Industry Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Carl Cotton]

That is a responsibility of the organization that accredited them. In English, we would say:

The proof is in the pudding. When we do the audits,

—excuse me for switching to English—

if someone has been named as a meter shop verifier or is listed as a meter shop verifier as part of their accreditation program, we will interview that individual as part of our audit process. We will also observe that individual as they do their work, their meter shop verification, which includes how they do the inspections of the devices, how they set up the standards that are going to be used, the test console or the bell prover or what not that will be used to perform the inspection. We monitor their process for controlling that test equipment, so the periodic checks to make sure that the devices, the standards, remain in calibration is monitored by Measurement Canada.

So there is an oversight program to make sure that the work they're doing is appropriate and suitable.

As I said in reply to Mr. McTeague, this is a program that has been in place since 1986, if I recall correctly. As well, there is nothing to suggest that Measurement Canada should be involved in training the people who work in the meter shops. The compliance rates are higher for electricity and gas than for weights and measures, because there are requirements associated with periodic "reverifications" that do not exist at present for weights and measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, sir?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes, that's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll suspend for five minutes now. When we come back you can continue your questions with the officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in session.

I allowed the conversation to go rather casually because it was only a dialogue at first, but now we have a number of speakers and I need to direct the conversation.

Monsieur Bouchard, I already had a speakers list. Monsieur Cardin asked his question, so I will put you at the end of the speakers list, Monsieur Bouchard, and come back to you.

Mr. Wallace, Mr. McTeague, and then Monsieur Bouchard.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I simply want to clarify one of the comments you made.

You believe that adding this amendment would add more bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic system that we have. Coming from a bureaucrat, it's very interesting to see that you don't want more. I don't know why we don't listen to that around the table. You're telling me it would be more work with no gain, from a bureaucratic point of view, based on the wording that we have now in front of us. Is that correct?

[Carl Cotton]

Yes. We don't see the need to formalize a training process for ENG at this point, and I'm not sure I would envision it occurring at any point.

Another thing I would add is that we've had very significant consultations with stakeholders in a variety of sectors, including the electricity and natural gas trade sectors. When we consulted with the ENG stakeholders, including the vulnerable parties, including the end users, the device users, it was never raised as an issue.

These are consultations that took place over the course of six to twelve months, so they would have had ample opportunity to raise that type of concern. So for ENG, I'm not sure I see the need for this.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. So based on that answer, Mr. Chair, I will not be supporting the amendment.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McTeague.

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

Well, we're not adding people. Let's be very clear, Mr. Cotton: we're adding what is a protocol, a safeguard, an addition, an additional protocol to ensure. And I can understand your point about ENG. To my way of thinking, at worse we would be only looking at a question of redundancy, and only in those two areas.

Again, I point out that we should have uniformity. It's consistent. I almost think, from a parliamentary point of view, it's something we would always look for in terms of application of protocols or application of process: uniformity in testing, consistency in testing, repeatability, reliability. You may suggest it not be there. I see no reason why it ought not to be. It certainly won't have the bureaucratic weight that is being suggested here, and I hope you've not given your consent that that's in fact what is going to happen.

[Carl Cotton]

I would see this as having resource implications for Measurement Canada: if it's something that's stipulated in this statute, it's something we would have to monitor. We would have to formalize the reporting processes that we use under our accreditation program that indicate that there is no problem on the ENG side. It indicates there is no problem in terms of uniformity and the ability to reproduce results.

I'm not sure the data you received includes electricity and natural gas trade sectors.

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

I think it's 100% in your case.

[Carl Cotton]

The compliance rates are significantly higher under the E&G act--

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

Sorry, how high?

[Carl Cotton]

I don't have the data in front of me, but I suspect they are in and around the area of the fuel dispensers.

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

In that case, Mr. Cotton, why would you be going after the retail gasoline industry when it has a 93.11% compliance rate? We are talking about maybe, at most, 6.7%, 6.8%, 6.9% higher at the most, if it is 100% for ENG, or natural gas.

If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

[Carl Cotton]

We're not targeting a specific industry. The scope of the bill is the eight trade sectors that we'll initially be regulating in.

Some of the sectors have far lower compliance rates. The inspection frequencies that we will be proposing were consulted upon with our stakeholders. CIPMA and CPPI at the time agreed with the inspection frequencies that were set forward. They came forward to committee here and said that they were all for consumer confidence and supported the changes that were being proposed.

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

I'm glad you will be able to give us an opinion on what you think of the short title of this legislation, because it's not directed at the other industries, as you have suggested, sir.

In any event, I believe this is important. It's redundant, it's uniform, and it ought to be there. That's the position I'm taking. It's the position that's been put forward.

Mr. Chair, I have no further comments on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Bouchard.

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

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. McTeague is withdrawing his amendment. Is that correct?

I think the amendment is reasonable. It seems to me to be reasonable for training to be uniform.

You talked about an increase in personnel. It seems to me that with your audit system, there can be oversight measures. I don't think that to implement the amendment it would be necessary to add personnel to deal with weights and measures.

It seems to me that with the audit system, which is a form of oversight, the one you spoke about just now, we could manage to make sure, in your oversight procedure, that there will be uniform training.

[Carl Cotton]

Forgive me for speaking in English, but it will be easier for me to answer.

We are talking of two separate amendments here. One amendment is for ENG, which would in theory drive uniformity, and one amendment for weights and measures.

When we are talking about the ENG amendment, that's the one I'm suggesting is not required. We have a lot of data and experience with our accreditation program. There are a lot of provincial and municipal strong association training processes for qualifying meter shop technicians--not weights and measures, but meter shop technicians.

Our evidence doesn't support the idea of formalizing a training process for that. Weights and measures to my knowledge is not what we're discussing now. We'll get to that, I guess, when we get to the next amendment--unless I'm off base.

I don't know whether that answers your question.

In terms of electricity and gas, we don't think it is necessary. The system seems to be working very well.

For weights and measures, that is what the next part of the discussion will address.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Cotton.

Mr. Lake.

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

I just want to come back to this issue of uniformity. Again I am taking both clauses kind of together because I think they're designed to accomplish the same thing.

We are talking about eight trade sectors, yet we're using wording that says they are trained in the same manner and that all measurements made by persons designated as inspectors are conducted uniformly.

While it sounds nice, and I think we can all understand the need for consistency in terms of the way these actions are carried out, the way it's worded is completely impractical. It seems to me that in each of the eight trade sectors the way things will be measured will be different. To put in the law--actually write it right into the law--that inspectors have to be trained in the same manner whether you are measuring vegetables or gasoline doesn't seem very practical to me. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And that all measurements made by inspectors or by persons designated as inspectors are conducted uniformly.... How can measurements for different things be conducted uniformly?

I just think the changes sound very arbitrary to me. I have yet to actually understand from Mr. McTeague why he is even suggesting this change. What is driving it? We never heard from witnesses who suggested this change.

Maybe Mr. McTeague can point to the witnesses we heard from in the testimony who actually asked for this. Mr. McTeague, was there somebody in the testimony and the witnesses we heard from who actually requested this change?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, we'll have to--

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

I guess you can comment on my first comments in terms of the difference between the trade sectors.