Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-241, which seeks to create a new federal structure to improve flood and drought forecasting.
We all share the same goal, namely, to better anticipate climate events that are becoming more frequent, more severe and more costly. However, the proposed solution is not the right one. A careful reading of this bill reveals one thing that really stands out. It does not grant any new powers, impose any obligations on the government or provide any real resources. Bill C-241 does not solve any concrete problems. Above all, it fails to address federal inaction.
The Meteorological Service of Canada already has the mandate needed to produce forecasts, warnings and hydrometeorological models. Environment and Climate Change Canada already has all the tools it needs within its own legislation to modernize its capabilities, collaborate with Quebec and the provinces and support existing systems. If these tools are insufficient, the government should have started by amending the law and strengthening what already exists. However, Bill C-241 does not change anything. A system cannot be improved by simply announcing a new structure on paper.
The bill talks about supercomputers, sophisticated models and a national co-operative service. However, the most basic questions remain unanswered. Who decides? Who runs things, and with what money? There are no specific directions, scientific responsibilities or clear mechanisms for coordination in the text. In an emergency, ambiguity is dangerous.
When a river overflows or the ocean breaks through dikes, the last thing our municipalities need is an additional and duplicate structure. Clarity saves lives. Duplication creates confusion. Creating a new federal structure means creating positions, offices and procedures. Meanwhile, municipalities have been waiting a long time to receive the support that was announced. Back home in the Lower St. Lawrence, people know this. While the paperwork makes its way from one department to the next, the waves wait for no one.
In the meantime, Quebec has made progress. We have world-class scientific expertise tailored to our land and waterways. One example is CEQUEAU, a hydrologic model developed by the Institut national de recherche scientifique that simulates the flow of water in rivers and watersheds and is used to predict floods. There is also Ouranos, a Quebec consortium known for the accuracy of its regional climate models. Another example that I am very proud of is the Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski, in my riding, which models coastal storms, erosion, ice and the unique characteristics of the St. Lawrence River. These are not abstract concepts; they are tools that protect real communities.
People in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, have not forgotten the high tides of December 2010. That evening, waves several metres high struck Sainte-Flavie and Sainte-Luce with tremendous force. Some homes were damaged, some shifted. The main road was swept away by the sea, and the coastline receded in a single night. It was not a trivial matter for us. It was a clear sign of what climate change would bring to our region.
Since then, experts have confirmed it. Rising sea levels, the disappearance of the ice that once protected our coasts and more intense storms are accelerating erosion in eastern Quebec. What used to happen once in a generation is now happening much more often. Our coastal municipalities have been fighting for too long, practically alone. They do not need a new office in Ottawa. They need a reliable, involved and consistent partner.
Quebec, for its part, has adopted a modern legal framework with its Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, as well as its Act respecting the conservation of wetlands and bodies of water. Quebec plans its interventions at the watershed level, as recommended by international best practices, and it already shares its hydrological data with its partners, which would be a good thing at the federal level as well.
We must also remember a simple constitutional truth: Waterway management, land use planning and emergency preparedness fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Canada is made up of many nations. To suppose that a single centralized model can serve such disparate realities is to ignore the fact that the risks, territories and jurisdictions are diverse.
Let us not forget the St. Lawrence River, a living and complex river that calls for detailed, local, place-based expertise. The government is grappling with soaring climate costs, but it is doing nothing to curtail the causes of climate change. Over the past 10 years, natural disasters have cost the country more than $2.5 billion a year. In Quebec, compensation increases year after year, and insurance premiums rise accordingly. In many cases, less fortunate households are located in the most vulnerable areas. Adaptation is not just an infrastructure issue; it is also a social justice issue. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, farmers' soils are drying out, their crops are less robust and their costs are going up. Hydrological forecasting is not a luxury; it is crucial to food security.
There is a fundamental disconnect here. The government is proposing a new structure for predicting climate disasters while it continues to support oil and gas projects that make climate change worse. Improving our ability to predict storms while funding what makes them more violent makes no sense.
That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing concrete measures: enhance the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, provide more support to fight shoreline erosion, and implement a co-insurance program to protect households located in the most at-risk areas. These are not mere suggestions. These are realistic, workable solutions that people want to see.
Bill C‑241 does not build any real capacity. It does not address any weaknesses within the Meteorological Service of Canada. It does not respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. It does not help municipalities, which are already dealing with the climate crisis every day.
The climate emergency requires political courage, not imaginary structures. It requires results, not intentions. Quebec does not need a new federal structure. It needs the federal government to finally do its part. What is missing today is not a national strategy. What is missing is the will to act.