Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to speak since I just gave notice a short time ago. I thank the parliamentary secretary in particular because he is such a fan, albeit a moderate fan.
I have some great concerns about this particular bill. Looking at the surface of it, one can see that the bill has some great merits. It would cut down on potential gouging. It is not a tremendous part of the market, but nonetheless, in some instances it is a way to be more fair. It would also impose fines that are more dramatic and therefore may act as a larger deterrent.
In certain instances, we need to be concerned about the enforcement measures by which we want to put this out there. In order for it to be effective, it obviously needs to have some teeth. This bill does deserve more study. I support that measure, in and of itself, because this is an issue. As consumers go, it has become a larger demand as energy prices rise and as we have become far more dependent upon fuels for the sake of transportation.
I say that because I am from a rural riding that does not have the benefit of mass transit and therefore people rely more on singular vehicles and drive longer distances because of the distance between communities. I have 171 communities in my riding and close to half of the people in my riding do not work in their own community and sometimes drive to other communities. Therefore, the price they pay at the pumps is something that concerns them greatly.
When this bill was first introduced, the intention was one that merited a lot of attention because there are measures in it to protect consumers. I received an email from a person I know in my hometown of Bishop's Falls. He is not only a concerned consumer but he is the former petroleum commissioner of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, he was the one who originated the office in Newfoundland and Labrador to help regulate gas prices.
I want to pass along to the House some of his thoughts in his email because I think they are relevant. These are the types of questions we should be asking within the context of the committee. He uses a consumer in rural Newfoundland as an example. He says:
For example, a consumer in rural Newfoundland who buys fuel at a local general merchant with a single gas pump in his community, and feels he has received too little product for the price paid, decides to report his complaint. Who does he call? What official? If he does reach someone, what would they do? Who would investigate? Who would contact the consumer and what procedure would be followed? What investigative tools would be used to prove that his pump is inaccurate? What means would be employed to enforce the act? What court is used to challenge the charge? How will it be administered? The list of questions go on and on.
I wanted to read that to the House because his questions are quite pertinent in this particular situation. On the surface, the spirit is great, but the problem is that in practice it will be a little harder to enforce. I will get to that in a moment.
Mr. Saunders goes on to say that he is a little worried about the absence of a supportive bureaucracy and a regulatory system. He also wishes us all the best in putting this through. Not only was he the commissioner, but he started the office and knows quite a bit about the particular industry.
On the other side of this thing, I am concerned about the enforcement of this and how it would be put toward the private sector. In this particular situation, it all sounds great when we have fines that are levied and fines that are severe and doubled in many cases, but one of the issues becomes that they have put it to the private sector for the sake of enforcement.
What is troubling is the cost of enforcing this may come back to the consumer. This issue has been brought up in the debate already and I share that view. I gave an example of one retailer, the one gas pump in a smaller town in a rural community. Where would the retailer go to find an inspector if no inspectors were available? Who pays? The inspectors come at a cost. They perhaps have to travel a great distance. It is harder to find qualified inspectors in a much larger rural area.
What bothers me is this situation is similar to the rebates for heating homes. Rebates are available for people who insulate their homes for more efficient heating. How do people become eligible for these rebates? They have to hire an inspector to tell them what rebates they qualify for. They pay some to get some. I do not think that was the spirit of government legislation from the very beginning.
These questions should be posed at committee. On the surface, a lot of this is put upon the private sector, which in many cases would be the one to follow through with the enforcement and enactment of this measure. It may be something that is great for the consumer. It sounds nice, but in practice it could be complicated for areas of greater distance, areas with smaller communities, especially in the case where there is only one pump or where there are independent retailers.
I would like to bring up some other situations. Some communities' pumps are not used as much. Therefore, little things end up making this complicated. For example, because the pumps are not used as much, the introduction of ethanol could have an impact. Where we have higher use, there is a probability of breakdown and it is not really someone's fault. It is the result of wear and tear on the machines like any other machine that depreciates. It is a guarantee that goes on forever. With the introduction of elements such as ethanol, some of these older pumps may be affected as a result. Again, someone will have to pay for this. The inspector is brought in, the inspector finds something the government finds fault in and the fine is levied. What happens to that one independent retailer in that situation? Things get complicated. It is not only about the consumer, it is about the smaller retailer as well. I hope this will be addressed at committee.
I am also concerned that the legislation could also be a distraction in a small way, and this goes to the political realm. It could be dealt with by regulation, if there is the presence of a problem. The minister admitted that only 6% of the pumps were found to be faulty. Of that 6%, 4% of the 100% that were tested did not favour the consumer. Therefore, that makes it even more minuscule at that point. Just because the number is small does not mean it should be ignored and we should throw this out. What I am saying is it is going to be an onerous way of enforcing certain rules. Therefore, I am highly concerned about how we are throwing this on the private sector, as my hon. colleague in the NDP has pointed out on several occasions, and I agree with him.
Finally, I will quote from the member for Pickering—Scarborough East who said:
Let us deal with some real issues in this House for once and not go around contenting ourselves with some idea that we have a better widget than the people who preceded us or than the ones who preceded them. The reality is far more serious.
I know that members on the industry committee should have the benefit of all the questions, not just Measurement Canada, but to look beyond this first step. I am hoping it is a first step, because members will recall that, in the 2008 campaign, the Conservative Party pledged to deal with the issue of potential problems at the gas pumps...
We hope they will follow through on that.
Again, the hon. member has said this is a first step. At the second step in committee, I would implore all members of the House, and certainly the members of the industry committee, to look at this and fully analyze what is about to come down the pipe as it were.
