Industry Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes.

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

The wording is: “The Minister of Industry must complete a review of the provisions and the operation of this Act within three years after it receives royal assent.”

Chair, I just want to get Mr. Lake's attention. We've had some discussion here and we've also recognized earlier testimony by Measurement Canada. It's clear that it may be two to two and a half years before this actually rolls out, before the inspections are done.

Is that correct, Mr. Cotton?

[Carl Cotton]

The inspection frequencies are between one and five years for the devices in the eight sectors. To be fully rolled out, to have the devices in the retail food sector it would be five years.

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

Chair, I would suggest then on that basis, and Mr. Lake and I talked before, that the word “three” years be amended to “five” years after it receives royal assent.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

So basically the amendment as it's written, except that it's five years instead of three years. Are you okay with that, Mike?

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

No problem.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll assume it was presented in that way, okay?

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

Correct, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, it doesn't look like there's any debate.

(Amendment agreed to)

So that's a new clause 29.1.

(Clause 30 agreed to on division)

(On clause 1—Short title)

Now we're back to clause 1, the short title.

Mr. McTeague.

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

Chair, thank you again. I see that we may be within time, but maybe we won't.

The initial response in the short title has created an enormous amount of hardship and difficulty for a lot of people in the retail sector of gasoline, through no fault of their own, who do very good work. And as the evidence demonstrates very clearly, the numbers for compliance are relatively high. This is a very open industry and one that will be subject to a number of constraints.

I'm suggesting that this be changed, and that the act be cited as the Consumer Confidence in Measurements Act. We've gone through the plenum of trying to do this in other areas. Perhaps this will obviate the need, Chair, at some point to have Mr. Cotton et al. come before the committee to explain the other areas where the compliance isn't as high.

I think this is in the spirit of trying to target something that's pro-consumer, as opposed to anti-retailer of gasoline.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Members, this amendment seeks to amend the short title of the bill. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 770-771:

The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.

In the opinion of the chair, there have been no amendments requiring a change to the bill's title, and my ruling right now is that this amendment is inadmissible.

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

Chair, with all due respect, I would challenge the chair's decision. I think the incendiary nature of the title as it currently stands is such that it sends the wrong message. It is both confusing and frankly without the support of a basis in fact. So I would challenge that ruling by the chair.

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

All right. There's no debate on that.

We will be voting on whether you're going to sustain the decision of the chair, I believe. The clerk will lead the vote.

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

Just to be clear, a vote of yes is a vote to support the chair's decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's correct. It is to sustain the fact that the amendment is out of order.

(Ruling of the chair sustained) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The chair is sustained on that, and that amendment will not stand. Is that okay, Mr. McTeague?

Shall the short title carry, then?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[A voice]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur Cardin, my apologies. You had your hand up. I couldn't address you, because it wasn't debatable. I just remembered that you had your hand up. Did you have a comment?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

It's no longer very relevant, like the short title, in fact. The problem when it comes to the regulations you mentioned is that we're talking about the impossibility of amending the short title if the amendments are not sufficient to justify the changes, or something like that. In this case, it's after the fact, but in that one, it's before. It's a short title that has nothing to do with the bill that was considered in the House. In the circumstances, someone is going to have to determine, from the outset, whether the short title corresponds to the Act. In this case, that was absolutely not the case. So there is a major problem in terms of the regulations.

We could possibly have reversed your decision. Does this relate to the regulations? Would there still have been a problem? What would have happened?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Actually, Mr. Cardin, the committee has just passed, on division, both the short title and the main title. So you're right; it's already gone beyond that.

Go ahead, Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I would like to make the observation that the procedure, as you explained it, makes the assumption that the title was appropriate at the beginning, which is not the case here. I think there's a flaw in the system if this kind of situation can occur. I want to make sure that this is noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make this clear. What we voted on was not whether we liked the name of the bill. It was whether the chair followed correct procedural elements. That's why I voted the way I did. Also, the suggested Consumer Confidence in Measurements Act.... I suspect that this bill will have repercussions that will be negative, so I ...[Inaudible--Editor].

Thank you, Mr. Chair.