Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have had the honour of representing the constituents of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent in the House of Commons for seven years now. I have to tell you that this is one of the most interesting committees I have been on and whose proceedings I have followed.
Obviously, I participated in all this. When the study began, I highlighted in my initial remarks that we considered this a fundamental issue and that it was important to take this disaster seriously. This is indeed a disaster for those directly impacted. I said we mustn't be afraid to ask tough questions and be stern with those responsible in our pursuit of satisfactory answers. Those answers are necessary in order to rebuild the trust, and the first nation chief who was the committee's first witness rightly pointed that out. As you will recall, I yielded the floor to those who were directly impacted by the disaster, starting with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. Her riding is where the disaster occurred. Giving the member who represents the people directly affected the opportunity to speak and to ask appropriate questions is the least we can do. I do recognize, however, that people elsewhere were also affected.
I am especially proud of the work done by all of the members around the table, considering what a time bomb this could have been from a partisan politics standpoint. Let's not lie to ourselves. Each and every one of us was elected, and partisanship is part and parcel of an election. That is the cornerstone of a politician's job at election time. We know consultations will be held in Alberta. Things could have gone sideways, but they didn't. Why? Because we were all working towards the same goal, getting to the bottom of what happened and hearing first-hand from the people impacted by the disaster, those responsible for the situation and those in charge of making sure it doesn't happen again. Other than a couple of pointed or obtuse comments, which are part of the debate, I was really amazed to see that things didn't go sideways during the three meetings we spent on the study. That's seven and a half to eight hours of listening and debating. Kudos to us all.
Now I'll turn to the motion. Bringing the witnesses back in six months to provide a progress report on the work, to discuss corrective actions and to demonstrate the appropriate attitude is a good idea.
I am also in favour of having access to more documents, of course. However, as Mr. Kurek rightly pointed out a moment ago, those involved have already submitted a huge stack of documents. As soon as they had to provide evidence, documents and supporting information, they did so immediately. We saw that they were prepared, which, by the way, was the least to expect of them. I said this when the president of Imperial Oil was here: for the head of the company to appear before the committee and answer questions that were frankly unpleasant for him but essential to the examination is the bare minimum. It went well.
In short, having access to documents is a no‑brainer. If, by chance, we were to call for the information to be released publicly, I would be fine with that.
As Mr. Kurek and Mr. Longfield said earlier, some of the language used may have had a certain tone or connotation. We must always keep in mind the importance of behaving respectfully, no matter who the witness and no matter whether we agree with what they are saying or not. Respect means not calling someone names if we want them to appear before the committee again.
Like Mr. Longfield, I am very concerned about the language that was used, but it is understandable. The first nations members who came before the committee were deeply affected by what happened. They were absolutely right to say that their trust had been lost and needed to be restored. Naturally, if you don't trust the person in front of you, it takes work to rebuild that trust.
As a parliamentary committee, we have to treat the people who appear before us with respect. They are Canadians, like us, with something to say, and we are inviting them to share it with us. Clearly, if we describe them using three or four adjectives that carry a somewhat onerous connotation, that can't be considered an invitation to hear what they have to say.
Basically, we aren't opposed to the underlying objective, but the language chosen to deliver the message needs to be reworked.
I will say it again. As a parliamentarian, I found the study to be an outstanding and positive exercise. We heard from first nations members—the people most affected. We heard from those responsible—the guilty party in the eyes of some and rightfully so. The big boss of Imperial Oil appeared before the committee. The company didn't send a stooge or the 883rd person in the chain of command. It sent the person at the top to meet with the committee. We even found out how much he makes. Some may be interested in his job, should it open up one day. We were also fortunate enough to hear from representatives of provincial and municipal organizations who had to respond to the incident. It wasn't easy for them, but it went well. Let's keep that in mind for future meetings.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.