Industry Committee on June 17th, 2010

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

Measurement Canada has not set requirements?

[Gilles Vinet]

No. There are no requirements in terms of follow-up. There are initial inspection requirements but once the devices are operating, there are no longer any requirements. As you mentioned, the Régie du bâtiment specifies that these devices should be calibrated every two years. That calibration applies to various factors related to inventory reconciliation, in order to ensure that there are no leaks. Currently, there is no obligatory inspection. If Bill C-14 is passed, every fuel distributor will have to be inspected every two years using certified accurate measurement standards and accepted testing methods to certify testing devices, by a body that has the authority to inspect a device under the Weights and Measures Act. That's what would change. Once the bill is passed, follow-ups will be carried out by authorized bodies.

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

The bill will involve additional costs. We've been told that every two years the devices will have to be inspected and evidence will have to be provided that measurements are appropriate and compliant with the standards. If I understand correctly, this will involve additional costs and additional monitoring.

[Gilles Vinet]

We have been told that in many cases, the Government of Quebec accepts Measurement Canada certification. Given that Bill C-14 requires inspections every two years, this certification could be used for compliance with the standards of the Régie du bâtiment du Québec. No doubt the same organizations could do the inspections.

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

Have you consulted any organizations, such as the association of gas retailers, etc.? Did you do any consultation before the bill was drafted?

[Gilles Vinet]

Yes, absolutely. We conducted a very broad sector review, we had very in-depth consultations with consumers, on issues such as the retail price of oil—which we are discussing—or other sectors. We held discussions with representatives from eight other sectors.

With respect to the retail oil sector, we met with the organizations that appeared before the committee this week. These organizations were in favour of the recommendation, which is based on the accuracy of the equipment. Everything was discussed at that time. Consultations lasted one year per sector. The review exercise for the oil sector lasted one year. A document was issued in order to explain the situation. We had both individual and group meetings. All of this has been displayed on the Measurement Canada website, and it is still there.

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

Would it be possible to do something more specific with this group, in order to exchange ideas and communicate the way you see things, even though the bill has already been drafted?

Could that be part of your plans?

[Gilles Vinet]

Up until now, we have held consultations and we will be doing this again for the regulations. A mandatory consultation must be held when the regulations are submitted. So this group will be consulted along with the others.

As for the Régie du bâtiment and the regulations—simply to underscore that there will be no duplication and that the emphasis is really being put on other issues in addition to accuracy—I would like to mention that our inspections do not demonstrate that the compliance rates are significantly better in Quebec than in any other provinces, in terms of equipment accuracy. Basically, this shows that this requirement is focusing primarily on safety and the environment.

As I said, we intend to hold consultations on the regulations. You must take into account the fact that this group represents the independents in a province, and not all of the stakeholders.

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

As you know, last Tuesday we heard from another group who were asking questions about the name of the bill. It is called the Fairness at the Pumps Act, when in fact, as you have just said, the measurements apply to eight sectors.

Have you been asked for your opinion on this matter? Did you choose the name or the title of this bill?

[Gilles Vinet]

No, that is not something that we decide. The minister would be in a better position to answer this question. We are not the ones who decide on the name of the bill. It is still called the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. Those names will not change. The two acts remain the same.

As for the title of Bill C-14, the minister would be in a better position to answer than we are.

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

Do you feel that the title is representative?

[Gilles Vinet]

As far as the content of Bill C-14 is concerned, we always focus on accurate measurements and regulatory requirements.

As for the title of the act, we are much more concerned about what this bill will allow. It is not up to us to determine whether or not the title is appropriate.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Merci, Monsieur Bouchard.

Mr. Lake.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I'll use my whole seven minutes this time, but I have a few questions.

I'll follow up on Mr. McTeague's questioning, if I could for a second. On the collection and verification of the data, he was talking about peer review processes and things like that. What is typical? What is the accepted practice as it relates to collecting and then verifying data?

[Gilles Vinet]

We have to keep in mind that over the last three years, Measurement Canada inspectors inspected 48,000 gas pumps out of a population of 130,000 gas pumps. That's a huge number. These were done by Measurement Canada inspectors using certified equipment, certified test procedures, approved by our engineering groups and our standing committees. So this is very solid data.

On top of that, from our database we know if the inspections are random, if they are targeted, or if there are complaints. So the numbers we've provided represent a huge part of the marketplace. As with any study that we would commission, I do not think they could inspect so many inspections. It would cost a fortune.

That's where these numbers come from. These are the numbers that we have been quoting as unbiased, random inspections.

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

You said there were 48,000.

[Gilles Vinet]

Yes, just over the last three years.

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

That's a very high percentage, so it's a pretty good sample size.

Just to be clear, this research isn't funded by a consumer group or by the gas industry.

[Gilles Vinet]

Absolutely not. These are regular inspections done by government inspectors.

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

Okay.

Some of that time would have actually included time during which there was a Liberal government in power, wouldn't it? It isn't the Conservative Party commissioning you to go out and report.

[Gilles Vinet]

I'm just talking about the last three years, but we've been doing inspections for 20 years. Basically, our inspections remain the same. The only changes we make are to ensure that when we sometimes need to adjust something technically, we do it. But it's always driven by technical, scientific evidence.

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

Thanks for clearing that up.

Some of the witnesses who were here at the last meeting brought up some discrepancies in numbers, or there was some question around some of the numbers. I think you've said the cost—I believe it's a net cost—to consumers is $20 million. Is that right, that the $20 million number is a net cost?

[Gilles Vinet]

No. What we said was that the $20 million was based on the 2008 inspection. From one year to another, it's pretty much the same, but depending on the price of gasoline, it could go up or down, obviously.

Basically, the $20 million represented all the pumps that were found to be inaccurate, not complying with the regulations, that were penalizing consumers—$20 million. There were also gas pumps that were inaccurate but were penalizing the retailers. These pumps represented possibly another $12 million to $13 million.

The way we approach that, however, in Measurement Canada, and it's consistent for all the sectors—it's the same for electric steam meters, for gas meters, and for truck refueller scales—is that we look at the inequity. For gas pumps, basically, the fact that one gas pump may be giving more product is not very good for a consumer who always goes to the same station and the gas pump is out of tolerance. We found a lot of gas pumps that were significantly out of tolerance. We don't want the system to be a lottery as to whether you'll be lucky that the gas station where you go is giving more product, or if you're not lucky, you're getting less product. We want accuracy for everyone. Otherwise you could have a situation where, in theory, a huge portion of the devices give more product, a huge portion give less product, and overall you could say, net that's very good, everyone is happy. But we don't want a system where it becomes a lottery as to whether the gas pump or the scale or the truck refueller is accurate or not.

So to answer your question, yes, the $20 million represents only the portion that penalizes consumers.

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

Ultimately, we typically go to the same gas station to fill up our vehicles. So if Mr. McTeague is going to fill up his 80-litre gas tank at the same gas station over and over again, if he's at one of those gas stations that's significantly out of whack, he's going to be hit time and time again. It's not going to balance out over time in any sense.

Mr. McTeague talks about the level of tolerance. It's an interesting question whether the 0.5% is the right number or not. Were there data on the pumps that were actually within the range of tolerance as to whether those minor inaccuracies would have been skewed towards the consumer or retailer? In a sense, that could add up over a significant amount of time, right?