Bill C-14 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Fairness at the Pumps Act
An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 15, 2010
- Debated in principleMay 13, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 26, 2010
- Passed the second chamberMarch 3, 2011
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Stephen GreeneSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Mike LakeHe describes the problem of inaccurate pumps the bill addresses and defends its consultation and timeline.
- Ed FastStates it is a pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-14 and urges passage.
- Mike WallaceSpeaks in support of the bill as decisive action to protect consumers and promote fair practices.
- Dave Van KesterenExplicitly voices support for the act as upholding integrity and consumer confidence.
- Senator GreeneSenate · SenatorMoved second and third reading of the bill.
- Daryl KrampDefends the bill as addressing one element of the problem despite not curing every issue.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 15 April 2010, the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act (Fairness at the Pumps Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-14 provides for court-imposed fines under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. It also provides for higher maximum fines for offences committed under each of those Acts and creates new offence provisions for repeat offenders. The bill also amends the Weights and Measures Act to require that retailers have their devices that they use in trade or have in their possession for trade inspected at regular intervals. That new requirement is to be enforced through a new offence provision. The enactment also provides the Minister of Industry with the authority to designate non-government inspectors, or authorized service providers as inspectors to perform certain examinations.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
What the Senate tried to change
- otherSenator HarbReplace the short title with "Fairness in Weights and Measures Act".Voted down · March 3, 2011 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
77% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (13,146 words introduced, 9,802 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent kept
The core scheme of administrative monetary penalties, compliance agreements, and inspector designations remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Only limited textual completion and one added subsection occurred in the final version.
- Completed the truncated sentence on the effect of a notice of default and added the following subsection.
Before: “Once they have been provided with the notice of default, the pers”
After: “Once they have been provided with the notice of default, the person shall pay the amount set out in it or, if the notice provides for the forfeiture of the security given under the compliance agreement, that security is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets fixed dollar caps, numbered procedures and a due-diligence defence that create clear black-and-white rules for many violations. At the same time it leaves large areas to ministerial opinion, “reasonable grounds” tests and open-ended regulations.
Open to argument
“if the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe”
Subjective standard that invites argument over what facts justify issuing a notice.“If the Minister is of the opinion that a person who has entered into a compliance agreement has not complied with it”
Purely subjective ministerial judgment with no objective criteria stated.“give all assistance that is reasonably required”
Undefined reasonableness test that can be disputed after the fact.“establishing criteria to be considered in determining the amount of the penalty if a range of penalties is established”
Criteria are left entirely to future regulations rather than fixed in the statute.
Clear-cut
“The maximum penalty for a violation is $2,000.”
Hard numerical ceiling removes discretion on the upper limit.“A person may not be found to be liable for a violation if they establish that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commis”
Explicit statutory defence with an objective test.“a violation is not an offence and, accordingly, section 126 of the Criminal Code does not apply.”
Clear legal classification that eliminates criminal consequences.
Discretion. Inspectors decide when to issue notices on reasonable grounds, the Minister decides compliance with agreements and reviews penalties, and dozens of details on penalty ranges, criteria and procedures are left to regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'reasonable grounds' and 'in the opinion of the Minister' could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth, though the fixed caps and due-diligence defence weaken the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. Deeming rules and vicarious liability make it harder to contest once a notice is issued, but the written-review process and due-diligence defence still allow factual disputes.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The 2020 departmental evaluation found that the Fairness at the Pumps Act significantly increased mandatory re-inspections and achieved high compliance rates (94.3% average) plus improved device accuracy in the eight covered trade sectors, while enhancing enforcement tools, though it noted limited use of penalties and recommended extending risk-based oversight to over 30 uncovered sectors with lower compliance. No other statutory reviews, Auditor General or PBO reports, court rulings, or peer-reviewed studies were identified.
- Evaluation of the Fairness at the Pumps Act (FAPA)evaluationFAPA increased mandatory re-inspections from about 6,000 pre-FAPA to over 110,000 in 2018-19 in the eight regulated sectors, yielding a 94.3% average compliance rate compared to much lower rates in uncovered sectors.
- Evaluation of the Fairness at the Pumps Act (FAPA)evaluationFAPA contributed to enhanced enforcement capability, with education, warnings, and limited AMPs viewed as effective for compliance and deterrence, and evidence of improved device accuracy overall.
- Management Response and Action Plan — Evaluation of the Fairness at the Pumps Act (FAPA)evaluationMeasurement Canada agreed with findings and committed to exploring risk-based approaches for sectors not overseen by FAPA to address lower compliance rates.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.