Industry Committee on June 17th, 2010

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If that's the case in terms of how it took so long to get here, in terms of tabling it as legislation, the infractions were happening for a decade before. The Ottawa Citizen came out with a report, and you said that you were already working on legislation. If there's some urgency, why did it take until 2010 for the bill to come forward, and also so late in this parliamentary session?

[Alan Johnston]

I can only comment on part of that.

As part of our review, we were looking at a number of sectors. We went to StatsCan and identified that there were approximately 39 trade sectors in Canada where measurement formed the basis of the transaction. Then we started on these trade sector reviews, but we were doing one or two a year.

Part of it when we started was a learning process for us, but we were trying to obtain enough information to be able to substantiate the proposed changes, and that didn't happen overnight.

There may have been elections or any number of reasons this bill did not move as quickly as I would have liked, but I can't comment on when it was introduced. We worked very hard. We brought it to the attention of our senior management in the department, they bought into it and brought it to the attention of the minister, who also bought into it. I can only say that the timing is not under my control, but we worked very hard to get it here.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Because we are now looking at the bill and a series of concerns have been raised—and there are some very good things in this bill as well, no doubt about that—I think the impression is made that it's being delayed unnecessarily. There seems to be some urgency, but the fact of the matter is that we just recently got the bill.

We had recalibration of this government after prorogation, and the recalibration has led to, I don't know, maybe three bills passed in this House of Commons if we get the Homolka bill passed, hopefully today.

I just don't want the impression to be made to the public that we are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Masse, Mr. Lake has the floor on a point of order.

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

Just for clarification, it could be that some of this might have to do with the NDP moving three-hour concurrence motions almost every day in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's actually a lie. When you talk about almost every day in the House of Commons, that actually hasn't happened. In looking at the number of House sitting days, maybe the parliamentary secretary would break down how many days we sat in this session and how many times we've actually moved a concurrence motion.

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

Perhaps what could be done is that people could go and look at how they vote and see how many words are spoken by the NDP in the House of Commons versus every other party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, Mr. Masse, you have the floor. Go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I know there's an aversion for democracy, but at any rate I do want to move in terms of one of the things we've discovered during this.

One of the things I'd like to see in terms of an improvement to the bill—and I don't know how to do this amendment—is that it appears that the consumer will pay for the new process in place. Let's assume that we get a really good process, and even if we don't have, for example, what I would prefer, which is the public service doing this, if there's a mixture of public service and private sector, which I have a lot of concerns about, but if we look at compromise, the evidence we have so far is that the cost is going to be passed on to the consumer. It will be disproportionate, perhaps, because the cost of servicing and inspecting those pumps might be cheaper where there is a greater quantity of them and perhaps some better competition for measurement of those pumps because of the numbers.

In rural areas, for example, you have to drive hundreds of kilometres to get to a gas station. Or ironically, in southern Ontario, you have to drive hundreds of kilometres to get to a gas station on the 401 right now. At any rate, you might actually pay more.

So is there any way to build into the bill that the consumers and retailers aren't faced with this, and the suppliers and manufacturers of the equipment actually have to absorb the maintenance of it?

[Alan Johnston]

That would be a difficult one to answer.

First of all, I would like to state that Measurement Canada will still be out there doing marketplace monitoring or random inspections. Granted, we won't be doing the same quantity of inspections we're doing now, but we will be out there doing independent inspections.

As we identified in the maps we provided earlier, we already have a number of authorized service providers in remote or less populated areas. We believe that once this bill is passed, if it is passed, we would see an increase in those providers. We have talked to a number of companies about that. If they can't find an authorized service provider, Measurement Canada still has a requirement to do that inspection.

In terms of passing it on through suppliers or the manufacturers, I don't know how that could be done, to be honest with you.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

And to me that's a real concern, especially once again that in... And I know the thought that if your pumps are habitually having trouble and they're identified to the public, you might lose business to competition. The fact of the matter is, gasoline is an essential product for consumers and for businesses, and there are lots of reasons people will put up with going back to a bad retailer, because they have no choice.

The Zehrs location in my area was flagged a couple of times for having improper measurement, but my wife still goes there because she gets the groceries, and the lifestyle we lead requires that as a convenience, so we'll accept the loss to go there. And it still hasn't deterred the retailer from that.

I'm still looking for a way that this isn't going to be passed on to the consumers. And when you look at the rural area in terms of consideration of the ASPs, the authorized service providers, for those in more isolated or less competitive markets, if they have poor practices, are they going to be punished or penalized in a way that might be different from other areas where there is greater competition?

[Alan Johnston]

No, I don't believe so.

First of all, we have built into the bill--and I'll use gas pumps as an example--that if any retailer could not get the pump inspected within a two-year period and can demonstrate that they've made every effort to do that, then they're going to be given an extra year to do so. Now, that doesn't mean we're going to do that carte blanche.

In terms of consumer choice, I am always surprised that in Canada people will drive 15 blocks to save a tenth of a cent on a litre of gasoline when you figure out how much that's cost them, but that's the fact. So if you choose to tolerate a loss of product from a station, that's your personal choice. Our objective here is to make sure you don't have to do that, and that is by ensuring that those pumps are accurate.

And we think that within two years that should happen. I don't know the exact data for the station you have in question, and we don't know how often that was inspected, but certainly our objective is to ensure that everybody is treated equally. In rural areas there are going to be issues in terms of travel. We hope to be able to identify enough ASPs to minimize that, but certainly we're not targeting rural versus urban or major versus independent. We're in the business of accurate measurement. It doesn't matter who does it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Once again, even though the bill has been tabled as one for the gas price at the pumps, one of the things that did intrigue me in your testimony is that you felt that the discrepancies were consistent with all industries. Did any other industry stand out that has a significant problem even beyond this one here? Is there one that consumers should be more aware of that could have a discrepancy, whether it be in the retail sector for food or for other types of stock industries? Is there one in particular that seems to be higher than others, and what is the reason for that?

[Gilles Vinet]

If we look at consumers, for retail food we're looking at the same level of numbers as gasoline. But in other sectors, as we mentioned, for example, truck refuellers, the compliance rate is about 80%--it's not 94% for measurement; it's 80% of diesel fuel for those trucks. For home heating oil meters we're looking at a 70% compliance level. So yes, other sectors suffer.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Why would diesel, for example, be so different from gasoline in terms of the discrepancy? Because they use pumps that are designed by the same manufacturers as those for gasoline.

[Gilles Vinet]

I wouldn't say it's because it's diesel versus gas. These are a different type of high-flow measuring device. But again, we have to keep in mind that right now under the act there is no obligation to have those devices calibrated and inspected with authorized procedures. Right now there is nothing. So some of those devices can stay in service for a long time without being calibrated, and that's what we're seeing when we do those random inspections.

Of course in the context where these devices would have to be calibrated on a regular basis using approved test procedures and standards, we believe these low compliance rates would disappear and the situation would improve.

We think the bill provides us with additional tools that will allow us to improve the situation in the marketplace.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Lake.

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

You guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though we're getting to the point where we're asking similar questions and things like that. Maybe we can go just one more round. I know Mr. Rota and Mr. McTeague have a few questions. If they want to, they can take six minutes to split their round or whatever. Does everybody else agree that we'll forgo our round then, if that's going to be the case?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have just over 30 minutes left. Do members of the committee wish to continue until 11 o'clock, or do they wish to adjourn early? It's up to members.

Mr. McTeague.

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

If you guys wind up going seven minutes, we're okay with that. That's fine. We'll pass it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Lake, Mr. McTeague has the floor.

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

Thank you, and I appreciate that from Mr. Lake. I want him to know that when he looks at the way in which the questions have been designed, the usual status of the opposition getting more time was actually changed by this member to the detriment of my colleagues and members—they're probably upset with me—back as early as 2003 in favour of the NDP, the Bloc, and the Conservatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Lake, do you have any questions?