Bill S-3 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
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
Government bill, sponsored by Pierre Moreau (Senator). Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedOct. 27, 2025
- Debated in principleNov. 27, 2025
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 11, 2026
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
- Pierre MoreauSenator
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 28 October 2025, Sen. Pierre Moreau introduced 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 in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-3 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 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. It also repeals certain provisions in …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies heavily on subjective phrases such as reasonable grounds, reasonably required, and measures the inspector considers necessary. These leave wide room for argument over when powers apply and what compliance demands.
Open to argument
“If an inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has contravened or is likely to contravene this Act”
Uses both reasonable grounds and likelihood, both open to prolonged dispute.“the inspector may order the person to take any measures that the inspector considers necessary to remedy or prevent the contravention”
Grants open-ended discretion based on the inspector’s personal assessment.“give all assistance that is reasonably required”
Subjective standard that invites argument over what counts as reasonable.“an activity regulated by this Act is conducted in the place”
Undefined scope of regulated activity allows broad interpretation.
Clear-cut
“inspector means a person who is designated under subsection 16.1(1)”
Clear appointment mechanism tied to a specific subsection.“vehicle means a vessel, aircraft, train, motor vehicle, trailer or other means of transportation and includes a cargo container”
Exhaustive list plus explicit inclusion reduces ambiguity.“An application for a warrant under subsection (2) may be submitted, and the warrant may be issued, by a means of telecommunication, and section 487.1 of the Criminal Code applies”
Cross-reference to an existing statutory procedure supplies objective process.
Discretion. Ministers may issue binding directions on sampling and inspectors may order any remedial measures they consider necessary, with few statutory limits or defined criteria.
Challenging the law itself. Sections 8 and 7 of the Charter could be invoked against the broad entry, seizure and telecommunication access powers that rest on reasonable grounds and inspector opinion.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily argue that the inspector lacked reasonable grounds or that the ordered measures exceeded what was necessary, given the subjective wording.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.