Environment Committee on June 4th, 2026

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Just to clarify, I believe the goal of the national strategy is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each province and each organization that will participate in the national strategy.

Ms. Fortin, I think what you're saying is that the amendment aims to avoid overlap with what already exists in certain provinces and to make it possible to use the strengths of some provinces to address the weaknesses of others. That gives you some flexibility to ensure that you don't impose measures that already exist in certain provinces. Am I mistaken?

[Doris Fortin]

You're right.

It gives us the flexibility to avoid these overlaps and also to support certain provinces that don't have the same opportunities to move toward developing the capacities they currently lack. The goal is to avoid overlaps in areas where there are existing strengths. We have to focus on the strengths of certain provinces and learn from one another, taking into account the strengths that already exist within the system.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Perfect.

In closing, I would like to say that, as a mayor and an engineer, I always liked having access to the most reliable data. I think that even a provincial or municipal organization that has access to federal government resources will have an advantage in terms of its flood or drought forecasts using the current strategy.

That's not a question; it's a comment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Going back to part (a) in amendment G-1, with the shift away from the language of “would identify properties and infrastructure at risk from floods” to “would support flood and drought forecasting”, I understand you want to be more general, but that particular clause seemed to make a lot of sense, whether it be private, municipal, federal or provincial infrastructure that's at risk.

Why take out that language? If you wanted to amend it, why wouldn't the government just add that clause as another one? Why remove something so specific? Why remove “identify properties and infrastructure at risk from floods”?

[Stephanie Lane]

My colleague may want to add more information, but I think the idea is that “would support flood and drought forecasting” is broader and covers the issue of “identify properties and infrastructure at risk from floods”.

I believe it's this committee that has heard information about the actions that the government is already taking with respect to identifying properties and infrastructure at risk from floods, so this is just to ensure that it captures a broader set of activities.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Again, I would go back to why you couldn't just add the language of “would support flood and drought forecasting” to cover it all. If you wanted broadness in the legislation, you could leave the specifics that the member who tabled the bill intended to have in here and add something more general that would allow you to do that.

We have, in fact, recently talked about this. We had the environment commissioner come in and talk about his report. We saw that Public Safety has blown $11.5 million on stale data that can't be updated on a website that isn't functioning. We have seen what the government's actions are, and they're frankly terrible, so I don't know if we want to go too far down that path.

My colleague asked whether or not this would give more substantive options to the department for measurements and more tools and things like that. My question is this: This legislation, in its original form, without the gutting that the Liberals are doing now, was passed in the House of Commons and died on the Order Paper when the government prorogued 18 months ago or more. If this is going to be so helpful and if it's such a wise idea, the government would have had.... If they had started then, at the time it passed the House, even though it didn't actually become law, and if they thought it was such a good idea, why didn't the minister and the department take action and just undertake to do what's in this bill anyway? The two-year strategy would be almost done by now.

[Stephanie Lane]

I think that the last time we were here, we provided evidence. Today we're here to speak to the clause-by-clause consideration and the amendments being proposed.

I think the goal of paragraph 3(3)(b) is to provide a broader assessment. Whether or not it could be added to another thing is not a question that I can necessarily answer, but the intent behind it is to ensure that the assessment is aligned with the purposes of the bill and can include the measures that are necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Mr. Watchorn.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we've gone through this now. I'd like to vote on the amendment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Are we prepared to vote on the proposed amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Amendment G-1 carries.

We will move to BQ-1 and Monsieur Bonin.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As my colleague Mr. Watchorn said so well, one of the goals is to avoid overlaps with existing efforts and to recognize what has already been done.

I heard my colleague speak to this need, and I believe this amendment also provides further clarification with a view to respecting jurisdictional boundaries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Could you repeat that, Mr. Bonin?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I think that this amendment complements, among other things, what my colleague said about the need to ensure there is no overlap and to recognize the work of the provinces in a spirit of collaboration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Are you moving BQ-1 now as an amendment?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's exactly what I'm doing, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Do we have debate on the amendment, or are we ready to vote?

Go ahead, Mr. Watchorn.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have read the amendment carefully. Honestly, I don't think it's necessary. Excluding Quebec from the implementation of the national strategy when other provinces have exactly the same expertise runs counter to the purpose of such a strategy.

As I said earlier, the national strategy is a collaborative effort. Some provinces are still using Excel spreadsheets to make flood forecasts, which is unacceptable. By inviting all 13 provinces to the table, we can maximize the expertise of every province and ensure that everyone is pulling in the same direction. I think Mr. Pomeroy put it very well. The 13 flood planning experts have never sat around a table together. That has never happened.

I believe the federal government's resources will assist the 13 flood and drought forecasting systems. I find it hard to imagine excluding Quebec, as a provision in the legislation specifically states that, in order to adopt the national strategy, Quebec must be explicitly consulted. This is very clear in the regulations. So I don't see the point of the amendment as such.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Watchorn.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague reviewing the amendment. Obviously, we are working with a legal text.

Mr. Watchorn, if that's what you're concerned about, I can reassure you by clarifying that this amendment in no way talks about excluding Quebec. It simply seeks to clarify that we should not propose measures that would create overlaps. It's not a matter of removing Quebec from the negotiating table. On the contrary, we are saying that plans already exist. That's the idea. Let's make sure we're not duplicating efforts here, as you mentioned; that's important to you.

Perhaps I missed something in our wording, but I don't see how this wording says that Quebec is being removed or excluded from any consultation table or activities. It's a point of clarification. If that's your interpretation, I'd like to understand it because that's not what the amendment says.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that, if Quebec is removed, British Columbia and other provinces that have exactly the same responsibilities as Quebec when it comes to flood planning will have to be removed. That doesn't get us anywhere. What I'm saying is that the protection requested by the amendment is not necessary.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

This is an interesting debate, but it still amounts to saying that Quebec must be excluded.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

No, that's not it.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's exactly what you just said. Once again, the amendment calls for the plan to be taken into account. It doesn't say to remove Quebec or exclude it. I don't understand your reluctance. That's not at all what it currently says.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

I understood perfectly well. What I'm saying is that, as I understand it, there's no question of removing Quebec from the negotiating table. Rather, the idea is that the protection contemplated by the amendment is already provided for in the bill, notably through the consultation mechanisms. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.