Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my neighbours, friends and family in Oshawa. Today I rise to speak to Bill S-3, which proposes changes to Canada’s laws governing weights and measures and the inspection of electricity and natural gas meters. When I look at legislation like this, I cannot help but think about the people and businesses in my community that will be affected by it. I think about the small business owner who is trying to keep the doors open, the manufacturer working to remain competitive and the family already stretching every dollar to make ends meet. This reminds me of a story my sister told me last night. Apparently, there are some videos and reels going around showing folks in grocery stores with prepackaged goods, maybe a bag of peanuts or meat. They read the weight on it, and then take it to a scale and weigh it, and it is a different weight. This brought me to thinking about why this bill is so important. I understand that, and Canadians are counting on it, for fairness especially. Let us be honest. Most Canadians are never going to read the Weights and Measures Act, and frankly, they should not have to, because they expect the rules governing our economy to be fair, reliable and sensible. It is our responsibility to make sure they are. Canadians expect businesses to be held to consistent standards, consumers to be protected and government regulations to serve a purpose rather than create unnecessary obstacles. We have seen that far too often in our economy. That is the standard against which I believe Bill S-3 should be measured. Our economy has undergone an extraordinary transformation. Technologies that would have been difficult to imagine 40 years ago are now essential to how Canadian businesses operate. From automated manufacturing processes to digital measuring equipment and increasingly sophisticated energy systems, the way we produce, purchase and consume goods has changed dramatically. However, our regulatory framework has not kept pace. In fact, I believe I was a very small child the last time the act was updated. Bill S-3 seeks to address this by updating how measures and devices are approved and inspected, allowing more flexible methods of verification and removing certain outdated regulatory requirements. There is definite merit to these objectives. As Conservatives, of course, we believe that government should create the conditions for businesses to succeed, not stand in their way. Regulations should protect Canadians while also allowing businesses to innovate, invest and create good-paying jobs. I feel that principle is especially important in my community of Oshawa. I have said many times in this House that Oshawa is a city built on hard work. I believe some of the most hard-working people in the country reside and live in my neighbourhood in Oshawa. For generations, our automotive workers and manufacturers have helped drive the whole Canadian economy. Our community knows what it means to compete, adapt and innovate in an industry that is constantly changing. Our manufacturing sector relies on precision, efficiency and the ability to adopt new technologies. Whether it is with regard to measuring materials, monitoring energy consumption or ensuring consistent production standards, accuracy is fundamental to doing business. We know this. Canadian manufacturers are also competing in an increasingly difficult economic environment. They face rising operating costs, international competition and uncertainty about the future of their industries. The last thing they need is a regulatory system that makes it harder or more expensive to invest in new technologies. This is why I believe there is value in updating outdated rules and making regulatory processes more efficient. If a business can demonstrate that its equipment meets appropriate standards, it should not face unnecessary delays simply because the law has failed to keep up with technological advancements. At the same time, modernization must deliver real improvements. It cannot simply mean replacing one set of complicated government requirements with another. We have seen too many examples of Canadian businesses being forced to spend more time navigating government paperwork and less time doing what they do best. For a large corporation, additional administrative requirements may be an inconvenience, but for a small business owner, they can mean a whole lot more, such as additional expenses that could hurt them, lost productivity and fewer resources available to hire workers or to grow their business. In Oshawa, our local businesses are an essential part of our community. They employ our neighbours, support local families and contribute to the local economy. Whether it is a family-owned grocery store, an independent retailer or a small manufacturing operation, these businesses need clear and predictable rules. They should not have to hire additional consultants or spend countless hours navigating complicated regulatory processes simply to remain compliant. This is why I believe one of the most important questions surrounding Bill S-3 is whether it would actually reduce the burden on Canadian businesses. I think in many cases it could. Would the changes make inspections more efficient? Would businesses have greater certainty when adopting new technologies? Would the government ensure that any new requirements were practical and affordable for all business owners across the country? These are questions that deserve clear answers, and I think some of them will be demonstrated and dug into even deeper as this bill gets into our committee. Another issue that deserves attention is the expansion of regulatory authority proposed in the legislation. Bill S-3 would provide the Minister of Industry and federal inspectors with additional powers, including greater flexibility over the approval and inspection of measuring devices. Some of these changes may be necessary to modernize the system, but Parliament has a responsibility to examine how the powers are exercised. I am always hesitant when I hear of a bill placing more power in one minister’s hands, but I certainly understand the responsibility we have to make sure that the powers are exercised appropriately. Greater flexibility for government officials must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and transparencies. We must ensure that businesses understand the rules they are expected to follow, that decisions are made consistently and that there are meaningful opportunities to challenge decisions when disagreements arise. This brings me to another important consideration, which is the ability of Canadian businesses to seek fair and timely resolution when disputes occur. If a business disagrees with a regulatory decision, it should have access to a process that is understandable, impartial and reasonably efficient. For small businesses, a prolonged dispute with a federal regulator could create significant uncertainty and expense, and I do not think any of us in the House want that for any of our small businesses. The goal should never be to make it more difficult for them to defend their interests and have their concerns heard, so I felt it was important to bring that up. We must also consider what these changes could mean for Canadian consumers. After 11 years of Liberal government, families across the country are struggling with rising costs of everyday necessities. Consumers are struggling. People are working so hard to try to make ends meet. In Oshawa, I hear from parents who are watching their grocery bills climb and seniors who cannot even keep up with their utility payments. They are afraid they are not going to be able to keep the heat on this winter. There are workers who are finding it increasingly difficult to make their paycheques stretch until the end of the month. These Canadians are already paying more than they should have to for life’s essentials. They deserve to have the confidence that the systems used to calculate what they owe are accurate and dependable. Whether it is the scale at the grocery store, as I mentioned before, the meter measuring household energy consumption or the equipment used to calculate the price of fuel, consumers should be protected by reliable standards. Bill S-3 proposes allowing certain measuring devices to be inspected through sampling methods rather than requiring every individual device to be examined. This may improve efficiency, but it is important that these methods maintain the accuracy and, of course, the reliability that Canadians expect. The government must be able to demonstrate that greater flexibility will not weaken consumer protections, because when families are already struggling with affordability, even small inaccuracies or additional costs add up and can make a huge difference. While Bill S-3 is intended to modernize the regulatory framework, Canadians deserve to understand the financial implications of implementing it. Would businesses face new compliance expenses? Would there be additional administrative costs for government? What steps would be taken to prevent those expenses from being passed along to consumers? All these questions are particularly important for small businesses that are already operating under significant financial pressure. Modernization should make government more effective and less burdensome, not create another layer of bureaucracy that Canadian taxpayers and businesses are expected to finance. Bill S-3 includes provisions requiring periodic parliamentary reviews of the amended legislation, which is a positive step as long as those reviews actually take place, because our laws should continue to evolve as technologies and industries change. However, meaningful accountability also requires transparency through the implementation process. Canadians should be able to understand how regulatory decisions are made, how businesses are affected and whether the changes are delivering the efficiencies that have been promised. At the end of the day, the success of this legislation should not be judged by how many regulations are rewritten or how many new authorities are created. It should be judged by whether consumers are better protected, whether businesses face fewer unnecessary obstacles and whether Canada’s economy is better positioned to compete on the world stage. Our responsibility, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that the legislation delivers meaningful improvements for Canadians and businesses that would be affected by it. Canadians do not need more government for the sake of government. I think they need a government that works better, costs less and delivers results.
