Evidence of meeting #38 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
We're opposed to the amendment for the same reasons we've discussed. I want to give the witnesses the opportunity, if there's anything additional, to add to the discussion on clause 16. Now would be a good time to do that.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
I'm catching up.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I know you guys were working on a certain order and expecting a certain order. This is just to be clear that we've moved to clause 16 now with regard to the same changes we were talking about.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
We're on proposed subsection 16(1.1)? I'm looking for the proposed amendment.
Conservative
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I would like to know, Mr. Cotton, whether section 16 has some connection with electricity and gas.
October 19th, 2010 / 12:10 p.m.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
None. The impact is on weights and measures, particularly as it relates to a gas pump manufacturer like Tokheim & Gasboy or an inspector like...
No one is coming to mind right now.
There is National Energy Equipment Inc.
It has no connection with electricity and gas, just with weights and measures.
Pardon me.
For this amendment now we're talking weights and measures and not E and G. I hope we're all on that page.
Looking at that from our perspective, inspectors aren't certified, they're designated. So regarding the wording related to “certified”, if the wording were changed to “trained and qualified in the same manner”, I think that might be appropriate. My sense is that for weights and measures, this would be acceptable, and it would fit in with the way things are currently run with our accreditation and registration programs.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
To be clear, you said this would be germane, but you said that “certified” has to come out, with “qualified”....
I'm only doing that because Mr. McTeague was away from the table and I want to make sure he understands.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
Yes.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I want to hear from Mr. McTeague. Then I would move an amendment to have “certified” struck and “qualified” added.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
So it's a subamendment that “certified” be struck and “qualified” replace it.
Liberal
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
As it is, then, the only thing we're changing is the word “certified” to “qualified”.
To clarify in terms of the arguments, what is different about this one from the one previous? I want to have a good understanding of that.
Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Program Development Directorate, Measurement Canada, Department of Industry
It actually reflects what's occurring.
We are dealing with different sectors and different stakeholders. On the electricity and gas side, we're talking about large utilities and large manufacturers. Again, as I stated earlier, with the training processes that the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association have in place, as well as the Municipal Electric Association and some of the other provincial bodies, it's more than adequate, and the evidence seems to indicate that.
On the weights and measures side, we're talking about smaller organizations; they're not as well organized. They don't have.... I don't believe there is a scale manufacturers' association any more in Canada. They're not as organized, so we provide the training as a matter of due diligence, to make sure they're doing the job properly. That's it. Part of the process is to evaluate them on a theoretical basis, so a written exam; and on a practical basis, a witness inspection, if you could call it that; and then ongoing monitoring through the audits and the follow-up inspections.
The only other thing we might want to consider here is the amendment that had been previously proposed about other sectors.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That was what I was looking at.
If we were to add an amendment about other sectors.... Actually, I'm going to quickly turn back to the one we had; I don't like where it was placed there.
If we add “for each particular sector”, so “The Minister shall ensure that for each particular sector”--and then go on from there--“that all persons designated”, would that make sense?
So it would be “The minister shall ensure that”, and then we'll insert “for each particular sector all persons designated under subsection (1) are trained and qualified in the same manner and that all measurements made by these persons are conducted uniformly”.
Would that make sense?
Liberal
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Maybe I'll read it one more time so everybody is clear.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay.
The Minister shall ensure that, for each particular sector, all persons designated under subsection (1) are trained and qualified in the same manner and that all measurements made by these persons are conducted uniformly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I'm going to wait for a comment from Mr. Cotton. Then we need to deal with the first subamendment and then we'll go to this one. Is that fine with everybody?
