Debates of Oct. 28th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Chair has chosen to group all of the amendments presented at this stage in a single vote. In other words, a single vote in the House will decide whether all the work that was done in committee will be undone. With a single vote, the House will let the committee know whether everything it accomplished was for nothing.

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would never question the Chair's good faith or way of working, but we can still assume that his decision will have consequences.

From what I understand, the parties may not share the same opinion on two categories of amendments. The parties do not seem to have the same opinion on the number of days of continuous residence in Canada as on the other qualification criteria, including the citizenship test, the security assessment, the language test, and so on. Grouping them together could force some members to unwillingly vote against amendments they support.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

I want to take a few moments here as I begin my speech to say happy birthday to my daughter Kenzie. She turned 11 today. Happy birthday, sweetie. I love her very much. I am really proud of the great young girl she is growing up to be, and I look forward to seeing the great woman she will be as well. This morning, she had to get up at 5:30 a.m. to get to the hockey rink in time for practice. She did that, and her teammates sang her happy birthday on the ice, which was pretty exciting. I think she brought cupcakes for her teammates. They got to celebrate her birthday at the hockey rink, so that must have been a lot of fun.

We have a bill before us today to deal with immigration. Immigration is always a fun topic to talk about. My grandmother immigrated to Canada from Scotland, and I have a great appreciation for people who have immigrated to Canada. I can track down the history of my family, the country of origin they came from, how they came to North America and what that journey looked like for them. We can obviously see the contributions that many people have made to Canada in building this country. This country is largely a country of people who have immigrated to Canada, so we know how important immigration is. I think it is important to make that comment right off the top.

I was happy to see that we were able to get many strong amendments at committee. I also want to echo the sentiment from some of my colleagues earlier. The minister mentioned that they were open to amendments. There was another member from Ottawa here who said, “Let us work fast at committee, make the improvements”. Even the member from Winnipeg said that he wanted to talk about the amendments. We have heard him talk a lot about some of the amendments here tonight, but more so about how he does not think it is right that the Conservatives and the Bloc voted in favour of amendments and they got added to the bill. I mean, the minister herself said that she was looking forward to amendments to the bill, and we were able to get those amendments. I think it looks really good, with the amendments we put into the bill.

In particular, there is the requirement for consecutive days in Canada, to have the time that is laid out in the bill be consecutive. I think that is a good starting point, because beyond the people who were affected by a decision, that four-year period, who were impacted by the bill originally, there is obviously the ripple effect for other folks who would be impacted by the bill. When we look at the requirement to spend 1,095 days in Canada, the government wanted it to be an arbitrary number for a parent. We made an amendment to make that consecutive time spent in Canada, which is a key piece. It would show a more substantive commitment to Canada and being committed to our country. I think that is a very strong place to start, because we want people who are going to be citizens of Canada to have a vested interest in Canada. If a person has no interest in Canada, if their parents have not spent any time in Canada, it would seem natural that there would be tough requirements to be able to gain Canadian citizenship, because there is a certain value that is added to our citizenship. However, we have seen, for 10 years, the Liberal government water down what it means to be Canadian. We continue to see that trend with this particular bill.

Going back to the case of my grandmother immigrating from Scotland, let us transpose that to Scotland, a country that has gone through its own independence revolution to break itself free. Looking at Scotland's requirements, one parent has to be born in Scotland. Based on the Scottish requirements, my mother would have been able to become a Scottish citizen, but it would not apply to me. I think about the 1,095 days. It would not be easy for me to spend 1,095 days in Scotland. I would have to have a very strong interest in being in Scotland. Therefore, that requirement is very important. I think it is a good amendment that we have here, and I look forward to continuing on this thread tomorrow when I have a chance to speak again.

National Strategy for Flood and Drought Prediction Act

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

moved that Bill C-241, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a critical issue: protecting our country from natural disasters, especially floods and droughts.

First of all, allow me to thank John Pomeroy, director of the Global Water Futures Program and a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis for their contributions to this bill.

Extreme weather events are becoming more and more frequent and intense. Every year, they threaten the safety of Canadians, jeopardize our crops, damage our infrastructure and put our water resources to the test. This is no longer hypothetical; it is an ongoing and urgent reality that requires our immediate action.

To combat these growing events, we need a coordinated national strategy. We need to get all the players involved if we are to properly manage and protect this vital resource that Canada is blessed to have so much of in its rivers, lakes, ice cover and soil.

This bill is vital. It is a major tool for protecting Canada from the devastating effects of natural disasters and for limiting the costs involved.

Let us talk about the costs of floods and droughts. They are expected to cause estimated GDP losses of more than $128 billion U.S. between now and about 2050.

In 2024, hurricane Debby caused an estimated $2.7 billion in insured losses in Quebec. Ontario saw over $990 million in losses caused by flooding in the greater Toronto area. The Jasper wildfires cost about $1.1 billion, and these are just some of the costs incurred in the last year.

According to available data, the 2013 and 2021 floods in Alberta and British Columbia resulted in estimated losses of between $5 billion and $9 billion. It is projected that droughts, floods and storms could cause an average total loss of 0.2% of our GDP.

Passing Bill C‑241 will enable us to limit the repercussions and protect our livelihoods while strengthening the country's economic and social resilience in the face of extreme weather events. Thanks to the implementation of early warning systems and rapid response plans, we have the ability to save lives.

This legislation is not just about managing natural disasters. It represents a long-term vision, a clear recognition that climate change is no longer a distant threat, but a very present reality that is already affecting our communities, ecosystems and economies.

Whether we are talking about droughts or floods, there is always one common element at the heart of both: water. Water is the source of all life. It is a fundamental issue for our society, our environment and our future. That is why water should be regarded as a non-partisan issue, an issue that transcends political differences, because water belongs to no party and no ideology. It belongs to all Canadians.

That said, water is also a vast and complex issue. It can be a source of life and prosperity, but when there is not enough or too much, it can be a source of destruction and suffering. That is precisely why this bill is so important. It aims to better understand, predict and manage this vital resource in order to protect both our citizens and our environment.

I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way calls into question provincial jurisdiction over water. On the contrary, it aims to establish strong collaboration between the federal, provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples and experts in order to protect our water resources effectively.

It is important to understand that water is central to the climate. We feel the effects of climate change through the medium of water, whether in the form of prolonged droughts or sudden flooding. It is essential to remember that floods are among the deadliest natural disasters our societies experience. According to some studies, more than nine million people have died in the last century as a result of floods. This means floods are a major hazard, second only to earthquakes and tsunamis.

Flooding is not an isolated or distant phenomenon. It is a daily reality for many Canadian communities.

In 2024, insured losses caused by climate events reached $8.5 billion Canadian, smashing previous records and highlighting the worsening climate risks that we face.

These events have devastating consequences: Lives are lost, infrastructure is destroyed, and entire communities are displaced. Flooding in particular causes considerable economic losses.

For example, the 2013 floods in Alberta caused damage estimated at $3.7 billion Canadian, making that year one of the costliest in terms of economic losses from natural disasters.

Bill C‑241 is a proactive response to these challenges. It aims to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought prevention, enabling effective coordination between governments and the affected communities. This collaborative approach is essential to anticipate risks, minimize impacts, and protect Canadians and ecosystems.

The answer is simple: every year, in both urban and rural areas, thousands of people are affected by natural disasters. Lives are lost, families are displaced, and property is destroyed. Climate change is making these risks both more frequent and more severe.

This bill is not only a preventive measure, but it also protects human life, as well as our planet and future generations.

This bill could also reduce our reliance on foreign data. Here in Canada, we currently have all the expertise we need to prevent natural disasters. However, our compartmentalized approach prevents us from being leaders in this field. We rely on data collected by NASA, which has been sending spotty data to some organizations since October 2025. We do not know when these services will resume, but we cannot rely on others when researchers at universities such as UQAM and the University of Saskatchewan are internationally recognized leaders in the field. Even so, they cannot do all the work. It is up to us to step up and work together on a national strategy.

In conclusion, this bill will enable effective coordination between the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples and experts. This is about creating a table where everyone can sit down and work together for the good of our country.

This is not just a piece of legislation. These are concrete, urgent and necessary measures, something that can mean the difference between life and death, between destruction and resilience.

That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Together, we can protect our constituents, our country and our planet. Together, we can build a safer, more responsible and more sustainable future.

Together, we can build a strong Canada.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, for her excellent speech and her excellent bill, which I am pleased to endorse.

This is a critical step in our efforts to protect Canadians from the risks posed by climate change. It is a major issue for my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, which has been affected by rising water levels in recent years, and it is a major issue for many other regions across the country.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague if she could explain why it is so important, at this time, to have the tools to forecast floods.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, climate change means that these phenomena are no longer rare occurrences. They are happening more and more often. There are droughts, and water levels are rising because glaciers are melting.

That is why it is extremely important that we create a national strategy that will enable experts and all levels of government to work together to protect our citizens across Canada.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question, and I would like to congratulate her on her election.

The current bill you are proposing does not amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is the enabling legislation of the Department of the Environment. However, it is the Department of the Environment that is responsible for the current weather forecasting services.

Why does the bill not amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Is there an issue with the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will remind the hon. member that he must ask questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his election.

The national strategy really aims to bring everyone to the table where decisions are being made. That will give us the opportunity to share expertise from across Canada, whether it be from Saskatchewan or Quebec. We want to enable all provinces to benefit from this expertise because if there is a problem on one side of Canada, it affects the environment and water, and it will eventually reach the rest of the country. We have a duty to act to protect all citizens.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on how a national strategy might be developed and what key components or structures she envisions for it.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are envisioning is a consultation process that includes experts, the various levels of government and indigenous peoples. This will allow us to benefit from the expertise of first nations and different governments, the technology available in some provinces, and the expertise currently found in Canadian universities.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Terrebonne for this bill, because I think it is remarkable.

In Montreal, particularly on the West Island or even in Rivière-des-Prairies, there has been flooding that affected people's lives and their peace of mind. The member has taken a unique approach to this problem, which affects everyone. She raised a very interesting aspect in her bill, namely research and novel technologies.

Can she elaborate on that? How can technology, including artificial intelligence and geomatics, and universities help us in connection with this bill?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we already have quantum computers and artificial intelligence working to help us in these areas. All we need now is to pool our resources so we can support Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to open by saying what an honour it is to be back where I started, on the environment file. I was the environment critic for the Liberal Party back in British Columbia as an MLA. Back in 2003, my main goal was to remediate the environmental damage done to my territory by industrial development. That led me down different pathways. It led me to aboriginal rights and title, for example. It led me to economics, permitting and environmental assessments.

Some may remember that in my territory, we had an aluminum smelter plant, a pulp and paper mill and a methanol plant. Back in the fifties, sixties and seventies, environmental standards were not a priority, not just in Kitimat but all across Canada, and maybe even North America for that matter. In understanding what environmental standards meant and what environmental assessments were, I found there was a logical way to address environmental impacts, both past and proposed. Quite honestly, I found myself very ignorant of how that tied into our society, Canadian society, and aboriginals living in our region.

This is where I first came across the term “balance”, and the standard of living versus environmental issues. It has been a very tough battle over the years to try to maintain that balance, especially when we consider that first nations, for the last 100 or 150 years, have been excluded not only from the economy but, to a large extent, from the society of Canada. It has been a very long journey to try to rectify those two provisions of the Indian Act. Today is a 180° turnaround in the environmental considerations we are talking about versus what we were doing 20 or 40 years ago.

I heard my colleague from the government side talk about what Bill C-241 is not. It would not be an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction, for example, and it would not negatively affect aboriginal rights and title. Consultation would be carried out. First nations and Canadians have heard this before. It would not be right to not address this directly.

Like a lot of MPs in the chamber, I have gotten a lot of emails from and had a lot of Zoom calls and meetings with first nations that are specifically worried about Bill C-5, for example, and how it is going to be rushed through for major projects and ignore the case law that was established in the courts of B.C. and Canada, specifically the Haida court case of 2004. I just got off a call with the Ontario chiefs, who talked a lot about the chemical valley and Sarnia. They are clear that they do not want to oppose development, but they do not want the past to be repeated and they get ignored.

They feel that talks with the commercial sector were going fine until Bill C-5 was enacted, and now they are feeling ignored. They feel they are being ignored because there seems to be a way to get to the finish line without talking to these chiefs about their treaty rights and title or their aboriginal rights and titles, which are two distinctly different topics.

In terms of environmental issues, the point I would like to make is that this is not new for first nations. For many first nations, we have to address environmental issues first. I know we are talking about forecasting for floods and disasters, mainly for better insurance purposes. I have talked to different people about what this could mean. Everybody agrees that it is a good idea to do this, but it is a duplication.

Is the private sector already doing this, especially in terms of insurance for flood protection or farming? Can we do better? Yes, we can do better, and I sincerely hope we are going to do better, but it cannot be a top-down approach. It has to be inclusive. There are many people and organizations that are affected by these disasters, as my colleague pointed out. We are talking about indigenous people. We are talking about people who live close to rivers. We are talking about farmers.

Nobody is immune from environmental disasters, so I think what Canadians want is to ask whether this is going to be an open and transparent process, in terms of getting Canadians' interests into the bill and making sure it not only does what it says it is going to do, but that there is no government overreach, such as what we have seen in other measures carried out by the government. Is it going to be rolled out in a way that does not provide more cost to the Canadian taxpayer?

Most Canadian taxpayers are already limited out. They cannot afford any more taxes. We talk about the affordability issue in this chamber every day. We are talking about how mothers and dads cannot afford groceries. Even if someone works in a grocery store, they cannot afford groceries. As Conservatives, it is our strong belief that this can be done within existing entities using existing resources and that the government could do it more efficiently without adding more cost to the taxpayer and without increasing the affordability crisis we are facing right now.

More taxation is not the answer. I have listened to the answers and the questions coming out of this chamber regarding Bill C-241, and it has always been pointed out that we already have some of the strongest environmental standards in Canada, if not in North America, both provincially and federally. It seems to make sense that with this high level of expertise Canadians have, we should be able, with existing resources, to do a better job of predicting floods and droughts and to prepare not only our entities to actually combat this and deal with it, but also regular Canadians.

I agree that the impacts are stressful for Canadians, both mentally and with the cost attached to them. Anything we can do to actually limit that suffering is a good thing, as long as there is no overreach and as long as there is no extra taxation.

I have also heard the idea that somehow this would not encroach on provincial jurisdiction. I go back again to Bill C-5, which talked about how we would build major projects in a fast-tracked fashion, and they would be fast-tracked within two years. It was in the constitutional authority Canada has to actually get this done in the national interest, and everybody, to a certain degree, agreed. However, the very next day the government came around and said it would not do something without national consensus, without defining what “consensus” meant. They did not talk about whether they meant provincial or municipal. They did not talk about regional districts. They did not talk about any of that.

We always get mixed messaging with all the measures that come out of the government, and all the Conservatives want to make sure of is that we do this in a very common-sense fashion with fiscal responsibility and practical solutions, because Conservatives' goal is simple: We want to protect Canadians, strengthen our economy and preserve the natural beauty of this country for generations to come.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now, the St. Lawrence River is at its lowest level ever. The drought currently affecting Quebec is impacting ecosystems, the local economy, maritime trade, and agriculture. Towns are bringing in drinking water from different locations. There are drought issues. We saw the forest fires in Canada; this year was the second-most devastating year for forest fires after 2023. We had catastrophic flooding after the tail end of hurricane Debby passed through. This all comes at a cost to families, to groceries and to insurance.

Unfortunately, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Liberal government is not being serious about the climate crisis that is making these phenomena more intense, more frequent and more severe and causing more suffering and higher costs.

When it comes to climate action, the Liberals have taken a number of steps backward since they came to power after the last election. I could list at least a dozen examples, starting with the elimination of consumer carbon pricing and the EV incentives, which they were supposed to reinstate but did not. People are no longer buying electric vehicles because they are waiting for those incentives to come back. There was the suspension of the strategy for the sale of zero-emission vehicles.

There is also the passage of Bill C‑5, which literally allows environmental legislation to be disregarded and completely blown off, in addition to providing for the approval of LNG Canada phase 2. This is going to double LNG exports.

The same goes for public transit. There is currently no agreement with Quebec for the Canada public transit fund. The government has spent $5.7 billion, but there is not even an agreement with Quebec.

We now see that the Liberals are even refusing to commit to meeting the country's GHG reduction targets. This is a major step backward, and it is worrisome. I could go on. If the Liberal government really wants to prevent floods, droughts and runaway climate change, it should cut GHG emissions. That is the priority.

Unfortunately, the government can announce a whole range of adaptation measures, but if it keeps moving backward the way it has been doing, it will never be able to adapt as much as it needs to. The government has gone backward for long enough. Now is the time for it to shift out of neutral and get in gear. We are talking about a climate crisis. The government talks about flooding, but then it buries its head in the sand about the need to reduce GHG emissions and refuses to do more than just talk about adaptation.

At present, if we want to protect the economy, we know very well that this requires drastic GHG emission reduction measures, and that is not what is being presented to us today. When I look at the purpose of this bill, it is to improve drought and flood forecasting.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois agrees that we need to do more to adapt to climate change. We have been saying for several years now that information must be more readily available and that the communities affected by the droughts and flooding we were talking about need more predictability. However, is a bill that establishes yet another strategy with no budgetary impact really necessary? That is what we are currently having trouble determining with this bill, so we have doubts about its real scope.

Is this a legislative firework? Is it just meant to draw people's attention away from bad news on the climate front? We hope that is not the case.

Let me elaborate a little on my concerns. The bill proposes to create “a cooperative, national hydrological and water resources forecasting service and system”. Why is this bill necessary if it does not amend the existing framework legislation, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? That is the enabling legislation of Environment Canada, which takes care of weather forecasting.

Is there currently a problem with the law regarding hydrological and weather forecasting that prevents the government from properly fulfilling its responsibilities or from improving the quality of its activities? That is our question. Where is the problem right now? Why could these proposed services not be provided directly by Environment Canada's existing weather services? Why do we need to create a new government body and a new general bureaucracy? That is a big question mark for us.

Environment Canada's Meteorological Service of Canada can get information from Quebec's environment ministry, which already oversees Quebec's regime governing bodies of water. Quebec's environment ministry already gathers data. It processes, analyzes and disseminates that data. It measures water levels and flows. Some 230 hydrometric stations are scattered across Quebec. This data enables the Government of Quebec to develop simulation models and forecast flows in certain waterways, snow melt and runoff. Quebec has been doing this for years. It is used to it. These activities obviously also provide the hydrological and hydraulic expertise required for proper water management. There is a lot of data on the ministry's website, including water levels, flows, flood zones and hydroclimatic forecasts. The Government of Quebec has the expertise necessary to protect the public from floods and droughts.

It appears to us that Environment Canada already has the authority to establish partnerships, both internationally and domestically, if the objective is to improve the services and practices of the Meteorological Service of Canada. This bill assumes that there is a need for coordination between the governments of the different provinces. However, it is not clear to us that this need is real. It is even less clear that it should be up to the federal government to oversee coordination between the provinces. They can establish relationships among themselves without the need for Ottawa's intervention.

Why does this bill imply that the Meteorological Service of Canada would not be able to perform the duties referred to in the current strategy outlined in the bill? I must admit that this confuses me. If the government is truly concerned about the issue of floods and droughts, why are these revelations not included directly in the budget? Why is there a bill presenting a strategy when we do not even know if we need a bill to have this strategy?

One thing is certain, however. The cost of inaction has skyrocketed in the meantime. Just look at the consequences of climate change. We commissioned a study on the topic. Over the past 10 years, insured disasters have cost an average of $2.5 billion per year. Last year was a record year, with $8.5 billion in insurable losses related to severe weather in Canada. The average amount paid out annually in claims for disasters in Quebec is $428 million, a number that will obviously continue to rise. We know that climate action costs much less than inaction, that every dollar invested in emissions reduction saves money, and that every dollar invested in adaptation saves $13 to $15 in avoided costs for damage. That is why adaptation is a priority for us.

Dealing with floods and droughts is a priority, but is it a priority to pass a bill and create a strategy that does not seem to require a bill to exist? That is why we are essentially also asking the government to set aside some money in the next budget. What makes adaptation so challenging is the need for money, the need for help for the provinces and municipalities. Municipalities in Quebec alone currently need $2 billion a year to adapt their infrastructure to climate change.

That is what we need, not a bill that leaves us feeling unconvinced. Obviously, we could stand to gain from being convinced. We always keep an open mind. However, for now, we have very specific demands. We included plenty of proposals in our election platform. Here are a few: Prepare people for the cost of climate change, increase the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, protect and help people with insurance too, increase funding to prevent shoreline erosion, and ensure that the federal government makes transfers to local governments, which are in the best position to manage the consequences of climate change.

When we look at all this, it does not seem as though the government is serious about climate change. We are very concerned that we are having a big debate to initiate something that we do not need, when the government could move forward quickly on its own. The Bloc Québécois is serious about this climate crisis and we are going to take the bill that is before us seriously.

That said, for the moment, the Bloc Québécois is confused. We have serious questions about the need for this bill.

We need to be convinced.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour and privilege to rise tonight in support of Bill C-241, otherwise known as the national strategy on flood and drought forecasting act.

Rapidly shifting weather patterns and the existential threat posed by climate change have made extreme weather events more common and more devastating than ever. According to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, in 2023 and 2024 alone, drought-induced wildfires claimed about 22.5 million hectares of land, which is just over one-third of all hectares burned in the past 20 years. Floods, meanwhile, caused roughly $800 million in insured damages annually between 2014 and 2023.

We know that catastrophic weather events are both a symptom of and a contributing factor to the climate crisis we all face. However, mitigating the impacts of extreme weather events is not just an environmental issue; it is also a fiscal issue. Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projected that spending on the disaster financial assistance arrangements will reach $1.8 billion annually between 2025 and 2034, making the next 10 years of disaster relief costlier than every single extreme weather event serviced by the DFAA since its founding in 1970.

This is not just a cost to government, either. In 2024, catastrophic weather events caused a record $8.5 billion in covered damages, squeezing insurers and everyday Canadians further during a cost of living crisis. GHD, a global engineering and architecture services firm, projects that the overall financial toll to Canada will reach at least $139 billion over the next 30 years. The cost of inaction is high and rising exponentially, making bold climate action the only fiscally responsible choice.

Further, it is a mental health imperative. On October 8, I put forward a motion in the House calling for a national strategy to address the mental health impacts of emergencies because the impacts of extreme weather events ripple far beyond the disaster itself. The trauma and grief that are often caused by losing homes, loved ones and a sense of security to extreme weather events cause and exacerbate mental health challenges for far too many Canadians.

It is also deeply important for reconciliation with indigenous peoples and justice for rural communities. Wildfire displacement disproportionately impacts first nations and indigenous communities, with indigenous people representing approximately 40% of all wildfire evacuees.

Earlier today, I spoke with Leah Main, a councillor in Silverton and a director of the Regional District of Central Kootenay. I would not say she is a city councillor, because her community is quite small. It is a town. She is here on FCM lobby days. She pointed out that despite rural communities being the places where climate mitigation is most necessary, they often do not have the capacity to adequately monitor or prepare for extreme weather events. We need to do better in supporting those small, rural communities.

As the federal NDP critic on emergency preparedness, I have been consistent in my support for proactive coordination across all levels of government to mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events. That is why I presented motions to establish a national fire administration for better coordination and a national aerial firefighting fleet as crucial measures to bring resources, information and true partnership to Canada's emergency preparedness systems. New Democrats have also championed the call for a youth climate corps to mobilize young Canadians looking for work toward renewable energy projects, emergency response efforts and more, to support climate mitigation and adaptation. We hope to see these priority investments for a climate-resilient Canada reflected in the upcoming federal budget.

As we advance the important work of climate change mitigation, Bill C-241 is a promising step in the right direction. Establishing a national strategy on flood and drought forecasting would have the potential to improve monitoring infrastructure in communities across Canada. If it is properly resourced and done in true partnership with provinces, territories, local communities and first nations and indigenous communities, better monitoring would support climate mitigation efforts, thereby saving lives, preventing devastation to local economies and tackling Canada's mental health emergency.

As far back as 2016, I have spoken in the House calling for a national flood strategy, so I appreciate the work done by the member for Terrebonne on this very important issue. I congratulate her for putting forward this private member's bill.

New Democrats will always stand up for working Canadians, rural communities and indigenous peoples. We will stay involved in the consultation and implementation process to ensure that those most impacted by extreme weather events are top of mind in the government's national flood and drought monitoring strategy.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Long Range Mountains and on behalf of Canadians across the country to speak to Bill C-241, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, our connection to water is part of our identity. In fact, we are one of only a few places in the world that has an island on an island on an island. We are literally surrounded by water. It shapes our history, our communities and our livelihoods. It is a part of who we are.

This bill would require the Minister of Environment to work with provinces, territories, indigenous governments, municipalities and industry partners to develop a coordinated national strategy for forecasting floods and droughts. Its purpose is to improve how Canada gathers and shares data to identify infrastructure at risk and strengthen our ability to anticipate and respond to extreme water events before they become disasters.

That is a goal every Canadian can understand. Whether they live beside the Fraser River, the Red, the Humber, or along the rugged coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, every Canadian knows what water can give and what it can take away. It connects us and sustains us. When it turns against us, it reminds us of how small we are against the power of nature. It also reminds us how strong we are when we face it together.

In Long Range Mountains, we have lived that truth many times. This past June, a severe rainstorm washed out major sections of road on the great northern peninsula, isolating multiple coastal communities. People found themselves cut off from emergency services, food and work simply because every road in and out was underwater or damaged. When the road is gone, so is the ability to move, and families are left waiting and worrying.

We also remember the devastation caused by hurricane Fiona in Port aux Basques in September 2022. Homes were torn away from their foundations and shorelines were carved away. We are still rebuilding today. Entire neighbourhoods were changed forever. That is how quickly water can reshape a community and the lives within it. Even before that, in November of 2021, storm after storm soaked western Newfoundland and Cape Breton, causing destructive flooding, damaged roads and infrastructure collapse. Every one of these events is a reminder that, whether there is too much water or too little, the results can be equally devastating.

This year, drought has been the challenge. Producers across Newfoundland and Labrador have endured one of the most difficult seasons in memory. Dairy, forage, fruit, vegetable, berry and honey producers have watched feed supplies vanish and transport costs soar. They are resilient, but they cannot do it alone.

Earlier this month, I wrote to the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture to support their members during this crisis. I pointed to the AgriRecovery program as proof that co-operation between federal and provincial governments works when disaster strikes. A strong forecasting strategy could help those same producers act sooner to protect crops, animals and livelihoods before the damage is done. Better information leads to faster action and smarter recovery. Information saves dollars and early warning signs saves lives.

That is why we will support Bill C-241 at second reading, so that it can move forward to committee. We agree in principle, but we will insist that this is done responsibly. This strategy must use existing departmental resources. Canadians cannot afford another bureaucracy. It has to be about coordination and efficiency, not expansion.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I have seen how effective policy depends on fiscal discipline and respect for jurisdiction. Conservatives believe that protecting the environment and growing the economy can and must go hand in hand. At committee, we will press for guarantees that this strategy respects provincial and indigenous authority, builds on existing systems and delivers measurable results.

Floods and droughts may not stop at borders, but jurisdiction matters. The provinces and indigenous governments already manage their own water systems. Ottawa's role should be to coordinate and connect, not to control. Canadians do not need more taxes to change the weather. They need a government that helps them prepare for it.

Canada already leads the world in clean energy and responsible resource development. We should build on that success through partnership, not punishment.

A national forecasting strategy done well can give farmers, engineers and local officials access to reliable data before a crisis hits. When everyone has the same information, decisions are faster and communities are safer. Forecasting is not political; it is practical. By improving our ability to anticipate risk, we can prevent hardship, lower recovery costs and protect Canadians before disaster strikes.

We also believe that private insurance should be the first line of protection; taxpayers should not be footing the bill after every flood or drought. With accurate mapping and forecasting, insurers can assess risk fairly, homeowners can find affordable coverage, and public disaster funds can focus on the truly extraordinary events. That is fairness and fiscal responsibility working together.

Before entering public life, I spent years working in real estate, first in sales and later as a broker leading a team of agents across our communities. l spent countless hours looking at market data, helping my agents and clients understand the real costs of home ownership and the risks that come with it. l have seen first-hand how a single flood or storm can wipe out years of investment and how confusion over insurance or lack of affordable coverage leaves families exposed. That is why this issue matters to me, because protecting homes means protecting people's stability and their future.

The strategy must serve all of Canada, from large cities to rural, coastal and northern communities. When a road washes out on the Great Northern Peninsula or a drought forces farmers to import feed at enormous cost, the impact is equally real. Rural and agricultural voices must be part of the design.

Conservatives have long supported practical environmental stewardship. Since 2019, our party has called for co-operation with the provinces and territories to identify and protect key aquifers and improve water quality. Bill C-241 fits within that vision, provided it remains grounded in accountability and respect for jurisdiction.

Across Canada, from the farm fields of the Prairies to the coastal communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canadians share a deep respect for water. lt sustains our families, our farms and our communities. lt also reminds us that strong planning and strong partnerships are essential. We are learning that water can be unpredictable. Storms are stronger, droughts last longer and the costs continue to rise. That is why the legislation matters. lt gives us an opportunity to modernize how we prepare and respond, without adding more red tape or waste.

At the environment committee, Conservatives will focus on outcomes, not optics. We will push for measurable timelines, standardized data sharing, integration of indigenous water knowledge and transparent reporting to Parliament. We will hold the government accountable to ensure that the strategy delivers real results for Canadians.

Canadians understand the value of preparation. They know that good planning beats panic and that co-operation achieves more than division. We cannot control the storms, but we can control how ready we are when they come. That is what leadership looks like: practical, prepared and proud to protect Canadians.

Conservatives will support Bill C-241 at this stage because we believe in common-sense solutions that protect Canadians but also respect taxpayers. Let us build a strategy that does not grow government but grows Canada's capacity to face whatever tomorrow brings.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne for introducing this bill. This subject is very important to me.

As members know, I am the member for the riding of Mirabel. A large part of my riding borders the Lac des Deux Montagnes. Folks in my riding are very familiar with extreme weather events that have a devastating impact on our built heritage and people's lives.

As everyone knows, in 2019, extreme weather events caused the Lac des Deux Montagnes to flood 2,500 homes with more than 60 inches of water, or much more in some places. Six thousand people were displaced. Lawsuits are still going. The financial toll was in the millions or tens of millions of dollars.

Understandably, when I go to my constituents and talk to them about policies to fight climate change, to adapt to it and mitigate its effects, people do not ask for an empty national policy with no budget and no teeth that does not amend the environmental legislation. No one ever asks me for that.

This government is not taking action. It was doing a little bit to fight climate change, promote adaptation and provide assistance, but this government is losing more and more ground. This kind of national strategy looks a bit like greenwashing. The government says it wants everybody to sit down, plot together, think about this issue and write a report so people think we are taking action. Droughts are happening, and there are ways to deal with them. Our farmers experience this every day.

Here is an example. Why does the government never talk to us about the possibility of enhancing AgriRecovery? In the previous Parliament, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé hounded the Minister of Agriculture for months because of extreme weather events in Quebec. There were some in my riding. Farms were flooded in Saint‑Janvier. We are facing challenges, and we have had droughts this year. The program was designed to use Canada-wide criteria, and, because it was so convoluted, no action was taken.

The current government has no idea what it is doing in the fight against climate change because this government is interested in just one thing: winning as many seats as possible and going with the flow, no pun intended, going wherever the wind blows it. This government eliminated the carbon tax. Quebec still has its own system. The federal tax did not apply in Quebec, and it still does not apply. It may be detrimental to our trade relationships because, starting next year, Europe will start enforcing its carbon border adjustment policy. Quebeckers will foot the tax bill for Canadians once again.

Industrial carbon pricing is at risk. The government has backpedalled when it comes to energy retrofits and electric vehicles. However, it needs to take action. There are phases in the development of new technologies. The early phases are expensive, and more measures need to be adopted. However, the government is backpedalling on such measures. The government woke up one Monday morning and decided that it is over. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue gave his word to our car dealers that they would be reimbursed for any rebates already given to customers for the purchase of EVs. Then he presented the estimates, but the money was not in those estimates. We had to fight for it.

It is hard to believe that the Prime Minister was once a UN special climate envoy. There are days when I look at him here, in the House, and think how miscast he is. The Prime Minister wrote a book called Values: Building a Better World for All. He spent much of his life talking about important values, claiming that boosting the value of the stock market or the amount of money in our pockets was not all that mattered in life. He said that we needed to stand together and care for the most vulnerable among us, who usually bear the brunt of climate events, as has been shown.

Once he came to power, however, he tossed out all the principles he supposedly held most dear and announced that what we urgently need is pipelines. He told us we need as much gas as possible, as fast as possible. How did he go from an economist known for his ambitious stance on fighting climate change to someone pitching oil today?

As members know, public life has its risks. When someone becomes prime minister or a candidate for party leader, people start to get interested in that person's financial affairs. People found out that the green funds, the environmental funds that the Prime Minister was investing in, were more brown than green. There was some greenwashing going on. Apparently the Prime Minister had an innate talent for greenwashing, as demonstrated by this bill.

We are being told that people are facing flooding, that they are facing droughts, that there is 60 inches of water in their homes, and that people are losing all their childhood mementoes. However, this bill essentially tells us that what these people need is a federal website to give them the weather forecast. People can tell when it is raining.

That is not what people need. They need resources.

There is going to be a budget. The government is jeering at us during question period, saying that we are not going to vote in favour of the budget and that we are going to trigger an election. The Bloc only has 22 members in the House. All we have done is present clear, costed demands. We made six demands.

Quebec's share is one-third of a percentage point of GDP. For the skilled mathematicians across the way, the Einsteins over there, it is one-third of a percentage point of GDP. How much less could we ask for? That is still too much. However, we are asking for that to include investments in infrastructure, resilient infrastructure.

The members for Vimy and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel on the island of Montreal know that there are challenges related to resilient infrastructure, given the new rainfall levels and the large variations currently being recorded by precipitation gauges.

There are municipal elections coming up, and the Union des municipalités du Québec, or UMQ, and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités are asking for a transfer to Quebec so that that money can be redistributed. Everyone knows that building sewers does not win elections. However, we know that there are significant infrastructure needs. That is one of our budget requests.

The Liberals are introducing a bill with no budgetary impact and no royal recommendation. Those who were asking for infrastructure will not get any money for that because of the passage of Bill C‑5, so they will just get the weather forecast instead. After passing Bill C-5 under a gag order with the help of the Conservatives, the Liberals were in too much of a hurry to build a pipeline.

What can I say? I cannot say that we are going to vote for this.

There comes a point when we have to wonder why this bill does not amend any section of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We even have to wonder whether it should be sent to committee. What could the committee do with it? Under parliamentary rules, the committee cannot change anything other than the sections of the act that are amended by the bill itself. However, this bill does not change anything. What can the committee do? Should the committee members sit around and twiddle their thumbs?

The member for Terrebonne has not done her job properly. Maybe she did not have enough time. Maybe she was busy doing something else. She is not even giving us the chance to put this bill through a modicum of parliamentary debate. Meanwhile, the budget is right around the corner.

For a long time now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for an $875‑million increase in the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. That would be a concrete measure that would have a meaningful impact on people's lives.

Do members know that this would cost less than one German submarine, and far less than four? This is one thing we are asking for.

They are asking for a co-insurance program. Insurers are coming to see us. I understand that houses will no longer be built in flood zones, but houses have already been built in certain areas. They will not be demolished, but there needs to be some sort of help to reassure these people, who are generally low-income earners. They do not have an answer to that. They are asking for $500 million for riverbank erosion, and that can be spread out over a few years.

However, here we have a bill that says the federal government will write a report and suggest, in a nicely put together strategy that no one will read, to do what Quebec is already doing. Quebec's environment ministry already has a system that does all that.

In all sincerity, it will be difficult for the Bloc Québécois to support this bill.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this evening we are discussing the jobs crisis facing Canadian young people. Conservatives have been sounding the alarm about this jobs crisis ever since the last election and, in fact, in many ways before that.

The crisis has continued to get worse. Over the last three years since we came out of the pandemic, unemployment numbers have continued to go up, especially for young people, so it is not just something that has happened in recent months, but something that has continued to get worse in recent months. This is now, I think we can say, a metastasizing crisis that affects not only the present but the future, as young people miss out on the critical skills and points of development that come with those first jobs.

Right now, we are approaching half a million unemployed young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Over 460,000 are currently unemployed, and we are getting closer and closer to 15% unemployment for young people. This is a serious problem. It responds to clear policy failures from the government, failures on the economy, immigration, training and a number of other areas.

We have been hearing about how the cost of living crisis, the price of groceries and the price of housing are contributing to unemployment, because it makes it harder and harder for employers to be able to afford a living wage when what is required to live in Canada is much more than it used to be because of the increase in the cost of things.

In response to these events, Conservatives have put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan, which highlights our response, what we are constructively proposing to the government and suggesting it implement as part of the upcoming budget. Our proposal is to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. This is a plan with detailed policy behind it that we have put to the government and encouraged it, again, in the constructive spirit Canadians expect of us, to implement.

Unfortunately, we have not seen any jobs plan from the government. In fact, it has taken to denigrating our constructive proposals rather than seriously engaging with them. This is unfortunate. We have presented these ideas in a constructive spirit, and the government is denigrating our ideas and failing to present any proposals of its own. The best it can do is point to programs that have existed in this country since the 1990s as if they are something new. It talks about the continuation of programs that have existed since the 1990s that are clearly not meeting the present moment in terms of the metastasizing youth jobs crisis.

Then, we have had announcements to replicate existing programs: for instance, on top of the existing credential recognition fund, to create another, separate credential recognition fund without really contending with the fact that the government's existing programs are not working to meet the crisis we have.

I think Canadians are very disappointed by the performance of the government on this file. They would have liked to see the government come constructively to engage with the ideas we put forward as an opposition. We have put forward a detailed Conservative youth jobs plan that is about unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are, and on each of those points we have articulated a policy.

I hope we will see the government stop denigrating good ideas and recognize how its policies have contributed to the problems we face right now. Instead, I hope it will listen to our ideas in a constructive spirit and consider implementing some of them as part of a plan that it can put forward in the budget, building on what we have proposed. Will the government do that?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that students need jobs to pay for their education and to gain vital experience and skills. Young Canadians are the workforce of the future. Anything we invest in them today will reap rewards for Canada in the years ahead.

We are investing in them. Take the student work placement program, for example. In budget 2024, the Government of Canada proposed $207.6 million for the program to create 40,000 work-integrated learning opportunities for college and university students: 40,000 is almost like a full Blue Jays' home baseball game. It is a packed stadium of students, all gaining valuable work experience. This is the scale we are talking about.

When given the opportunity to learn on the job, particularly in their field of study, post-secondary students can acquire professional skills, build their resumés and make connections that will help them get high-quality jobs after graduation. These opportunities also help them to adapt. They acquire new skills that will be useful as the job market evolves.

When we say skills, we are talking about communication, creative thinking and negotiation skills, which are best developed through practical work experience.

Since it launched in 2017, the program has created over 300,000 opportunities for post-secondary students across Canada. These opportunities span several fields of study, and 45% of them have gone to students from under-represented groups.

The youth employment and skills strategy, YESS, is another way we are investing in young Canadians. YESS is a Government of Canada initiative that delivers 16 programs through a network of 12 federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations. The strategy is designed to support diverse youth aged 15 to 30 to become job-ready through work experience, training, skills development and wraparound supports that allow them to successfully transition into diverse sectors of the labour market.

Employment and Social Development Canada is the lead department for YESS and delivers two programs: the YESS program and the Canada summer jobs program. In July 2024, the government announced $370 million for ESDC's YESS program to support over 200 projects, most of which are now under way, and in February of this year, we announced an additional $23 million that will fund over 35 new projects. This brings the total investments in ESDC's YESS program to over $393 million for 2024-28. That means we are on track to help more than 26,000 young people overcome job barriers and secure meaningful, lasting jobs.

The Canada summer jobs program is another example of how much we are investing in young Canadians. I do not have much time left to go into the details, but the CSJ supports are meaningful to thousands of youth during the summer.

There is no doubt that we are supporting youth at every stage of their journey toward a brighter future and a stronger Canadian economy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, very respectfully to my hon. friend, I will say that we need to measure the performance of the government by the results. The appeal of the parliamentary secretary, ministers and others is to say we should look at all the things they are trying to do, but I think the government will be judged by the results in the aggregate.

Here is the reality: After the government has blocked natural resource projects, denigrated the natural resource sector, made a mess of our immigration system and failed to align skills training in the main with the needs of our economy, we are now in a situation where there are close to half a million unemployed young people. I am sure of the personal sincerity of the parliamentary secretary, but despite best efforts, unemployment numbers have continued to go up.

At what point do we recognize that it is just not working and that we need new policies to fix the problem?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are investing in young people.

We are investing in young people through the student work placement program, the youth employment and skills strategy and the Canada summer jobs.

The labour market today looks very different for young people than it did for past generations. New and emerging technologies, a rise in gig work, an aging workforce and globalization are profoundly changing the labour market and how the jobs of the future will look. Programs like the ones I just mentioned help young Canadians face those challenges. These programs are smart investments in our economy and in the next generation of leaders, because when young people get a strong start, all of Canada benefits.

Northern Affairs

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a matter I raised on October 8. It is an unusual question I want to pursue tonight because it is not a “gotcha” moment. It is not about how I wish the government had done this but failed to.

I was very impressed and, I must say, inspired by a piece written in The Globe and Mail on October 3 by a Canadian professor, Franklyn Griffiths, who is an expert on Arctic affairs, among other things. For a long time, I have been concerned about how we establish our sovereignty in this current climate and with particular people who live in the White House. We know there have been claims that Canada should be a 51st state. Our sovereignty is important to us. One of the places where our sovereignty can be seen as vulnerable is in our claim to the Northwest Passage. Of course, it is the storied Northwest Passage of Stan Rogers. It is the storied Northwest Passage of Canadian imagination. However, it rests on the fragile legal claim that it is the internal waters of Canada.

What Professor Franklyn Griffiths raised, and I asked this question at the time of the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs, was this: If we were to see the U.S. president launch a naval vessel through the Northwest Passage from the United States, how would we assert our claim of sovereignty? I asked whether the Prime Minister might not think that it was a good idea to follow the line of argument that Professor Griffiths advances, which is that we have a much stronger claim to Arctic sovereignty by virtue of the fact that, through the negotiations of Nunavut, through the conveyance of vast territories of our Arctic and through the Inuit people to Canada in the claim of Nunavut, our legal status is much stronger in recognizing that indigenous sovereignty is Canadian sovereignty. That is a lock on Canadian sovereignty.

Obviously, we need to invest more in our Arctic. We need to invest more in the infrastructure of ports. We have to deal with the fact that, due to the climate crisis, winter ice roads are disappearing. Recent articles have appeared in the Nunavut press about the need for roads and airstrips, which are disappearing or at least very bumpy because of permafrost melt. In terms of the investment in the Arctic, and the hon. member for Nunavut here in this place speaks so eloquently to this issue frequently, we need to pay attention to our north.

The argument advanced by Professor Griffiths would be a very good place for our federal cabinet to spend some time, think about it, mull it around. We can imagine for a moment that the leader of the ITK, Natan Obed, who is an extraordinary leader, was engaged more fully in the decisions that are made by Canada about how we protect our sovereignty. We can imagine actually investing in fighting the climate crisis so that the permafrost of the north stays frozen. We can imagine for a moment that we decide that we want to invest more in the Arctic Council, the only multilateral body to which Canada belongs and probably the only multilateral body in the world with a permanent seat for the Inuit peoples and the Inuit Circumpolar Council.

In pursuing this tonight, and I am very grateful that a parliamentary secretary is here to take this up with me, I ask this: Why can we not do more to assert Arctic sovereignty through solidarity with the Inuit peoples?