submissions. It will help us in our review of this bill.

This meeting is adjourned.