Yes.
Evidence of meeting #131 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #131 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You were talking about Jasper earlier. Please stick to the subamendment, Mr. Leslie.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will save these important arguments that we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to consider when we decide whether or not we are going to move forward with a prestudy. I will save that for the main thrust of the amendment. I appreciate that I have perhaps veered a bit away from the subamendment, and I will reserve some of these pieces for later.
I will wrap up by saying this subamendment matters to people. I look forward to hearing from my colleague from Yellowhead, because I know he has talked to many people on the ground who are frustrated. I won't repeat the many reasons, but we all know why they are frustrated.
I will refrain from going into too much detail about why, from a parliamentary history perspective and a normal, typical legislative perspective, we should not entertain the idea of Bill C-73, other than to say, most importantly, as it relates to the subamendment, that we have a duty to Canadians to not hide the work we've done for months and months, whether it is bad for the government or good for the government. It shouldn't really matter. However, I don't appreciate it when the government wants to hide things.
As it relates to the Jasper wildfires, this is something that's devastating, not only to that community but to anybody who has visited there and had the opportunity to experience that beautiful national park and the hospitality of the people who live, work and play within it.
I hope my colleagues from all parties agree that it is entirely reasonable to pass my proposed subamendment, which would ensure that Minister Boissonnault doesn't delay this forever and that he comes here and provides an update to our committee so that we can wrap it up and have a fulsome study to report back to the House.
I will pause there, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Chair.
The Prime Minister 28 days ago appointed Randy Boissonnault as the minister responsible for Jasper's recovery. Twenty-eight days ago, Randy Boissonnault should have been here testifying at the Jasper wildfire investigation. If Minister Boissonnault is in charge of rebuilding Jasper, why is he not prioritizing this committee and the people of Jasper? I think it's a disgrace to the people of Jasper that Minister Boissonnault is hiding from this committee. There are many reasons Minister Boissonnault may not want to appear at this committee, and I'm going to list a few.
Over the course of the Jasper wildfire investigations Canadians have been exposed to some damning testimony and evidence that suggests this government was grossly negligent in protecting Jasper. On September 26, Minister Guilbeault testified at the Jasper wildfire investigation. He claimed that Jasper's wildfire preparedness was a success, but he also told this committee that he was briefed on the serious likelihood of a catastrophic fire in Jasper. Instead of taking responsibility for his department's actions and lack of actions, he avoided answering the questions Canadians were asking. In response to his appearance, the National Post wrote an article with the following headline: “The environment minister repeatedly evaded questions about the federal government's response to multiple warnings of the potential for a catastrophic forest fire in Jasper”. How true.
The Jasper wildfire investigation also revealed that senior Parks officials were discussing cancelling prescribed burns in western Canada months before Jasper burned. In an email exchange obtained through an access of information request, a senior Parks Canada official asked, “At what point do we make the organizational decision to cancel...prescribed burns in Western Canada?” Then the official stated, “political perception may become more important than actual prescription windows.”
This email exchange was black and white. It was crystal clear what was being discussed, but instead of taking responsibility, this government claimed that everyone but them was misinterpreting this email.
They said this was a discussion about mechanical removal, but nowhere in the email was this mentioned. In fact, it was another Parks Canada official who verified our concerns through another email exchange that was obtained. Another senior official responded to that email and stated, “I hope we don't get into a blanket shutdown,” and, “It is critical to continue those kind of burns. It is how they maintain the [community firebreak], and when they fall behind, it is very difficult to catch up.”
It wasn't just Conservatives raising concerns with this email. It was Parks Canada's very own officials too. Was Minister Boissonnault aware of these discussions?
On October 2, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness admitted at the Jasper wildfire investigation that he was unaware the environment minister's officials were discussing the cancellation of prescribed burns. He later refused to admit that Parks Canada should have removed more dead trees to protect Jasper. During that meeting, Minister Guilbeault's senior vice-president at Parks revealed that he does not take any—I can't believe I'm reading this again—minutes at their operations meetings when asked to hand over evidence to the Jasper wildfire investigation. I can't believe that. You don't take any minutes. No matter, you can't prove anything. How convenient. It's actually quite frankly absurd too.
When asked how many dead trees remained standing in Jasper, Parks Canada could not answer this basic question. It was for these reasons that the National Post published an article the following day. The article stated, “Steven Guilbeault doesn't want your Jasper fire questions—he's saving the planet, don't you know”. It further stated, “Guilbeault self-congratulated his record on fighting climate change in general and attacked Conservatives for not doing so. More jabs, no insight into how fire mitigation measures were or were not taken as the dry timber piled up.”
On October 7, the Jasper wildfire investigation revealed that Minister Guilbeault's department turned away multiple fire trucks and firefighters who arrived on the scene to help. Later that day, the Jasper wildfire investigation revealed that Minister Guilbeault's department handcuffed Alberta from making firefighting decisions as over 30,000 hectares burned. Was Minister Boissonnault aware of these decisions?
A headline in the National Post stated, “Alberta's deputy premier slams 'unified command' snub by feds during Jasper wildfire”. By this time, the Jasper wildfire investigation was proving that the Liberal government was not only incompetent in protecting Jasper; it was negligent.
Another newspaper headline read, “Federal negligence at root of Jasper's wildfire devastation”. Wow.
Another article stated:
...federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault claimed that Ottawa could not have done better either before or during the fire.
At any suggestion that Ottawa was lacking, he trotted out climate change as the true culprit. It was clear more than once that a big ugly fire in Alberta is a great boost for his climate agenda.
Focusing on climate also turned—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You're next on the list.
Then I have Ms. Collins, Mr. van Koeverden, Mr. Soroka and Mr. Deltell.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
It seems that the Conservatives have been filibustering for almost an hour now. If they filibuster until the very end of this meeting, for a full two hours, I'm curious if this debate starts up in the next meeting, or would we have our regular scheduled meeting the following week when the House resumes?
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm just wondering about the procedure. Does this debate continue at the next meeting if they filibuster until the very end? You adjourned the last meeting really abruptly, and I think that is why we're in this situation again, debating this for an entire session and wasting resources. I am feeling frustrated with both the Liberals and the Conservatives right now, so I'm just curious. I would love to know and get some clarity around whether, if this filibuster continues to the very end, we will be debating this again in the next environment committee meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If it is the desire of the committee to be debating this for a long time, then that may very well be what happens.
Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair; I have another point of clarification. I would vote in favour of this subamendment. The Conservatives filibustering their own subamendment really means that we can't vote. They can't vote in favour of it; I can't vote in favour of it; we all can't vote in favour of it. Is that correct?
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Chair.
Another article stated, “federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault claimed that Ottawa could not have done better either before or during the fire.”
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is reading from the newspaper relevant to Bill C-73?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're talking about the subamendment, which is about Jasper, so once you get into that—
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Just so you know, it's right in front of you, the subamendment.