Environment Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're now onto LIB-95.

Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

This is just on a typo. The change is from “a employee” to “an employee”.

I'd like a recorded vote.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That was quick.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move on to LIB-96. Let's try to do this one as quickly as possible.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

This has to do with the definition of “holder”. The definition of “holder” includes, under proposed paragraph 93(d), “a company that has been granted leave under Part 3 to abandon a pipeline”. It's merely a part of the definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Good work.

We'll move on to LIB-97.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

This just adds to the concept “an abandoned facility”, which is not exactly the same as the abandonment of a facility. Again, it's just a clarification here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

CPC-16 was dealt with under CPC-10, so now we have LIB-97.1.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

This is under “Exemption orders”, on pages 127 and 128, and simply adds some clarification. Right now, the existing text ends with “under section 96 or 312”. The rest of this is new and provides additional clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

All right.

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We are on LIB-98, Mr. Fisher. It's all yours.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

All right. Thank you.

It's in proposed section 108. Sorry, but I'm moving pretty quickly here. Inspection officers can issue a notice of non-compliance against a “holder”, which would include someone who holds some form of authorization from the regulator. In contrast, under proposed section 109, inspection officers can issue a safety order against a “person”, a broader term which would include third parties.

I'm trying to remember this one....

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

It's about changing it to person—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Yes, it's changing “holder” to “person”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Would you like a recorded vote?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Well done. We're moving nicely now.

We now have LIB-99.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It's me again and we're moving six pages up to page 139 and the first line. It has to do with powers of the regulator under proposed paragraph 116(1)(c), which says the regulator is authorized to “designate persons or classes of persons to conduct reviews under section 128” of an AMP violation.

Under proposed sections 125 to 128, reviews of AMPs are to be conducted by the commission, although timelines for filling a request for review can be extended by the regulator.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Are you talking about LIB-99?