Weights and Measures Act

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations · Second reading · now at second reading in the House Where it stands

What Bill S-3 would do

The bill would update inspection rules and inspector powers for commercial measuring devices and electricity and gas meters. It would broaden the definition of "meter", clarify requirements to put devices into service, and grant the Minister of Industry powers regarding device sampling and corrective measures. The published material gives no further detail.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

28 statements

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I am speaking on this bill. It updates our laws on weights and measures.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to this bill, which has come to us from the other place and would amend various acts related to weights and measures here in Canada. This piece of legislation is in the context of the historic work of this organization.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I support this bill. It updates our measurement laws for the first time in fifty years to handle new digital technology, like electric vehicle chargers. It also cuts red tape and makes sure buyers and businesses can trust that scales and meters are accurate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure, as I mentioned, to speak to this bill, which came from the other place. This bill is a significant set of amendments to our weights and measurement system. It is a set of amendments that really looks to modernize our trade instrumentation, which is so important to the smooth functioning of our economy, the information of consumers and the clarity and transparency needed by businesses and consumers alike. This brings to mind my first experience of this as a worker in the weights and measures system. I was a new arrival in London, England, on a working visa and chose to find employment, as many people do. I got a job at a cheese shop called Bloomsbury Cheeses in London, England. The first act of work in any retail business that involves a deli with meat or cheese of any kind is to put the cheese on the scale. I remember putting that cheese on the scale, whether it was Cornish yarg, a nice Stilton or a Lancashire. In the English context, people love their cheeses and they love their English cheeses. I would engage with customers. The customers would look at what was provided, what the weight of the item was and how much it cost. We used to put a little piece of wax paper under the cheese to make sure the cheese was not contaminating the scale and vice versa. I remember one customer asking me, “Well, what’s the weight of that wax paper? Are you charging me for the wax paper and not just the cheese?” I did not have a good response for that customer. Perhaps it was a good sign that retail was neither my forte nor the sector I should be in. I was soon dismissed by both the customer and Bloomsbury Cheeses. However, that was a good reminder of the trust that is needed in this sector. It is also a good reminder and a good opportunity to mention two of the very finest cheese shops in my riding of Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park, the Cheese Boutique, a legendary cheese shop on Ripley Avenue, as well as the Thin Blue Line in my neighbourhood of Roncesvalles on Roncesvalles Avenue. This work of weights and measures is really related to trust, especially when we are amending a piece of legislation like this, which is related to an organization that goes back to the 1870s. In fact, weights and measures are in the Canadian Constitution. Section 91.17 of the BNA Act, now the Constitution Act, puts the responsibility for weights and measures solely in the federal eye. In 1873, we had the first Weights and Measures Act of Parliament. That set up the system for the kind of work that is done to help the economy operate in a smooth way and in a very important way. Of course, we may remember the most recent major amendment that was done before the set of amendments we are talking about now, which was the 1971 set of amendments to the Weights and Measures Act, which very crucially, and I think to the ultimate satisfaction of most Canadians, recognized the use of the metric system in Canada. It also required metric measurements on most product labels. Some of us may have lived through those times and remember the kinds of measurements, the kinds of things that were provided in that era, or we may have parents or grandparents who lived through those times. Canadians embraced the metric system. It it not just for athletic measurement. It is for all kinds of measurement. The U.S. remains a bit of an outlier, although in the trade system we will notice that the Americans, in fact, do adopt the metric system. This is about trust. This is about the trust of the tools and the information that is provided in this very key part of the goods-facing economy. Measurement Canada, is a significant organization of 320 hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast, with offices in many communities in our country. Measurement Canada, which used to be called weights and measures Canada, is probably best known by Canadians for those labels on the consumer gas pumps, which we have been visiting. Each of those visits is a bit more painful of late since the war in the Middle East. I am very glad that our government has brought forward measures to bring real excise tax relief in this challenging moment for Canada, and Canadians are seeing the benefits of that. We will see Measurements Canada’s work on those consumer gas pumps, but its work spreads far more widely. It touches a number of sectors. It touches energy sectors. It touches export-oriented sectors. This piece of legislation is a very important piece of work that does a couple things. I will just read from the summary of the bill. It is important to outline what we are talking about here in this bill from the other place. It states: This [bill] amends the Weights and Measures Act to, among other things, clarify existing powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Industry and inspectors, provide the Minister with certain powers, including with respect to sampling when devices are examined and with respect to corrective and preventive measures, and provide inspectors with certain powers. It also amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to, among other things, broaden the definition of “meter”, provide the president [of Measurement Canada] with the authority to grant certain exemptions, clarify the steps required to put a device into service, clarify existing powers, duties and functions of the Minister and inspectors, provide the Minister with certain powers, including with respect to sampling when meters are examined and with respect to corrective and preventive measures, and provide inspectors with certain powers. This is a significant modernization of this piece of legislation, which again has not been looked at in a major way since the era of digital measurement, the era of, in fact, our metric system. It takes place in the context of the major 1971 modernization. There was a whole lot of infrastructure and a whole lot of process necessary to prepare Canadians for the conversion to metric. Canada’s History magazine writes: Chaired by former Canadian Pacific Railway executive Stevenson Gossage, [there was a Metric Commission, which] oversaw more than 100 sector committees that monitored and prepared conversion plans for a wide range of interests and industries. There were problems figuring out which sectors should convert fully and which, especially industries reliant on American materials, should take it slowly. Again, we have this system of weights and measures, which is really the lifeblood of the economy, that is supporting sectors far and wide in the energy space, in the consumer product space, in the retail space and beyond. Why do we need this modernization? Why are we bringing this piece of legislation forward today? Conversations about modernizing this act and the other acts started before the COVID era. The hard work to accelerate this work really started in 2023 with Measurement Canada, with 320 hard‑working public servants from coast to coast working on this on the front lines at the gas stations, examining hundreds of devices a year. I just want to pause and give a tribute to the work of Measurement Canada and its workers. On an annual basis, Measurement Canada calibrates and certifies approximately 1,529 standards of mass, volume, temperature, electricity and gas, as well as tests equipment to certify measuring devices. We measure things and we need to test the things themselves that do the measurement. On an annual basis, Measurement Canada evaluates and approves around 300 new prototype measuring devices and the technology for use in trade in Canada. Each organization audits and oversees more than 230 authorized service providers and 700 registered technicians to inspect and certify approximately 95% of measuring devices used in trade on its behalf, including all those gas pumps and all these measuring devices in the trucking sector, in the goods movement sector and in the consumer movement sector for all kinds of goods. Obviously, there is a key relationship here with our exports and the need not only to diversify our exports but also to protect ourselves from the tariffs that we are being faced with right now. Measurement Canada is at the centre of all this work, and it is really important to point out and to celebrate the hard‑working men and women who do this work on the front lines. These are frontline workers who are doing this work as part of a broader sector of weights and measures and technical professionals. There is a relationship, obviously, to the standards sector. Why are we doing this now? What is the cause? The reality is that devices today have capabilities that were not possible decades ago. They are not strictly mechanical or a very simple digital interface. I referred to that scale at Bloomsbury Cheeses, from my short‑lived time as a cheese retailer. There is now lots more sophistication. Scales now include sensors and lasers. Devices have software updates that happen instantly. Smart communities transmit data about electricity and natural gas use in milliseconds. The context of all this is trust. When someone receives a bill for a consumer product that involves some sort of weight or measurement, they want to know that the measurement is correct. In this increasingly digitally connected era, Canadians are somewhat removed. Some of the benefits of this technology are that it allows this work to happen instantaneously, or practically instantaneously, and remotely. Canadians have an expectation that the inputs into the decisions that are informing how much they are paying for any consumer product, whether at the pumps, in their homes or elsewhere, is reliable. I think it is really important to have a trusted institution like Measurement Canada at the centre of this work. The good news is this is not just about regulation and the kinds of changes that we need to make to keep up with the changing digital technologies. This is also about the potential benefit to Canada from the innovation in this sector of measurement, digital measurement in particular. The reforms that we are bringing about here would increase competitiveness. Temporary permissions, for instance, would encourage innovation and allow industry to test out new devices in the marketplace under specific conditions, instead of waiting to be fully evaluated and approved. We hear from our innovators constantly that they want to get their device or product out into the market. They want to have a controlled setting. They want to have regulatory sandboxes or other places where there is equipment to show that their product is available, often Canadian products and digital products, and then find a market for that. If we do that here in Canada through this amendment to the legislation, then we will have created a test bed, a set of experiences for these digital product innovators in particular, as well as other innovators, to then take their market experience, take the effective endorsement that might result from their deployment in the marketplace in this new accelerated way, and then look to export. Another reform we are bringing is to bring in the flexibility to reduce the regulatory burden, which we know takes place in a variety of sectors. This set of legislative amendments is part of an attempt to reduce the regulatory burden in the measurement sector, which touches pretty much all goods-servicing sectors. It is also fiscally prudent. We know that when these devices come on board, they come on board in batches and bulk. If we require inspection of every single device, that is an undue burden. If we can inspect a sampling of the devices and ensure that the manufacturing processes of all devices being produced under that line meet a certain quality, then maybe we do not need as much of a burden on inspecting every single device, taking a risk-based approach to inspection work. The proposed amendments would allow inspectors to inspect thousands of devices of the same type using any means, including statistical sampling, to align the acts and increase the overall efficiency of the agency’s operations. There is a competitiveness to industry with a bill like this. There is also quite a bit of efficiency that can be enabled with this work. I think this kind of legislation is a very interesting window into the full continuum of transportation- and energy-related sectors. We sometimes hear from the other side a celebration only for conventional energy. On this side, we have taken a more well-rounded position that we can have both conventional and clean electricity, and clean energy generated. A fun fact about Measurement Canada is that it was one of the first, or perhaps the first, federal government agency to acquire electrically powered trucks in its fleet. Measurement Canada is on the front line of acquiring an asset that is both good for the planet and good for the pocketbook, but is also on the front line of the work that it is doing. I recently announced on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, significant funding toward electric vehicle charging infrastructure across Canada. Canadians know that we are coming out with an electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy, as well as a national electricity strategy. These technologies and this work of bringing the electric vehicle experience to as many Canadians as possible requires standards and it requires a different form of measurement. I was at the EV & Charging Expo in Toronto a few weeks ago, making that announcement on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. The number of companies that are popping up with digital solutions to our electric vehicle charging demands, needs and potential is truly impressive. Through the amendments to the legislation I am talking about today, we would have the opportunity to catalyze an economy that is coming into being and is ready to do its part for Canadians and to help create new companies on behalf of Canadians. I have some other facts about Measurement Canada and where it is engaging. I mentioned the electricity sector. The Canadian Gas Association has shown its support for this legislation in its comments when it went through the other place. Electricity and natural gas utilities and other energy suppliers are keenly interested in the legislation, as are other agencies and departments like the Canadian Grain Commission, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Transport Canada and Natural Resources Canada. I am looking across the aisle. I know that some of my friends across the aisle represent some of these communities. Measurement Canada has offices in Vancouver, Kelowna, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, London, Stoney Creek, Mississauga, Markham, Belleville, Ottawa, where the laboratories and headquarters of Measurement Canada also exist, Montreal, Quebec, Moncton, Dartmouth and St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. The work is resource-, travel- and labour-intensive. It depends on specialized, purpose-built test equipment and it continues to expand into new areas, as I mentioned, not only electric vehicle charging but also clean fuels and even things like the automation of measurement-based financial transactions. This is really important public service work and it is all in the context of trust. If Canadians can trust the inputs into their economic decisions, they are more likely to trust the outputs. I think this piece of legislation plays a very important role in doing that. I am going to say a few words in French about the changes outlined in Bill S-3, an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations. The purpose of this bill is to modernize laws that have not been amended for more than 50 years. The last significant change was when Canada adopted the metric system, the International System of Units. That was over 50 years ago. Our system now is more digital and automated. Workers at this thriving organization that serves the public need tools to keep up with changes in the weights and measures system. In my opinion, this bill, which amends several acts, gives the government and the private sector the tools they need to bring business innovations to market and make business services more positive for Canadians. This piece of legislation would modernize an essential system of trust that Canadians have been relying on for many years, not thinking about it but taking it for granted. When we see that Measurement Canada sticker at the gas pump, we know that we are going to get the authoritative and correct measurement. We want to catalyze and create an economy that allows the digital tools to be deployed so that we can accelerate the deployment of tools for weights and measures in more sectors, especially the electric vehicle sector, so that we can create opportunities for Canadian businesses to participate in this very important digital economy, and so that Canadians can continue to trust the information they get, whether as consumers or as businesses, and so that we can do the work of continuing to protect Canadians, the very important work that the hard-working men and women of Measurement Canada do every day, which develops our economy, creates competition, creates efficiencies and builds trust for everyone.

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“Large grocery stores have used broken scales to cheat Canadians, and the government has known for years without fining them. People cannot trust the system when the government lets this happen.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was riveting. He kind of lost me, though, after he moved away from the cheese explanation. I realize it is not an easy subject to carry. He spoke a lot about trust and trust in the system, and I appreciate that. We have seen, recently, reports of large grocery chains robbing Canadians knowingly because they had scales that were not working. The CFIA and the government have known about this issue for years and yet have done nothing. In fact, the CFIA has not even issued fines to these large grocery companies. How does that instill trust in Canadians, when the government knows that taxpayers and Canadians are being robbed but has done nothing about it?

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“These unfair grocery practices are unacceptable. This bill does not fix them directly, but other recent laws and our competition rules are helping to solve the problem.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 38 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians, when they hear stories of the kind that my hon. colleague describes and that have been brought to the House, share a significant amount of concern. It is not acceptable. As someone who used to teach students who were working part-time in the grocery sector, they would tell me stories about some of the practices that were being suggested to them, with respect to related practices like shrinkflation or perhaps more overtly problematic practices like the one the member is talking about. I will share that while this piece of legislation does not address that directly, I would also commend the House for recently passing the bill brought forward by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, which does some work to address this problem around transparency. There are also tools through the Competition Bureau. The kind of practice the member is talking about is unacceptable and we will get to the bottom of it.

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“A business owner in my riding lost his business because government inspectors treated him unfairly and refused him an independent appeal. I want to know if this bill creates an appeal process to prevent this from happening.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 47 of 100

    Only 5% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I met a business owner in my riding who was a Measurement Canada authorized service provider. He even made his own calibration carts. He had extensive experience and had issued over 450 certificates. One day, Measurement Canada suddenly changed inspectors. The inspector did a test, but it was not based on the specifications of my constituent’s calibration cart, which he had invented and which was approved by Measurement Canada. He was told that his workers had failed the test. He asked for a review. Measurement Canada stood firm. He was suspended. I met with the minister’s parliamentary secretary. The president of Measurement Canada told me that this business owner was entitled to an independent appeal, but basically, that never happened. He was suspended and lost his business. Is there a mechanism in Bill S‑3—

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“This bill helps businesses work with government inspectors so they can sell their products. I will talk to the member to learn more about what went wrong with that specific business.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the story my colleague just told is very disappointing. The effect of the bill will be to help providers participate in the economy. I am willing to talk to the member after or during the debate to get a better understanding of what happened with that particular business. The purpose of the bill is to help providers have a good relationship with Measurement Canada so that they can bring their products to market.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“This bill is important for shoppers and businesses. We need up-to-date laws for measuring and weighing goods so people are treated fairly. I want the member to share his thoughts on updating this law.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments the member has put on the record with regard to Bill S-3, because it is a very important piece of legislation from a consumer awareness perspective. A member from the Conservative Party highlighted an issue, which I believe was in a CBC report, where an investigation was done and there were some grocery chains with questionable behaviour. Hopefully, we understand and appreciate just how valuable this legislation is when it comes to trade and commerce. Whether it is from a consumer point of view or in terms of broader trade, the tools that are used for weights and measurements are critically important. This is why it is important that we modernize the act. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on the importance of the modernization aspect.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“This bill updates our laws to protect buyers and help new ideas grow. It lets businesses start using new measuring devices while they wait for official approval. This will help new tools get to market faster and build a stronger economy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yes, this is about modernization. It has the intention to both protect consumers and unleash new innovations. For instance, the provision to allow businesses to introduce a new measurement device into the marketplace while awaiting evaluation and approval by Measurement Canada is a real game-changer. It allows those innovations to come to market, to be tested and to be deployed. Again, I am thinking of the comments from my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île. We can hopefully get the kind of relationship between providers, Measurement Canada and the end users of these products, which are other businesses, as this is generally in the business-to-business space, where we can create a more dynamic economy where these devices are coming on board more quickly, while doing the key consumer protection work that is at the core of what Canadians expect.

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“The member across the way said my party supports only one kind of energy. That is not true. We support using all forms of energy to keep power reliable, affordable, and sustainable. His party's bad energy policies cost Ontario billions of dollars in debt. I want him to explain why his party opposes clean, reliable forms of energy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to correct something that my colleague across the way mentioned in his speech. He mentioned that his party was the one that was for all sorts of energy, and that the party across the way was the one that was stuck on only one form of energy. I will directly contradict that, because my party, this opposition party, His Majesty’s loyal opposition, believes strongly in all forms of energy and how they fit in a mix that is both sustainable, which is very important, and affordable, which is very important to Canadians, but also reliable. The number one thing in any energy system is the reliability of that energy system. I also note that my colleague’s background was to visit a policy upon the people of Ontario that cost them billions of dollars and ramped up the Province of Ontario to the highest debt of any subnational jurisdiction in the world because of horrible energy policies. It has taken the Province of Ontario a decade to try to dig out from those horrible energy policies. I ask the member if he would like to consider the broad mix, and why his party would continue to be so prejudicial against one of the most sustainable forms of energy we have in Canada and around the world.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“Any mistakes in my speech are my own. I invite the member to support our clean electricity plan, our rebates for electric cars, and our plan to build more chargers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 32 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform my colleague from Calgary Centre and the House that Alexandre Moreau, our parliamentary internship program intern, who was in his office, assisted me with some of the research for this speech. However, any errors, including the one the hon. member is alleging, are definitely my own. Perhaps I will take the opportunity to talk about the record of the Wynne and McGuinty governments, in which I served as a staffer, another time, but I will invite my colleague, if he is indeed supportive of that broad range of opportunities in the clean energy space, to get behind our clean electricity strategy, the rebates for electric vehicles and our electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy.

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“Measurement Canada needs an independent appeal process or an ombudsman. Right now, businesses cannot get a fair hearing when they challenge a decision.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to add to what I said earlier, there does not seem to be an independent appeal process at Measurement Canada. Every time a business in my riding has filed an appeal, it is always the same people issuing the same judgment every time. I even participated in a third hearing, which was supposed to be independent, but they completely disregarded the case file and the reasons why my constituent—who is an entrepreneur—had been suspended. He then took the matter to court, but he did not have the same level of resources as Measurement Canada. He lost on a technicality. In the end, he lost his business, which was his life’s work We could discuss this further, and I thank my colleague for his openness. However, should there not be an ombudsman or an appeal process? I would think that is important.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“We should think more about an appeals process for suppliers who disagree with the rules. We can look at this in committee.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the idea of an appeals process when Measurement Canada and suppliers are in dispute warrants further consideration. We can look into that in committee.

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“I want permission from the House to share my speaking time with the member for Edmonton Southeast.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, I would like to make sure that I get unanimous consent from the House to split my time with the member of Parliament for Edmonton Southeast.

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“We need to update our laws on measuring things like gas and groceries. But we must make sure this bill protects consumers instead of raising prices or adding red tape. We need a committee to study it closely to keep costs down and keep the government accountable.”
Official Hansard

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.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“We introduced this bill to help consumers and make life more affordable. It will also protect trade in Canada. I want to send it to a committee. I am asking if the Conservatives have any specific changes they want to make to it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, consumers and the issue of affordability is the primary motivation for bringing the legislation forward and looking at what the Senate has done. I welcome the opportunity to see the bill go to the standing committee where some of the questions can be posed and concerns can be expressed. I do believe in the importance of the legislation and how it would protect trade and commerce here in Canada. Does the member have some specifics already that the Conservative Party is looking at bringing forward in the form of amendments, or is it just more of a general comment at this point in time?

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“A committee will work out the details of this bill. That is where we can make changes to ensure people still trust our measurement systems.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the specifics are going to be determined at the industry committee, so there are many questions here about how we make sure we maintain trust in the measurement systems across the country. Those analyses, as my colleague across the way knows, happen when we dig into the legislation and make sure we bring forth the amendments that would maintain trust. In the House here today, we have gone through a question and answer session about how we need to build on the principles, but the details, as he knows, will be ironed out at the committee level. I believe it is the industry committee. If he would like to attend, I am certain the committee would enjoy having him there.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“A business in my colleague's area had problems with Measurement Canada, and the appeal system did not work well. Does my colleague support creating an easier appeal process, like an ombudsman, so businesses can challenge decisions? Also, is it a good idea for this bill to give the minister more power?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very interesting speech. I have two questions for him. First, in my colleague’s constituency of La Pointe-de-l’Île, there is a company that has had problems with Measurement Canada. The appeal processes proved to be truly ineffective, inefficient and flawed, and justice was not done. I wonder if my hon. colleague would be in favour of creating an appeal process for Measurement Canada decisions that is more accessible so that businesses can defend their right to have their say and to have decisions reconsidered. Would an ombudsman be an option? Second, Bill S-3 appears to grant greater powers to the minister. Is giving the minister more powers in this area a good thing for us, as parliamentarians?

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“I agree that the government measurement agency has too much red tape and needs to work faster. Parliament focuses on laws, so a committee should take a closer look at the minister's power to make rules.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the first question, namely whether there is too much red tape in the Measurement Canada process for our colleague’s constituents. Yes, we need to be more efficient in resolving the situation. Regarding the second question, which touched on the minister’s regulatory powers, I believe Parliament is more focused on legislation. Perhaps this aspect will be explored in greater detail by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which is due to examine this matter.

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“I want to know if the government studied how much these rule changes will cost the government and businesses.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre for bringing some more information to this very interesting subject. Is he aware whether the government has done a cost analysis on the cost to government and industry for these changes in the regulations?

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“I want to make sure this bill does not make government administration cost more or create a bigger bureaucracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have not asked the government for any kind of cost analysis. Whenever we see these bills, and often as parliamentarians we get to see these bills, we get to scratch into them. I did not know before I looked at this bill that there was a president of Measurement Canada and a whole bureaucracy around it. I imagine the cost of the administration of that is one thing. I hope that cost is not going to go up in this bill’s examination, that it contains the cost of that structure and does not build another empire here. That is one of the main things I want to make sure we accomplish at the committee level.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 113

  1. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  2. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  4. Oral Questions Labour 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Infrastructure 3 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 19 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 7 statements
  10. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Privilege 2 statements
  14. Government Orders Weights and Measures Act 28 statements
  15. Private Members' Business Preventing Coercion of Persons Not Seeking Medical Assistance in Dying Act 12 statements
  16. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  17. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 5 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements