Industry Committee on June 17th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Good morning, and welcome to the 24th meeting on the Standing Committee for Industry, Science and Technology, June 17, 2010. We're here pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 13, 2010, to study Bill C-14, an act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act.

I want to thank our four witnesses for coming to appear in front of our committee on short notice. We appreciate that. We have quite a bit of time today to clarify issues regarding this bill.

Before we begin, I just want to indicate that the analyst did do some research for you. He circulated a chart showing the breakdown in taxes for various markets around Canada, because that question was asked last meeting. He also did some research on the cost of ten-percenters. He's not able to break that cost down into its constituent components. He just retrieved the information on the global amount that every member spends on printing. I think those are the two pieces of information that were requested last meeting.

We're not going to begin with an opening statement because Measurement Canada has, I understand, delivered one before and I don't think there is a need to deliver another one. We will begin with Mr. McTeague.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here. I apologize I was not able to be here the last time you were here, at the beginning.

You can imagine my surprise that a piece of legislation that has been presented has not had the full benefit of a lot of witnesses.

Other than gasoline, I don't think I have heard from my constituents, and I challenge other members to produce the same, that there is somehow a massive rush of concern about the weights and measures of shaved salami or pastrami. A concern, however, has been raised for some time about accuracy in measurement.

Initially the report by Glen McGregor in the Ottawa Citizen at the height of fuel prices served as an interesting point, when the suggestion was made that virtually one in every four or more meters or pumps were askew and not in favour of the consumer.

Your minister then came with another report after the random surveys, or the surveys themselves, and suggested that the number that were dysfunctional and did not favour the consumer had now changed to one in 25. The data on which you have predicated this information, in my view, has never been made public. Therefore I don't know if the surveys checking these pumps—I believe 8,000 in all—were done randomly or if they were based on complaint. Can you clarify where this last round of tests came from, and where is the data specifically?

[Alan Johnston, President, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry]

Thank you.

First of all, I would like to apologize to the committee. I picked up a cold and my voice is starting to go, so I may defer to my colleagues this morning. I apologize again for that.

To answer your question, the data that we use is based on random inspections. We can separate the complaint inspections from the random inspections that we do, so that that number would not skew our information. The information can be made public. There's no problem there. We don't have it with us today, but we can make it public.

I think that answers your question.

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

Yes, Mr. Johnston, I would very much like to see that.

It seems that we put the cart before the horse. I mean we are all in favour of making sure there's accuracy in numbers, but it would appear to me that we have predicated the idea of mandatory certification of calibration on information no one really has, and which for now has been very much the preserve of your agency or your department.

Based on that, can you tell us whether the information was based on wear and tear, or was it based on a willful attempt by retailers, to use the minister's term, to “chisel” consumers?

I think some of your associates were here yesterday when the independent gas retailler suggested that the skew of 6%, of which 2% or one third favoured consumers and two thirds did not, was inaccurate. Can you comment on the accuracy of how you determined this to be against the retailler or against consumers? In other words, the one in 25 pumps you tested that did not favour consumers, was this rigorously tested? Has the data been peer-reviewed, or is this just an analysis that you made based on a number of factors?

[Alan Johnston]

First of all, the inspection data is not just related to one year. We have inspection data that goes back ten years. So this information is based on a number of years of data. You referred to Mr. McGregor's article. He had data from Measurement Canada's database going back approximately ten years.

I would also answer that I believe the majority of the errors related to gas pumps are due to wear and tear, poor maintenance, negligence on the part of the owner, and the owner has a responsibility to maintain the accuracy of the device.

In terms of the comments that I believe were made at the meeting on Tuesday, I can't respond to the issue of whether or not certain types of pumps wear and certain types of pumps do not wear. I'm not aware of that in terms of having specific studies that would prove or disprove that.

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

I think my concern, and the concern of my party, has been that we've drawn conclusions and assumptions and erected a piece of legislation based on the belief that the numbers that you provided were accurate, and yet we have nobody other than yourselves to question or to look to when it comes to accuracy in measurements.

Now you're saying that the minister's announcement a month and a half ago was based on ten years of data. In that, the minister pointed out, as I said earlier, that two out of three of the 6% that were askew do not favour consumers.

Mr. McGregor's article and his interpretation of Measurement Canada's study appeared slightly preceding and perhaps during some of the tests that you were undertaking, and it was far greater than that.

Is it fair to say that the public is confused or that the public doesn't have access to information that is both credible and peer-reviewed?

[Alan Johnston]

I don't think the public is confused in terms of the data. Again, we have shared this data. I will go back and indicate that we have done what we call trade sector reviews. We've gone out and discussed with all stakeholders our findings. We have discussed with them compliance rates. We have discussed with them the level of intervention that Measurement Canada should play in that particular sector.

For example, in the retail gas sector we consulted with CPPI, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, with the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association, with AQUIP. We shared all that data with them. We've had no indications from any of these groups, as well as consumers, that they had any problems with this data.

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

Did you have Statistics Canada or anyone else verify the data you provided?

[Alan Johnston]

We got some of our data--in terms of the amount of gasoline that's sold in Canada--from Statistics Canada. We did not ask Statistics Canada to verify our information.

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

Would you be willing to submit it to Statistics Canada if the request were made by the committee?

[Alan Johnston]

Certainly.

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

I didn't want to fall away from the issue of random versus complaints. In this panoply of investigation that you undertook, were they indeed all random and then some that were complaints, or were they a lot of complaints and some random, or a mix of both?

[Alan Johnston]

Mostly random, some complaints, but the number of random versus the number of complaints would almost allow the complaints especially to be blended in without changing the numbers dramatically.

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

We haven't had the benefit of hearing from some of the large manufacturers of pumps. I know that the biggest ones, Dresser Wayne and Gillbarco, have not been asked to come here.

My experience with the industry going back several years, as you know, Mr. Johnston, is that most of those pumps, as they do fail, more than likely fail in favour of the consumer. Indeed the industry tells me, that is, many of the companies—and we're obviously not dealing with those that do look at this—calibrate more often than two years. In fact the calibration, certainly from the refiner to the terminal or to the purchaser, never exceeds a skew of 0.2 to 0.4, and yet Measurement Canada tolerates a half percent skew.

You can understand that if we're dealing with one in 25 pumps that are admittedly faulty, through whatever we accept as data or information, I think the public would find it equally disturbing that even if we were to pass this legislation, Measurement Canada tolerates a half a litre rip-off, if you will, or a skew, or loss, for every 100 litres dispensed. Put another way, as Mr. Van Kesteren and I have talked about this, with our 80- to 85-litre vehicles you're losing 40¢ to 50¢ value every time you fill up.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Chicken feed.

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

Chicken feed.

We're dealing with one in 25. I'm wondering if you could tell us whether there has been any contemplation to follow the industry standard to drop that to either zero or 0.2 rather than 0.5.

[Alan Johnston]

First of all, I'd like to pick up on a comment you made earlier. You said that the manufacturers indicate that most of the pumps when they wear are in favour of the consumer. Our data is not indicating that. I have no indication or no way of substantiating the information you just provided.

At this point we are not suggesting changing or making the tolerances tighter. The 0.5% is accepted internationally. We also recognize that these devices do wear both for and against the consumer and therefore you have to allow for this tolerance. If the industry feels they can tighten the tolerances, we will certainly discuss this with them at a future date. At the present time the answer is no.

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

Bad data can often lead to bad policy. I don't need to tell you that this is why we want to make sure we get this right. As for drafting, I will perhaps have another opportunity, subject to my colleagues. Are draft regulations ready to go? If we wish to see them, when will they be made available if they're not ready to go today?

[Alan Johnston]

The draft regulations are not completely ready at this point. They have been drafted. They have not been vetted, and there's a requirement to do that.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning once again. I believe this is the second or third time you're appearing before us.

Last Tuesday the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole testified before us. They had read the bill and were concerned about a possible overlap of inspection requirements. According to what we heard, these same inspections are required under Quebec law. Under Bill C-14, there will be inspections. That's why they feel there will be overlap, inspections twice over.

Could you reassure us and tell us that this won't be the case? If it is the case, please tell us.

[Gilles Vinet, Vice-President, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry]

Thank you.

We reviewed the requirements under the Régie du bâtiment du Québec regarding environmental safety. This is a lengthy document that contains several requirements, including one on calibration. We also looked into organizations that are certified by the Province of Quebec in this area. The purpose of calibration is to detect any possible leaks in storage tanks. There are no standard procedures for calibration of equipment and testing methods. There's nothing that guarantees accuracy in the way the Weights and Measures Act does.

We reviewed this and we discussed it with individuals from two organizations that are certified by the Government of Quebec. We concluded that there would be no overlap. In fact, the requirements of Quebec's Régie du bâtiment apply to something other than the distributor's measurement. There are no follow-ups or requirements in this area and therefore there will be no overlap. Service providers authorized under the Weights and Measures Act would be able to do their work in Quebec easily, and this would even help them.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

You're saying there will be no overlap. However, there are currently monitoring and inspection activities.

What is happening right now? What changes would occur under Bill C-14? Would something be added to the inspections? Can you tell us what would happen and what would be added to these activities if Bill C-14 were passed?

[Gilles Vinet]

Currently, only service stations in Quebec do not have to meet inspection requirements.