Industry Committee on June 15th, 2010

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's what I really wondered about. Despite all the data assembled by Measurement Canada, no charges were laid. Actually, there was one charge laid.

How is that possible? If we move towards a system that has more measurement compliance or checking, whatever it might be, and there are still no fines applied, will that motivate the industry further? Aside from the name of the bill, is it going to motivate any changes in behaviour by retailers? Once again, we're going back to the assumption that there have been some unfair practices toward consumers. Or are they just going to view the bill as some other process they have to go through versus one that would actually benefit the consumers? I say so because if they're going to have to pay extra to do this, they're going to pass it on to customers. It's not going to come from them.

So what will be the benefit for consumers at the end of the day?

[Jane Savage]

I think that question really has to be directed to Measurement Canada and the creators of the bill, asking them what are the expected benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Masse and Madame Savage.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome.

I would also like to welcome you to Ontario in the 1990s. What I see here is truly a repeat of what happened in this province in the 1990s. The current minister in the federal Conservative government was at the time a minister in the Ontario Conservative government, when some groups were targeted, including teachers and nurses. Once they decided they were going to do that, the government created a crisis. The Conservatives were elected and said that they would solve the problem.

When I see a word like “chisellers” in English, I start thinking that this is perhaps more than just politics. It is an attack against retailers to make an impact. It's not a mistake, it's not something that happened by chance. They have created a crisis, as they said at the time. Now it's been done and it's a thing of the past.

Ms. Marcotte, you mentioned that you were surprised that there hadn't been a study? There was a small report. Can you tell us a little more about what you were expecting in a report or a study. What should happen before a bill like this is considered?

[Sonia Marcotte]

I think that a serious study has to be undertaken, with representative and random sampling. That would be the best way to proceed. We need statistics in order to truly assess what's happening. It would probably become apparent that in Quebec the situation is different because we already have a regulation that requires that retailers calibrate their pumps every two years. There truly has to be a serious study with serious random sampling as opposed to using data that may, for example, come from studies on consumer complaints. Obviously, that sampling is not representative. It is important to have random sampling.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harnois?

[Serge Harnois]

Maybe things are different in Quebec and maybe they're not. We have legislation requiring pump calibration every two years. Before implementing this legislation throughout Canada it may be a good idea to assess, through serious sampling, what is happening in the rest of the country compared to what is happening in Quebec. If the Canadian industry is managing to discipline itself without legislation just as well as Quebec is doing with legislation, then why create red tape for no good reason? I think this is important.

If we realize that in Canada the situation is not regulated as well as it is in Quebec, then legislation could be passed and we could take that route. However, why fix something if it isn't broken? It would be a good way of establishing a point of reference.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

What you're saying is that we may be creating legislation where it isn't needed, on top of creating red tape where it isn't needed.

[Serge Harnois]

We should at least start by assessing the situation properly. Currently, we're using data that I think does not really have any scientific basis.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Merci beaucoup.

I have a question for Ms. Savage. Just to clarify this a bit, we've created the dragon slayer, but I'm not sure we have a dragon out there. How is this legislation different from what we have now? Maybe you could just provide some highlights of how this legislation differs from what is in place at this time.

[Jane Savage]

I think the most important difference that Bill C-14 brings is the mandatory inspection cycle. As a consumer, it makes sense that when I buy anything that's measured, I know that the measuring device has been subject to some level of an inspection cycle, to some measure of oversight. Again, the consumer confidence side of this is what we're talking about, and the mandatory inspection cycle is what creates this.

The fact that it is already happening and there are already inspections going on—at least in our sector and at least every two years, and sometimes more frequently—is one thing. But if it does serve to help consumers to have confidence when they buy a product by measurement, then that's the benefit of Bill C-14.

Again, we have to be judicious in this. We have to be careful about how we implement these additional powers and how the random inspections will proceed to ensure that there is not an atmosphere of witch hunting of retailers, whose names can be published if they get a fine or an AMP under this legislation.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Inspections already exist. Mandatory systems should be put in place.

[Jane Savage]

It's an oversight.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

An oversight--which is usually just a modification to a law. It's almost like we've created a crisis and said, okay, look, there's a big problem, let's run out there and save it, and we're going to do it by a minuscule change. Would you say that's correct?

[Jane Savage]

I have a member who calls this a solution looking for a problem.

Again, consumer confidence is important, especially when our industry is under a lot of the spotlight. If we get consumer confidence...I leave it to this committee to assess whether that's an important goal or not.

There is a regime in place today. There are inspections going on voluntarily.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I have about a minute left, and I'll ask one quick question that I'll open up to the floor, to all the witnesses, regarding mandatory inspection and what this bill puts in place every two years.

What I've heard is that you'll need more frequent checks in high-volume pumps or gas stations, maybe less frequent in rural. Much of my riding is rural. From what I've heard, rural and small stations will bear the brunt of the costs. The costs will be prohibitive to them or cause them some problems.

Could you elaborate on that? How can we make changes, or what you would suggest to allow smaller pumps or smaller gas stations maybe more time, less time? Or would that, as Ms. Marcotte says, require a further study to find out what the right period is for an inspection? Is two years reasonable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, very briefly. We're running out of time here.

[Jane Savage]

More study is absolutely required, no question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'll start by just referring to something Mr. Rota said. He talked about the dragon slayer and the dragon. The dragon, to me, is the $20 million more that consumers are paying for gas products they're not getting, according to Measurement Canada. To me, that is a problem that needs a solution. From our standpoint, that's what this is about.

I did get clarification from the Measurement Canada folks, Ms. Savage, that sampling is random. So when we're talking about twice as many of the inaccurate pumps being in favour of the retailers versus the consumers, that is based on a random sampling.

I go back to the conclusion that my constituents would come to and the concern they would have when they hear this. I don't know that the conclusion they're coming to is that people are taking screwdrivers and manipulating pumps. I think the more reasonable conclusion is that if a pump is inspected and it's to the benefit of the consumer, it gets fixed pretty quickly. But if it's out of whack to the benefit of the retailer--in some cases--the conclusion that some reasonable people might come to is that it doesn't get fixed quite as quickly.

That would be something that's been expressed to me as a concern anyway. I don't know if that's a concern you've heard or not.

In terms of the conversation around using the word “chiselling”, or whatever word that some people might have used—I think Anthony used that word—what we're talking about is that we want to make sure the vast majority of retailers who are following rules aren't affected by the few who would break the rules. We want to make sure that Canadian consumers are protected against unfairness at gas pumps and other measurement devices.

We know the cost of that is $20 million a year—a very significant cost.

When we talk about the importance of this legislation, we talk about the importance to consumers. But again, maybe the reason your retailers are in favour of this legislation is because they know it will protect the reputation of the majority of those retailers who are following the rules. Is that correct? Is that accurate?

[Jane Savage]

Certainly, as opposed to being called names, yes, from that perspective, it is a much better thing than being called things that we aren't.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But you would say that the vast majority of your retailers are not in that category anyway, right?

[Jane Savage]

Right, and there's no proof. The point is that the number of prosecutions is zero or very small, so there is a disconnect between the intensity of the language around this bill, including its name, and the reality.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I guess I would argue that the name “fairness” isn't that really intensive language, but Monsieur--

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Lake, I think that Mr. Blouin—