Industry Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. We have more speakers on this as well, Mr. Lake. Sorry.

[Carl Cotton]

I tend to agree with everything you said, Mr. Lake.

I guess the other thing I would bring forward, again speaking about ENG, is that we have different types of organizations that are accredited. We have manufacturers as well as utilities. A manufacturer, for example, may institute some in-process verification of a meter that would count toward the final verification or the final inspection. That won't be the same methodology that's used by hydro, when it's doing its verification or re-verification because it has a different product in front of it.

I think the process that we have in place now allows us some flexibility to deal with different types of stakeholders. If we start focusing on everything being the same cookie-cutter approach, what we'll find is that the manufacturers will be telling us, “This is far too costly. We don't want to verify these meters any more. You guys do them.” It could be an outcome.

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

Can you just remind us again, how varied are the eight trade sectors?

[Carl Cotton]

We're looking at retail food, retail fuel, off the top of my head. It's hard here. I'm under pressure.

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

I know, sorry about that.

[Carl Cotton]

Retail food, retail fuel, downstream petroleum, grain and field crops, the mining sector, dairy, fishing, and logging.

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

So it would seem that the way measurements are done in each of those areas would be quite different.

[Carl Cotton]

It will be.

Then to address the uniformity issue as well, as I've said before, prior to becoming accredited or registered, an organization has to submit inspection procedures that are approved and authorized for use by Measurement Canada. We're looking at the inspection procedures through the lens of whether it is working properly and does it look like ours, basically, with concessions, as I said, for things like manufacturing processes versus utilities.

There already is a uniformity in the inspection process of accredited or registered organizations. I guess where there may not be uniformity is in the organizations that aren't accredited or registered. They may use non-calibrated and non-certified standards, they may use alternate test procedures, but they won't be doing any of the certification work under the bill.

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

Okay. Again just using the wording here in the amendment, it says “that all measurements made by inspectors and by persons designated as inspectors are conducted uniformly”. Would it be fair to say that all measurements made by inspectors are conducted, actually, differently when you're measuring fish versus when you're measuring vegetables versus when you're measuring gas? Obviously, the way they're measured is different. I mean, you would have a consistency in terms of the way the rules are followed.

[Carl Cotton]

Well, the technology is different. Even within the retail fuel sector, the standards that it may use, approved standards, may be different. You may have a pipe prover or you may have a volumetric prover.

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

Right.

[Carl Cotton]

So the standards it uses, as long as they're suitable, will require a different inspection procedure. Again, Measurement Canada would have to calibrate and certify the standard that's being used, so we evaluate its suitability for purpose when we calibrate it, whether it's reproducible, whether it repeats, and whether it's within tolerance. All of those things are taken into account when we authorize someone to certify a device on behalf of the minister.

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

So clearly, from a scientific standpoint, when it comes to measurement, this amendment is problematic.

[Carl Cotton]

I see it as problematic, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I read the amendment--and maybe I'll have our analyst comment on this, because I want to be clear--I think we're on a wild goose chase here with the way it's been twisted.

I didn't read this amendment to have the end result that if you're going to measure things, they would have to be done exactly the same, whether it be fish or whether it be fuel. The way I saw this is that there would be a process at Measurement Canada that if you're going to measure fish, then there would be certain expectations for that particular food.

Can we get a clarification on that? I think that's important.

I don't read.... I don't know how you could read through this in terms of exact manner and exact ways, and lump it all together like that. I think that's a little bit misleading with legislation. I'd like our analyst to provide some insight.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead.

[Mathieu Frigon, Committee Researcher]

Yes, we'd need to consult with lawyers at the office about this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, he can't give you an opinion at this time, Mr. Masse. He has to consult with lawyers on it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Cotton, you mentioned this would formalize a process.

[Carl Cotton]

Sorry, it's more than formalize, because the process is already formalized. The accreditation process and the audit process are already formalized. We have a series of accreditation requirements that someone has to meet. But it would add to it in terms of what we do with the information, in terms of how we manage.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Are you saying to this committee that if this motion were passed, it's your opinion that you would have to then go back to the department and train everybody the same way, whether they're doing retail, food, grain, mining, dairy, fishing?

[Carl Cotton]

Yes, it would create an expectation that we're training everybody exactly the same way. My interpretation of the uniform as well is that even.... In our process for qualifying these people, we don't use the same theoretical exam all the time. We mix up the questions because we know these people speak to each other. We're talking about the authorized service providers now. Our interpretation of uniformity would mean we're supposed to be using the same exam all the time in terms of a literal interpretation of it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Did the department get a legal opinion on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Cardin was being very polite in saying he has a point of order.