Industry Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'll let the questioning go on a bit to give everybody time to kind of consume the subamendment and see if there's some agreement on it.

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's been helpful, as this discussion has continued to evolve here. Just to recap, we understand that this amendment only deals with the ENG sector.

If I hear you correctly, Mr. Cotton, you're saying two things. One is, “if ain't broke, don't fix it,” which I completely get and understand. I think you're also concerned about the potential consequences of resourcing this, and the added bureaucracy and cost to either your department or government.

To help focus us on this, I want to ask a question. In addition to those two concerns that I've touched on, are you concerned about potential adverse impacts, either intended or unintended, of this proposed amendment on consumers? That's ultimately what this is all about.

[Carl Cotton]

I'm thinking, and I'm getting confirmation on it.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's fine.

[Carl Cotton]

Yes, the big one that comes to mind is additional cost for the verification, because the government is involved in the training of the meter shop technicians, whereas we weren't before. So that's a cost that could be passed on.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay, that suppliers would bear and then pass on to consumers, potentially?

[Carl Cotton]

Yes, on the spot like this, I think it's the biggest thing I could come up with. If I went back to my office and thought about it, I could weigh out the pros and cons.

Again, you summarized our thinking on this, in terms of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and this could become resource-intensive for Measurement Canada. That means it's resources we're not spending or using doing inspections or follow-up activities as well. It's resources we're using doing administrative duties, and I'm not sure what the value added is for consumers.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur Cardin, did you have another question?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes. Thanks to the answer to my colleague's question, I have just understood the confusion.

This amendment is to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act.

[Carl Cotton]

Exactly.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

But that Act does not provide for people to be designated to verify the level of training. That is in the Weights and Measures Act. You are saying that it affects weights and measures and will have an impact on them. Weights and measures officials are going to make sure, in the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, that the training is verified.

[Carl Cotton]

No. That would be a new requirement for electricity and gas.

It is an amendment in Bill C-14 that...

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes, I know.

[Carl Cotton]

...that changes the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

In your answer to Mr. Bouchard's question, when he talked about Hydro-Québec and what that represented, you referred to the Weights and Measures Act to be sure that things will be done properly at Hydro-Québec.

[Carl Cotton]

I don't think so. If I did say that, it was because my French... That isn't what I said, André?

[André Gagné, Senior Program Officer, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry]

You said "Measurement Canada".

[Carl Cotton]

I said "Measurement Canada". That's excellent. Thank you.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Ah, Measurement Canada!

But that may still be where the confusion in what you said comes from. There would be an additional responsibility associated with the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and it is actually Measurement Canada that would have to administer it.

[Carl Cotton]

Yes.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

As for the second amendment to the Weights and Measures Act, Measurement Canada would be responsible for administering it.

[Carl Cotton]

Oui, and as far as I'm concerned, we haven't started debating that yet.

I'm with you, Mr. Masse, if I can say that. I'm trying to deal with the amendment to ENG, and I would hope that we can set it aside. Again, not to beat a dead horse, I think that our experience with the accreditation program under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act does not indicate that this would be required. So from an ENG perspective this amendment is not required. If we move on to the weights and measures, then let's discuss it. I'm trying--failing miserably, I guess--to focus the discussion on ENG.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

So we do see that probably you often referred to the Weights and Measures Act rather than Measurement Canada. I think that happened because we see how it works.

[Carl Cotton]

I think I always said "Measurement Canada", but if I said "weights and measures", I apologize.