Thanks.
I think we all have the same aim, which is to get to the bottom of this and make sure that all the precautions were taken and that this doesn't happen again.
I think the witnesses we've had so far have shed some light. It seems to me that if there is a joint investigation being done by the federal and provincial governments, the agencies, the firefighters, the town of Jasper and everybody who's on the ground, they're going to have much more insight into what happened and what should be done than we do at this committee. I have no problem with us providing oversight or making recommendations, but it seems to me expedient to let the experts and the people who were there do the work, and then we can ask questions about that. Bringing in other witnesses like the witnesses we've had.... Some of them have been excellent, but I just feel like we're not the experts. People on the ground who lived there were very concerned about their homes and about their town.
This is going on. I feel like it's the job of a committee to provide oversight, but not to do this investigation, which is looking into the events that led to the wildfire spread, assessing the response strategies, and identifying potential improvements in managing such incidents in the future. It's also looking at the environmental and economic impacts of it, and there are efforts to review the effectiveness of the firefighting strategy, the coordination between federal and provincial agencies, and the long-term recovery plans.
For us to go ahead with more meetings on this without this information, which is going to be undertaken at great expense to taxpayers, being provided to us, I feel is irresponsible. Why don't we wait until this has at least commenced and perhaps has had some progress? Then let's resume for a couple of meetings to review or to assess what they're saying, rather than bring all the same people here.
That's my point. I'm speaking in favour of the subamendment.