Industry Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I have a quick question for Mr. Cotton. Did you--I'll call you bureaucrats or civil servants--come up with the short title, or was that a government thing? It's just a straight question. Who came up with that title?

[Carl Cotton]

I believe Alan already answered that question at a previous meeting. Measurement Canada--

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Could you reconfirm it for me? It wasn't Measurement Canada. I just want it confirmed, because I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric here and I wanted to bring that forward.

Thank you. That's all I have to put.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

All right, we'll go to the amendment.

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

It need not be recorded, unless Mr. Lake or the Conservatives wish. We're fine with a hand count.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)

We'll go to clause 6 and Liberal amendment 3.

I'm certain we'll have more collegiality around this.

Mr. McTeague.

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

Chair, this is really a response to the intention of the bill, which has been raised many, many times.

For the purposes of members, in clause 6, in proposed paragraph 29.1(a), and I'll read this into it:

provision designated under paragraph 29.1(a), and who fails to remedy the contravention within 30 days,

You'll read in this particular section, Chair, that the purpose of the legislation is not to punish but in fact to seek compliance. This is very much in the spirit of that.

Chair, I raise this issue because more often than not, if a pump is out of skew it is not necessarily because someone has gone and made it so, but that mechanical or electronic devices may and can break, and as a result of overuse or underuse there may be a number of reasons this happens. But to ensure that there is in fact compliance, rather than giving the person a penalty, or publishing a name, or a panoply of other administrative penalties, this gives the operator, the retailer, up to 30 days to comply before a violation is deemed to have taken place. That seems to me to be in keeping with the stated objective, if I can find it here, of the legislation.

Proposed subsection 29.11(2) is not to be amended by anything that we have said here, and would continue to read:

The purpose of a penalty is to promote compliance with this Act and not to punish.

I made it very clear as to why, the intent, the purpose. I have been concerned by the fact that this is legislation that seeks to find damages where they do not exist or where it's questionable that they exist. I've demonstrated that the level of compliance is here. The Measurement Canada report and the earlier report by the Ottawa Citizen, which no one seems to be able to take ownership of, as to where it came from.... With a level of compliance of 93.11%, it makes it second-highest in the list of sectors and industries I've looked at. We've pointed out that electricity is at 74%. There are many others that are well below the 93.11% threshold.

I point out, Chair, that the only industry that I have here that is anywhere near what the retail gasoline industry has done as far as accuracy is in fact honey and other apiary.... So I would suggest that this is very much in keeping with an attempt to find a balance, to strike that balance. We're going to remove the criminal sanction, which creates a number of barriers to trying to find, as the witnesses from Measurement Canada have pointed out, an administrative monetary penalty. We have to be absolutely sure we're seeking compliance, not punishment.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'd like to have some comments from Mr. Cotton on this. I have concerns with this amendment; I have concerns with this bill. I see it as a privatization of inspection services, really, at the end of the day.

Could you give us some commentary with regard to this? I think it would probably weaken the case for those who are violating the law.

[Carl Cotton]

As I understand the way this is drafted, it would neutralize the purpose of the AMPs. You have to keep in mind that AMPs would be used in the context of the graduated enforcement policy that we have spoken about, so we likely wouldn't be in a position to issue an AMPs until we've already provided a first warning and then a second warning, anyway. So this would just be adding another 30 days, if I understand correctly, to the period of time that a non-compliant device or a device that's not measuring accurately could sit out in the field.

As it is now, when we do our monitoring inspections or our inspections, if we uncover a problem, we would issue a non-conformance, a non-complying device certificate, and the organization would have 21 days to rectify the situation. Then we would follow up. As I said, it would neutralize the purpose of the AMPs.

If I can add one other point to that, I seem to recall that when Joan Huzar was here from the Canadian consumer initiative, she said that the AMPs, as drafted, didn't go far enough. So it would be contrary to what the consumer groups are expecting in terms of protection as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Cotton.

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

Chair, I'm sorry, I have a point of order for the sake of clarification. I do recall that particular witness who didn't know what an administrative monetary penalty was. It's kind of rich to be able to present that, Mr. Cotton, when the person who made the statement wasn't aware of what an administrative monetary penalty was.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

If there is no further debate, we'll move to the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 6 to 15 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to on division)

(On clause 19)

Clause 19, and this is your fifth amendment, Mr. McTeague.

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

Chair, repeating what I'd said earlier, "provision designated under paragraph 22(a), and who fails to remedy the contravention....”. Sorry, this is clause 19?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's correct, your amendment number five.

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

Replacing number what? Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's the same as the one we just talked about.

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

I think we've concluded what we were going to say on that one. I'm free to call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 19 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 20 to 29 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have an additional one, Liberal amendment six.

Mr. McTeague.

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

I'll get back to it here. Sorry, what page?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Liberal amendment six is new clause 29.1.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Page 30.

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

Same as before.