Mr. Speaker, at first glance, Bill S-3 looks like one of those technical bills that only policy specialists would read cover to cover, but the truth is that it touches something Canadians care about very deeply: fairness in everyday transactions. Measurement is money, and we cannot manage what we do not measure, at the end of the day. The two go hand in hand.
When a family pulls into a gas station, the number on that pump is not an abstraction. It is the difference between what they plan to spend and what they actually spend. When a parent buys groceries priced by weight, such as fruit, vegetables and meat, the number on the scale and the label is not a suggestion. It is the basis of the price at the checkout. Thinking about product inflation, that is what this means at the end of the day. That is why trade measurement laws exist in the first place: to protect consumers, to ensure fair competition and to maintain confidence that the marketplace is honest.
Bill S-3 is presented as an update to that system, an attempt to modernize the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and to repeal outdated fee provisions in the regulations.
“Modernization” is not a bad word. In fact, it is necessary. These statutes were last substantially updated decades ago, and the world has changed. Measurement today is more digital, more software-enabled and more complex than the world of paper processes and legacy devices that shaped the original framework. The key question is not whether modernization is needed, because it is. The key question is whether Bill S-3 would modernize the system in a way that improves transparency, protects affordability and avoids creating new layers of red tape, or whether it shifts too much power into discretionary processes that Canadians cannot easily see, understand or challenge.
My Conservative colleagues and I support modernization that protects consumers and supports innovation, but Parliament must ensure that the tools are accountable and not overreaching. That is the lens through which I will address this bill today.
Bill S-3 contains a set of targeted amendments that can be grouped into a few themes.
First, it would update and clarify the roles and authorities of the minister, inspectors and, under the electricity and gas statute, the president of Measurement Canada in the approval, verification and inspection of trade measurement devices.
Second, it would introduce the ability to inspect devices and meters by sampling: examining a representative set of devices of the same class, type or design and applying the results accordingly.
Third, it would create temporary permissions to allow certain measuring devices and certain electricity or gas meters to be used on a temporary basis under conditions set by the regulator, even without the usual approval or examination steps: again, under defined conditions and with notice and an opportunity to make representations in the event of suspension or revocation.
Fourth, the bill would expand and modernize inspection powers, including the ability to access and reproduce data from computer or telecommunication systems, and it would treat remote access by telecommunication as a form of entry for the purposes of inspections. It would also enable telewarrants in certain contexts.
Fifth, it would add compliance tools aimed at preventing or remedying contraventions, such as orders requiring corrective or preventive measures and directions regarding compliance procedures.
Sixth, it would repeal certain outdated regulatory provisions, including prescriptive fee schedules and legacy requirements, and it would introduce mandatory reviews every 10 years, with reports to be tabled in Parliament.
That is the architecture of the bill, and it is precisely because the bill would create new tools, new flexibilities and new forms of rule-making that transparency and affordability have to be at the centre of our scrutiny.
For Canadians, the system works only if it passes what I call the trust test. Do Canadians believe that when they pay for 50 litres of fuel, they get 50 litres? Do Canadians believe that when government changes the rules, those changes will protect them, not increase costs that get quietly passed on?
Let me give the example of biofuels. When we bought 50 litres of fuel at a gas station, it used to be petroleum fuel, and we got a certain distance with it. When it is watered down with biofuels, we get less distance. Therefore, when buying a tank of fuel, are we really buying a tank of fuel or are we buying the distance from A to B? Suddenly, that distance got shorter with the government-imposed clean fuel regulations, and Canadians did not seem to notice.
That is where governments lose trust. Suddenly, we are paying more and getting less. That leads to inflation. It leads to costs to society. It leads to inefficiencies throughout society.
Those questions may sound simple, but they are fundamental, because the moment consumers lose confidence, it is not merely a technical failure. It becomes a cost-of-living issue, and that is why I want to highlight something that came out clearly during the Senate committee study of the bill.
During the banking, commerce and the economy committee's hearings, Senator Elizabeth Marshall, an auditor by profession, put her finger on the public mood. She noted that when she spoke to people about what Parliament was studying in Bill S-3, people were suspicious and feared it would end up costing them more. It comes as no surprise, but that cynicism exists for a reason. Canadians have lived through too many examples where modernization meant new administrative costs, new compliance burdens and new uncertainty, and then those costs appeared later in higher prices. The task before the House is not simply to update a framework. It is to ensure that the updated framework actually produces confidence, clarity and affordability.
I want to step back for a moment, because there is a broader principle here, one that connects directly to consumer trust and affordability.
Trade measurement works, because people believe the rules are fair and the system is transparent. When the rules are clear, published and consistently enforced, people have confidence. The same principle should apply to government itself, especially when it comes to public money. Canadians deserve clear, transparent reporting about how government presents key fiscal indicators, because those indicators are used to justify spending decisions, borrowing decisions and policy decisions that affect affordability for every household.
One reason Canadians get frustrated is that fiscal headlines can be built on different definitions that produce very different impressions. Even in the public debate, we can see dispute about how to measure debt and how to compare it across countries.
For example, Statistics Canada reports net debt measures in ways that can include or exclude major public pension funds, like the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, precisely because those funds are different from other financial assets and are not supposed to be available for general spending to the government. These are Canadians' pensions, not the government's slush funds. Commentators have pointed out that when we include pension fund assets in net debt comparisons, it can materially change the picture, sometimes making the country appear less indebted on that metric than it would under a normal debt approach. At the same time, reporting bodies like the Parliamentary Budget Officer may treat pension plans differently when assessing assets held by the federal government.
My point is not to litigate every accounting standard in a speech. My point is simple: Canadians deserve transparency. They should be able to see what measure is being used, what is included, what is excluded and why. When definitions change and when headline numbers rely on assumptions that are not clearly explained, trust erodes. When trust erodes, cynicism grows. Cynicism matters, because it shapes how Canadians respond to policies that touch their wallets and therefore their lives.
The message is: Show your work, publish the assumptions, use plain language and make it easy for taxpayers to understand. That is how governments earn confidence, and that is how we protect affordability, not just at the pump and at the checkout, but in the long-term decisions that shape our economy.
Lastly, the bill before us deserves serious committee study focused on transparency, guardrails and cost impacts, and why the Liberal government should proceed in a way that has put consumers and affordability at the centre of the work here.
