Environment Committee on Oct. 9th, 2024

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay. I'll run the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What's the subamendment?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

The subamendment is that we just remove the provision for dictating that the time of the meetings should be October 21 and October 23, the reason being—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Could I finish?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

He's making a subamendment.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I was led to believe by you, Mr. Chair, that there was agreement to move forward with this subamendment. Now the Liberals are changing it to say they have a new amendment they want to bring to the table.

That's why I ceded my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I'm going in steps. I didn't know exactly what the subamendment was. I'm sorry that it wasn't clear, but can we just...?

Basically, you're saying that you're not in agreement with the 21st and the 23rd.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

We can't vote on an amendment if there's a subamendment being considered. The subamendment needs to be heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. Go ahead and explain your subamendment, and we'll vote on that.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

The subamendment is just that.

First of all, the analysts will be able to submit or at least get to work on the Jasper fire study, which has concluded now, if no additional—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There's no report coming out of this.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

My rationale was that this work could commence now, if we consider a follow-up meeting once the inquiry is under way, the personnel is in touch, some work has been conducted and we have new experts.

The reasoning for MP Soroka wanting additional meetings was very sound. We want to make sure that any effort to mitigate future fires in Alberta and certainly across Canada is undertaken. We'll have more information after the inquiry is conducted. My recommendation is that we come back in a couple of weeks, when we have more information. Perhaps then we can put out a call for some additional witnesses. Right now, I don't think the witnesses who have been imagined up have been located.

I think we should go to the sustainable finance study and then come back to this when we have more information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Basically, if you're looking at the amendment that's been proposed, where it says that these meetings take place on October 21 and October 23, your subamendment is to say that these meetings take place.... Can you give me a phrase?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

It would be “once the inquiry has commenced”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

We can debate this subamendment, or we can just go to a vote on the subamendment.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I would like to speak to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield, I think you want to speak on the subamendment.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes. Thanks, Chair.

I really think Monique has a good idea there, that indigenous people weren't involved in our discussions. Having chaired other committees, I know that we do need a little bit of runway to get indigenous people identified and get them headsets or have them come to us. That can also take a while, depending on where they're coming from, to say nothing of saying to a minister that we need them in two weeks on this date. I mean, realistically, that might.... We can invite him, whether he can make it on that date or not. I think with some of this, we need to have the clerk help us with getting the witnesses on site on time.

If we finish the sustainable finance study, at least then the analysts can do their work on the sustainable finance study, and then we can pick this up. I don't think it's an unnecessary delay. I think it's more out of respect for the clerk and for the witnesses we have to get here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. van Koeverden, go ahead.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'll speak very briefly, as I know we'd like to get on with the vote.

Something I thought of when Mr. Longfield was speaking is that we've heard a lot from witnesses over the last couple of weeks about how the expertise of indigenous people in doing prescribed burns ought to have been more adequately considered and utilized. Finding those experts, people who are familiar with northern Alberta forests and with how to do prescribed burns in a traditional first nations manner—perhaps somebody from the indigenous guardians group, which is doing very well—would be great.

Finding the right person is more important than simply finding a person. I don't think we should be aiming to check an indigenous box on this study. We should be seeking to find the best possible witness in that regard. That individual is out there. I want to make sure they're available. I really want those recommendations to be sound and well considered from the correct individuals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I understand correctly, the subamendment is to change the wording “take place on Monday, October 21, 2024, and Wednesday, October 23, 2024” to “take place after we have completed the finance study”. Is that it?