Bill C-317

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting

This enactment provides for the development of a national strategy to provide key stakeholders with the information they need to forecast floods and droughts.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C‑317, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. The reference number, so everybody has it, is 13047345, in the top left-hand corner of page 3, for Bill C-317, in both English and French.

Ms. Taylor Roy, I'll go to you to move your subamendment and to speak to it. Then we'll have a discussion on the subamendment.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for the opportunity to come and join your committee today. I sat on the environment committee back in the 42nd Parliament. It's always a pleasure to come back and visit you.

Today, we are going to be studying Bill C-317.

We have witnesses today from the Department of the Environment who will be available to answer questions. At the very back of the room, with this new set-up, we have Wayne Jenkinson, executive director of national hydrological services; and Stephanie Lane, executive director of legislative governance. Welcome to both of you.

We will now go to the clause-by-clause review of the bill.

I have some notes I'll go through before we get into it. The instructions that I'll give you before we start clause-by-clause on Bill C-317 are as follows.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open to debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly, to allow all members to follow the proceedings accordingly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Are there any questions? Are we ready to start? Okay.

Before we start, I will ask if we want to have recorded votes for each of the pieces. That's standard procedure, I believe. We'll do recorded votes as we move through the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and of the preamble is postponed. I will call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

On clause 2, there is amendment G-1, moved by Mr. van Koeverden.

Do you want to speak to it?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, Chair.

It's not a reflection on your job as chair, but since this is your bill, I would move that during consideration of Bill C-317, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, John Aldag be designated as acting chair of the committee.

Mr. Aldag is here, a former member of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The vote is at 5:45. We'll stop whenever we have to stop, but I believe it's 5:45. The bells are at 5:15.

Now, we'll go to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-317.

I believe Mr. Longfield has a motion.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, we used to talk a lot about adapting to climate change or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps that was because we hadn't acted quickly or forcefully enough over the years, but my sense now is that we talk more about adaptation than mitigation, although both are extremely important.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Sanford.

Now I'll go to the representatives of Ottawa Riverkeeper. As you know, I'm very concerned about the Ottawa River, but for other reasons.

As you know, through its meteorological service, Environment and Climate Change Canada is already making very useful data available. It provides citizens, businesses, the government, provinces and territories with accurate meteorological information and official weather warnings. In your mind, however, it's important that we establish a national strategy, like the one proposed in Bill C-317.

Why not review the mandate of that agency, which is currently in a better position to provide forecasts?

[Laura Reinsborough, Riverkeeper and Chief Executive Officer, Ottawa Riverkeeper]

Thank you so much for having us here today.

Mr. Sandford painted a global picture, and I'll bring you very local now to the Ottawa River watershed. Here we are. Whenever your service brings you to the national capital region, you are directly depending on the Ottawa River and its tributaries for your survival. It's our drinking water today as well, so cheers!

I'll be presenting along with my colleague, Larissa Holman, director of science and policy. You recently met her, as she presented at the freshwater study as well.

We were just invited a few days ago to present, and the timing is impeccable. We have prepared a flow-changes report on the Ottawa River watershed using federal data that has existed for years but has never before been analyzed through a watershed lens. So, to truly look at the data for what is happening in the Ottawa River watershed.... The results are eye-opening.

This Ottawa River watershed is vast, with a surface area of more than twice that of the province of New Brunswick. It provides drinking water for you and two million people. The flow of the Ottawa River can be so great that it can exceed that of all of the Great Lakes combined. It has been given the moniker “the sixth great lake” as a result.

We have a mighty river flowing through our nation's capital.

I'll speak about our experiences with the floods of 2017 and 2019 that have informed our comments today. It is also important to note that this mighty river is also affected by drought, so we need to take into consideration that even our mightiest of rivers are impacted by both floods and droughts.

Just two weeks from now we'll be releasing our first watershed report card, and we've analyzed 14 different indicators. Changes in flow is one of them, as I mentioned. Despite the availability of flow data through the water survey of Canada, our watershed report card is the first report that has conducted analysis on the data trends for both flooding and periods of low flow at a watershed scale. The jurisdictions within this watershed are very complex. The river itself becomes a border between Ontario and Quebec.

When the Ottawa River experienced extensive flooding in both 2017 and 2019—many of you will remember that—it caused extensive damage to infrastructure, property and people's homes. Both the Ontario and Quebec governments attempted to address the flooding in different ways, thereby working separately to confront an issue that cannot be solved one side of the river at a time. We see a need in this context, like with many other watersheds, where political jurisdictions need to be coordinated in order to ensure that the response is effective. This applies to predictions and forecasting as well.

We looked specifically at Bill C-317 and have a few recommendations to put forward.

[Wanda McFadyen, Executive Director, Assiniboine River Basin Initiative]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members, and thank you. It is an honour to speak to you today about Bill C-317.

As we all know, water respects no boundaries, be it in time of floods or of drought, so it's critically important that different water authorities across the country come together to share standardized data and be able to share that in a timely manner with stakeholders who work on the landscape and rely on that data.

I want to speak to two flood events that happened within our basin in recent years: the flood of 2011, which was a once-in-300-years event, and the one of 2014, which was a once-in-500-years event. These two floods were catastrophic in nature. In one instance, one community saw 11,000 residents evacuated from their homes and 4,000 homes and businesses impacted.

The mental health impacts to communities in times of flood are astronomical and go on for years and years. The flood of 2014 saw communities as well as rural residents marooned without supplies for days on end. Floods also impact infrastructure, farmland, businesses, etc., so we need to look at and work collaboratively on those across the country. As we've heard from Dr. Pomeroy, insurance is also impacted, which is a huge piece of the puzzle for those on the landscape.

The flip side, of course, is drought. We are starting to experience that at unprecedented levels. The difference between a drought and a flood is that droughts can go on for many months or years, while floods tend to have a shorter impact but wreak havoc on infrastructure for years to come in its replacement. I think it's very important that we look at that.

Both of these impact mental health, the economic well-being of the communities, the environment, the landscape and all the creatures that inhabit those landscapes. When I say “communities”, I'm referring to all communities: first nations, rural residents, urban residents, etc. Also, they cross international boundaries, as we heard earlier. We have to be respectful of the fact that water does flow across rural boundaries.

On behalf of our organization, I would strongly encourage the committee to work towards the development of a true national strategy that would enable all jurisdictions to share data in a standardized and understandable format to prepare for and react to floods and droughts. In working across those jurisdictional boundaries, they must recognize that those boundaries are municipal and provincial, as well as international. Communication, co-operation and coordination are all common goals that will lead to the success of this program, if it's to roll out.

You must invest in working with us, the grassroots stakeholders. Groups like ours, the indigenous communities on the landscape and the agriculture and conservation groups all hold a wealth of knowledge and have developed a network and a trust on the landscape with those impacted. In many instances, they are the first responders on the landscape, working with local residents, be it in times of flood or in times of drought.

Also, work towards creating resiliency, whereby all stakeholders have the ability and tools before them to adapt to change, not only to achieve environmental sustainability but to remain viable on the economic side of things for themselves and for the well-being of their communities. As well, the goals must also realize that research and adaptation of best management practices, and the utilization of tools that may assist in the process that is developed, are key to its success.

Transparent processes are a must. You must include transparent communication and information exchange in order to lead to the success of the programs.

Also, we must never forget the golden rule of water: Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you.

I'm very pleased to present you with this information today, and I'm quite willing to answer any questions. We're very pleased to see this strategy move forward and would encourage those of you around the table not to forget about us, the grassroots individuals who can help this become a success across Canada.

Thank you.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Let's just say that, in the next few months, the bill is voted on and passed in the House of Commons, and then in the Senate. Based on what you know about this legislation and on your experience in Canada and the United States, approximately how long might it take for Canada really to turn together as a single wheel with the 13 provinces and territories and for us to be responsible and effective at the national level?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, I'm glad to see you performing this parliamentary role.

Dr. Pomeroy, thank you so much for your testimony. It's very interesting.

Mr. Pomeroy, earlier you used an image that has stayed with me: You said that every province and territory had built its own wheel. In other words, Canada now has 13 wheels. The aim of this bill introduced by our colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis is precisely to unify. As far as you know, and based on what you know about Canada, do you think we're capable of doing that within a reasonable timeframe, or could it take years for those 13 wheels to turn in the same direction?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay.

According to the website of Natural Resources Canada, they have something called the flood hazard identification and mapping program, which was launched late last year, I believe. I'd like to read a quick quote from the website. It says, “The Government of Canada is investing over $227 million in the ongoing Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping program...to meet this need by updating and expanding its existing flood mapping capabilities.... Natural Resources Canada leads [this program] in partnership with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Public Safety Canada.”

Can you give us an idea of how the initiative contained in Bill C-317 will align with these initiatives that are going on at Natural Resources Canada?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

As we said at the outset, the Canadian Meteorological Centre operates on a top-down model. In other words, there is no collaboration. We think the new system should be more collaborative and structured. Bill C-317 is a foundational bill.

To be collaborative, you have to rely on the National Hydrological Service, within which the federal government and the provinces collaborate and share costs.

The aim is to change the way we think about this issue so we can have the best of both worlds. As I said at the outset, we use a top-down approach. We can't change the fact that weather forecasting is made possible for us by satellites. Whether we like it or not, that's the way it works. It's centralized and top-down. However, there also has to be horizontal collaboration among local, provincial and territorial bodies so we can get the best of both worlds. Most of the elements are probably already in place, but we're working too informally for the moment.

As I said, the project is foundational. All we're asking the federal government to do is submit a proposal. It could be amended, but we have to have a good proposal in order to move forward.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Monique Pauzé]

I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 102 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 14, 2024, the committee is commencing its consideration of Bill C-317, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.

This is the first time I have chaired this committee. I would like to welcome Mr. Patzer, who is replacing Mr. Mazier for a few minutes as the latter is in the House and will be back soon. I will be happy to turn the chair over to him at that time.

I should remind you that today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the order adopted by the House on June 15, 2023. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. I believe that witnesses and members are now familiar with the Zoom application and know how to access the interpretation and that they must raise their hand to request the floor. All the sound tests have been completed, as agreed.

I therefore give the floor to an eminent member of this committee, Francis Scarpaleggia, member for Lac-Saint-Louis and, especially, the sponsor of Bill C-317, which we are considering today.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑317, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak in this session of Parliament. I want to begin by saying hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and to my team, Line, Mélanie, Marie‑Josée, Jenny, Lamine, Eric and Loukas, who are holding down the fort in my riding.

Let us now talk about Bill C-317, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, which seeks to provide key stakeholders with the information they need to forecast floods and droughts. This bill affects me directly, since much of my riding had to deal with forest fires in 2023.

Year after year, more and more regions of Quebec and Canada are facing flooding and forest-fire-causing droughts because of climate change. Climate change is escalating around the world and causing climate events that are increasingly frequent, more intense and more variable in nature.

Quebec has experienced a lot of flooding in recent decades. The socio-economic costs associated with those floods have only continued to grow. The same is true of forest fires.

The Société de protection des forêts contre le feu describes the 2023 wildfires as the most devastating ever. The drought in May 2023 was the spark that ignited it all. Some 4.5 million hectares of forest burned in Quebec, including 1.1 million hectares in populated areas.

In summer 2023, there were 30 times more wildfires than the annual average, including 48 that burned more than 1,000 hectares, or 30 times more than the annual average in Quebec, which is 1.6 fires per season. Some 2,360 forest firefighters from the rest of Canada and around the world came to help their colleagues in Quebec.

The community of Lebel-sur-Quévillon, in Abitibi-James Bay-Nunavik-Eeyou, was the hardest hit by the wildfires in summer 2023. It had the biggest fire, made up of 19 fires that converged and burned 480,000 hectares of forest. Five years of forest harvests went up in smoke. I was there on the first day of the forest fires in Chapais and when Lebel-sur-Quévillon was evacuated, to announce the evacuation.

For those who do not believe that these fires are a result of climate change, I can enlighten them. I can tell them about the damage they caused in my riding in terms of the economic and social losses, of our people's insecurity and their fear of losing their homes and personal property, of their fear of going through more fires, of the lack of compensation to the cities and towns that were devastated. People are still stressed, and they are still awaiting financial assistance.

I worked with the mayors to help meet the complex needs of cities and towns in this difficult situation. I reported on the situation every day between May and August of last year.

Floods and droughts are natural phenomena that are amplified by climate change. Adjusting to the impacts of climate change means that public authorities need to rely on science to guide government decision-making. This means making relevant information about meteorological events, including droughts and floods, available to the public and all responders.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of Bill C-317, but someone will have to show how a bill seeking to create a national strategy to prevent floods and droughts will improve current public action, since public authorities are already doing much of the work.

In fact, we would like to take this opportunity to remind our colleagues that Canada is not a national state made up of a single people. There is no one single Canadian nation. Canada is a multinational society, which includes the Canadian majority, the Quebec nation and indigenous nations. The use of terms such as “national policy” or “national strategy” is therefore a bit misleading.

Everyone knows that a country can hold up diversity as a cardinal value while showing very little consideration for the diversity of nations that make up its population. That being said, our main concern about Bill C-317 is its relevance. We are not certain whether the bill’s provisions will have a beneficial effect on public action and, especially, on the ability of public authorities to plan and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

The preamble of Bill C-317 explains that the reason for this new legislation is the fact that “current flood and drought forecasting in Canada is conducted by the provinces without coordination between them and with limited federal technical support”.

It is therefore important to consider public actions already taken by the provinces in order to forecast and prevent floods and droughts and to evaluate to what degree federal support is or is not needed.

Quebec’s plan to protect its territory from floods contains sustainable solutions to protect our living environments. As we can see on the government of Quebec’s website, the plan is based on four areas for action.

Given the seriousness of the situation, the Quebec government has taken action. The ministerial action group on flood-related land-use planning was given a mandate to develop a land-use government plan to ensure the safety of the public and the protection of property in flood zones in Quebec. The action group collaborated with municipalities and the scientific community to find sustainable and creative solutions for protecting our living environments from flooding. Two advisory committees were also set up; one was composed of representatives from the municipalities and associations involved and the other was made up of experts from the various fields associated with land use and flood zone management. After several months of research and consultation, both committees tabled their report. The numerous recommendations they made were taken into consideration by the ministerial action group.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, Quebeckers can also use the Vigilance app to better prepare for flooding by keeping up-to-date on rising water levels in Quebec. Government and municipal stakeholders can also use it to alert and mobilize responders in the event of an emergency.

Generally speaking, we can reasonably say that the Quebec government has the expertise needed to protect the land and the people against flooding. In addition, Quebec put a great deal of thought into the Quebec water strategy, which takes into account all past experience. Quebec's strategy works quite well without intervention by the federal government, whose involvement is not needed to protect the environment and manage natural resources.

So it must be made clear that Quebec already has comprehensive flood prevention and water strategies, and that the strategies do not require federal government intervention. Therefore, in subclause 3(3), which defines the content of the future federal strategy, paragraph (d) will have to be amended to remove an unnecessary reference to a Canadian water agency. The very existence of this agency is just as unnecessary as the reference to it in the bill. It is not needed because of the division of powers provided for in the Constitution of Canada.

In closing, the last thing I want is to relive what happened with the 2023 forest fires in Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou.