Evidence of meeting #125 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Yes, thank you.
I would just point out to my colleague that the motion as amended was brought forward by my colleague from the Bloc, so it's not exactly an in-the-pocket witness we have, but we happen to know a lot of stakeholders who are very concerned. That's why we need to investigate this further.
In terms of the timeline that this could take, we have a break next week. We have 12 days. We've had witnesses turned around in three days, and it happens on a regular basis.
I think we should get the right people in here in terms of first nations, and I think that although the minister is new, his schedule should be fairly clear. He should have the obligation, and, as the minister responsible now, he should be here on the 23rd as requested by this committee or be held in contempt of Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. van Koeverden, I'm just reminding everyone that we're getting pretty close to the end of the meeting, if you want to deal with this before the end of the meeting.
Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Absolutely nobody is recommending or suggesting less accountability from officials or from ministers, as has been insinuated by my colleague's words around contempt of Parliament on something that hasn't been passed yet. Mr. Chair, the suggestion that anybody wants less of a thorough investigation, or less fulsome consideration of what could be done in the future to better fireproof our constituents, is quite frankly absurd.
What I call into question is whether or not this motion, in the last meeting before the Thanksgiving break, is more political games from the Conservatives or a genuine effort to get more information. Unfortunately, what we've seen are some pretty shady witnesses brought forward by the Conservatives, some people who really should not have been given a platform at this committee. If that's just going to continue—
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
On relevance, I want to know if the member is voting against the motion to bring more witnesses.
Are you going to vote against it?
Liberal
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will communicate through the chair, as is required of me under the standing orders of this committee.
I will strongly disagree that any effort to ensure that the right witnesses come to this meeting and that we do not just check a first nations box to say, “Yes, we consulted indigenous people in this study”...which I think is gross and something that has been done before that we could probably avoid. We need to ensure that we have the right people come, to adequately protect people from wildfires in the future, given the over-proliferation of them. I'm not afraid of saying that they are made worse and more frequent by climate change.
It's not something that you'll hear from the Conservatives, ever. They just want to continue to tabloidize this issue and score political points on the back of this tragedy. When you just google “Jasper wildfire investigation”, the first five things that come up are the Facebook pages of Conservative MPs saying, “Breaking news: The testimony that we've heard on it....” They're trying to use this American-style political game to tabloidize a tragedy, which is reprehensible, Mr. Chair.
That's what we should be talking about, the conduct of bringing disreputable people to this place to provide testimony that is clearly false. When you just look at the facts, it's the opposite. There is a complete abdication and avoidance of talking about climate change, which makes these events more frequent and more—
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I have a point of order.
I'm curious about the relevance to the amendment we are about to vote on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't want to attribute motive, but clearly Mr. van Koeverden is certainly not in agreement with the amendment, so I guess he's expressing that disagreement.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I'll wrap it up, Mr. Chair. I'll cede the rest of my time to you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We have Mr. Longfield on the amendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think you left a question on the table for us. If the clerk isn't able to get the witnesses for the 21st, what do we do for the meeting that we're going to have on the 21st, given that we're not going to be seeing each other between now and then?
We've just released some witnesses from the finance study. If we're not able to get witnesses for this, with all of the good efforts that will go into it, maybe we could just have that as a fallback and see whether the witnesses we released today would be available on the 21st. We'll try to get witnesses here for the 21st to satisfy the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'll go to Mr. Boulerice.
Apparently, I would have some latitude as chair. If we found that we couldn't find any witnesses for the 21st or we had only one witness, I wouldn't go ahead. I have the latitude to say no, I'm not going to go ahead, because I only have one witness and that's a waste of a meeting, or we're not getting the most out of the meeting. There is some flexibility that the chair has. I can read the room. Maybe we don't have to get too technical on the language there.
Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I hope we can vote on Ms. Pauzé's amendment as soon as possible.
However, I'd still like to point out that I would have liked to discuss the motion moved by my colleague, Laurel Collins, about the contaminated wharf in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. I think this is an important issue. The wharf belongs to Transport Canada. It is heavily contaminated by lots of chemicals. Maybe we can talk about that at another meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We talked about it yesterday, and we're trying to find an opportunity to study Ms. Collins' motion. We haven't forgotten.
Let's go to Ms. Taylor Roy.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I just want to ensure that all parties have a chance to get witnesses, to bring them forward. I think there have been a number of very good witnesses. I think the Bloc and the NDP have had some very good witnesses, but I question some of the witnesses who have been brought forward. I think we want to have balance. Just because one party has already engineered who their witnesses are going to be, knowing they were going to introduce this, I think the same opportunity should be given to everyone else.
I don't suggest that we go forward if the only witnesses available are witnesses the Conservatives have already lined up, knowing that they're going to be giving one point of view. I would ask that we all have a chance to bring forward witnesses and make sure that witnesses are coming from every party, not just the one.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I would suggest that parties submit their witnesses by Friday at 4 p.m.
We've run through the speakers list on the amendment. Can we vote on the amendment? Okay.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now that the amendment has been adopted, let's go back to the motion as amended.
I had a speaking list, but Mr. Long is telling me he no longer wishes to speak, and, although I wouldn't want to point out his absence, Mr. Godin is not here.
Ms. Taylor Roy, do you have anything more to say? Okay.
We can now vote on the motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0) [See Minutes of Proceedings])