Environment Committee on June 4th, 2026

[Stephanie Lane]

I would say that the language of paragraph 3(3)(d) ensures that the strategy must include whatever measures are identified in paragraphs 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b) and 3(3)(c).

As noted at various points, responsibility for flood and drought forecasting is shared with provinces and territories and lies principally with provinces and territories. Based on the fact that the government has two years to develop the strategy, I think that using the language of “may” is appropriate, given that it's unclear what the strategy will uncover as it's being developed.

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

Does this legislation—particularly with this amendment, should it be passed—create a single national standard for flood forecasting or drought forecasting, or does it require—as you said, because of the collaboration with provinces—any federal data to be integrated with provincial forecasting?

[Stephanie Lane]

It requires the strategy to be developed within two years, and the strategy will identify measures.

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

Could you summarize this quickly for me? What is the problem with paragraph 3(3)(d), and what is the amendment solving?

[Stephanie Lane]

There were two problems.

I think my colleague has identified that the reference to the National Hydrological Services is likely an error, because National Hydrological Services is an entity within the Meteorological Service of Canada, so it's part of a federal department. Where it says “federal-provincial distributed model”, the correct reference to the federal-provincial distributed model would be to the national hydrometric program.

The additional element at the beginning of paragraph 3(3)(d) includes the idea that there are a bunch of assessments and a bunch of analyses that will be undertaken as part of this collaborative development of the national strategy, and that they should be considered when the strategy identifies which measures the Government of Canada should take as a result of the strategy.

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

Will any mayors or farmers or provincial emergency response directors be any further ahead, thanks to this legislation as amended?

[Stephanie Lane]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Can the question be reframed?

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

Canadians are concerned, and I am concerned, because I just had flash flooding in Winkler two days ago, and I had three tornadoes. This issue is live across every one of our regions and very recently has become particularly relevant to my region.

Accurate forecasting for flooding, for droughts and for emergency situations of extreme weather events is very important, and it seems to me that this legislation is a plan to make a plan to come up with a plan in two years. As for any specifics within the legislation, which has already been passed in the House of Commons in a previous Parliament, the government has now decided that, no, we shouldn't take on that onus: We should neuter this relatively benign “plan to make a plan” legislation. I am fairly baffled as to why the government feels it is necessary to neuter this piece of legislation.

My question is this: If you're a mayor in a flood-prone area of my region or across this country, or if you're a farmer who is watching drought or flood forecasting, or if you're a provincial emergency response director, if this legislation becomes law, are you going to be any further ahead in any awareness about future floods or droughts?

[Stephanie Lane]

The legislation requires that the federal government work with provinces and territories, consult with various parties as identified in the legislation, and develop a strategy within two years.

It is a private member's bill, and as the member for Terrebonne introduced it, I think her intention is for there to be assistance for Canadians with respect to floods and droughts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Mr. Leslie, I think we had the opportunity to speak with the member at a previous committee session to have these questions asked and answered.

Could we be quite tight?

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

What day was that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

It was when the member was here. It was last week.

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

It's the amendment that I'm asking about, though.

All of that being said, I'm disappointed that the government is neutering its own private member's bill. I have no idea why it would do that.

I am done with questions for now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Is there further debate on the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Bexte.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Officials are here for more clarity, so I'll continue along the lines of my colleague's questions.

Hydrometric measurement activities happen at a point in time, and that is the present. Converting that measurement into a forecast is projecting into the future, and it's the future that we're concerned about in this exercise. It's what might happen down the road.

Part of my confusion with this amendment is that the whole point of the bill was to develop a strategy and to do something, but the amendment is suggesting that this all becomes optional and that there's no compunction to do anything. It's very difficult federally, as we've said clearly, because there's a lot of provincial jurisdiction here, and we don't want to be compelling other jurisdictions to be doing things. However, we should be able to compel the government to do things. That's the entire point of legislation in our jurisdiction.

We've gone through this bill a lot. We've studied it a number of times, through two different Parliaments, and there has been a lot of great testimony as to the relevance and importance of it. I struggle to understand why we then purposely make optional any of the strategic recommendations that come out of this. Whatever the work is that is to be done, it should be done, and the minister should not have an exit plan pre-built into the legislation. Otherwise, there's no point to the legislation to start with. It would be internally contradictory from the outset.

Does that seem like a logical view to you?

[Stephanie Lane]

If I may, paragraph 3(3)(d), as introduced, required the government to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a co-operative forecasting service. That was the extent of what paragraph 3(3)(d) required.

What was added in the amendment proposed in G-1 was a reflection that a proposal for the establishment of a forecasting service was just one of the elements and one of the measures that the government may want to include in its strategy. Rather than being exhaustive and being about only this one measure, it includes other elements that weren't previously explicitly required by the strategy.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Are these elements fundamental to the strategy or to the development of the strategy?

[Stephanie Lane]

Paragraph 3(3)(d) has been crafted to ensure that whatever is identified through the course of the development of the strategy can be included as measures in the final strategy as things the government should do.

Any national or federal strategy cannot compel provincial governments to take specific actions. A national strategy cannot require certain things. What paragraph 3(3)(d) does is ensure that as the analysis and the assessment and the co-operative work are being done to develop the strategy, the measures that need to be in the strategy will also be included as a result.

I would add that after the strategy is developed and tabled in Parliament, there is a requirement for a report that speaks to the effectiveness of the strategy to be tabled in Parliament after five years.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You said you're—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Is there further debate on the motion?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I'd like to continue, please.

You said a few times that these should be or must be included in the strategy, yet you're suggesting with this amendment that it all be optional.

[Stephanie Lane]

The title for subclause 3(3) includes “The strategy must provide for”, and the subclause includes the language of measures. I think the framing of the amendment to paragraph 3(3)(d) was to ensure that it reflected the assessments done in paragraphs 3(3)(a) to 3(3)(c).

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That leaves it all optional. It leaves any actions optional.

[Stephanie Lane]

National strategies cannot necessarily direct government actions.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Okay. I'm done. Thank you.