Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have made a decision, and that decision is to filibuster whenever they can, in order to not allow legislation to proceed, whether it is the budget implementation bill or the bail reform legislation. I find it unfortunate.

If the issue for the Conservatives is nothing but being able to have more debate time, then let me make a suggestion. I have no problem whatsoever working until midnight for the constituents of Winnipeg North. Liberal members of Parliament are prepared to work. This budget is a reflection of the interests of Canadians. It is part of building Canada strong and making Canada the strongest nation in the G7. We are prepared to work.

Would the member not agree with me and say that the Conservatives are prepared to work until midnight so we can facilitate more debate, whether it is on Bill C-15 or on bail reform legislation? Will he take me up on that?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny to hear my colleague say that he wants to spend more time here. I think he has spent more time here than anyone else in the history of humanity.

This budget is unacceptable. I was emphasizing that we need to invest more in Canadians' health, invest more in prevention. I am not using the term “invest” in the sense of spending. I am saying that we need to invest more attention in these areas.

When I look at the expenditures made by my colleague and his government, I see $19.2 million for inclusive agri-food systems in Nigeria, $29 million invested in South Korea, $123 million invested in China, $10 million invested in inclusive and sensitive climate change adaptation in Ghana.

Is that their idea of investing properly in Canadians? To me, that is nothing but throwing money out the window. It should go somewhere else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech. What he forgot to mention is that, when it came time to vote on the budget, the Conservatives wanted to avoid an election so badly that they hid some members, including their House leader, behind the curtains.

On voting day, they were hiding behind the curtains and in the washrooms to abstain from voting and ensure that the budget passed. It was when they realized that the NDP and the Green Party had caved that they came out to vote. All 22 of the Bloc Québécois members voted against it.

I want my colleague to answer the following question. If the budget is so horrible, what was his House leader doing hiding in the washrooms on voting day?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see my Bloc friends say such things. In fact, they voted against the budget, saying it was a spendthrift budget, and the next day in the House, they asked the government to invest money in a private company in Quebec.

One day, they say that it is terrible to spend so much. The next day, they say that the government is not spending enough on their colleagues at TVA, whom they love so much, and that the government should give them money. That is exactly the problem with the Bloc Québécois. There is always a double standard, and that is what we keep seeing time and time again.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's speech was great. I know he is a great representative for his constituents and his riding. I also know he was a business owner involved in the health industry, and I know he knows that in a business, one cannot spend more than one makes. We all know what the long-term results of that are.

Can the member expand on what it means to his constituents when the government spends more than it has?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I like comparisons. In the private sector, companies may sometimes run deficits because they are investing in the future and engaging in development activities. However, nobody in the private sector loses money every year for 10, 11, 12 or 15 years and pats themselves on the back for it.

Never getting back to balance and accountability is a major mistake. This is people's money the government is spending. That money belongs to hard-working people.

As I mentioned earlier, 98% of Canadian businesses are SMEs. In Quebec, it is 99%. These people work hard every day, pay their taxes and struggle to make ends meet while the Liberals spend their money recklessly. It is disrespectful, and it is certainly not the way the public expects the government to manage things.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the citizens of Saskatoon West, the greatest riding in all of Canada, I have to say. I know there are other members who may not quite agree with me, especially the one sitting beside me, but I am very proud to represent Saskatoon as a whole and Saskatoon West specifically.

We are talking about the budget today, and I have to say that the budget implementation act is a very large document. It is an omnibus bill of 600-plus pages, with all kinds of things in it. I can say right off the start that I will not be supporting the budget.

It is not that there are not a few good things in the budget. There is a small tax cut, and that is always good, but as the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, it will amount to about $280 a year for the average family in Canada. That is great, and I would never deny that to somebody in Canada, but honestly it is not a generational, massive, amazing, incredible thing. It is just a very small amount, but every little bit helps. The budget also has the largest deficit we have had outside COVID, $78 billion, while there is a cost of living crisis in Saskatoon and right across this country that is very real.

First I want to talk about debt. This is a very serious problem in our country. The amount of debt being racked up is really unconscionable. I think some Canadians, in the last election, thought they were getting a good money manager, a banker, somebody who really knew how to handle money. Remember that a banker's main job is to make money, and by that I mean physically print money. They actually make money. They want money to be loaned and flowing, and I think that is exactly what we are getting from the Prime Minister right now.

Let us look at the numbers. The deficit from the previous prime minister, Trudeau, which we all thought was crazy big, was $36 billion. That was a huge number, especially compared to previous deficits, at least in normal times. Of course during COVID it was a bit different. Everybody talks about Stephen Harper's having to run some small deficits. He got panned for a $10-billion deficit. We are talking $36 billion. The new Prime Minister has no problem doubling that to $78 billion.

The deficit is massive. Yes, it is going to come down a bit over the five-year period that is in the budget that was presented, but it will come down to $57 billion, which is still significantly higher than the $36 billion, which in turn is significantly higher than any numbers we have ever had before.

If we add all that up over the six-year time horizon that is in the budget document, it is $360 billion of deficits over just six years. If we look at the interest payments on that, we see that right now they are at about $53 billion a year. It climbs up to $76 billion five years from now. If we add that up, it is $382 billion in six years, just in interest. That is money thrown away, given to bankers. It is the same amount of money that we spend on health care and the same amount of money that all of us pay in GST. Whenever we buy something, we can think of the 5% GST that we pay going specifically to pay the interest on our debt. It is terrible.

Speaking of the debt, in 2015, the total debt of the country was $600 billion, and by that I mean it took literally 150 years, the entire length of our confederation, to grow that debt to $600 billion. By the end of the time horizon five years from now, it will be at $1.6 trillion; it will have gone from $0.6 trillion to $1.6 trillion. That will be $1 trillion of debt added by the government if it continues for the five-year period. That is totally unbelievable and unconscionable.

I want to talk a little about housing prices, because they have gone way up. They have climbed and are very expensive. Even in Saskatoon, where housing is not as expensive as in Toronto or Vancouver, rent has gone up about 25% over the last five years. Instead of paying $1,000, people are paying $1,200 or $1,300. It is really crazy. At the same time, over the same period in the last three years, median incomes in Saskatoon have dropped, actually gone down, so while rent is going up, incomes are dropping, making it very difficult for people to make ends meet. With a 25% rent increase versus a 9% wage increase over a five-year period, it is very difficult. No one can buy clothes or groceries.

Speaking of groceries, food inflation is running extremely high right now: 34% over five years. Food banks in Saskatchewan are now serving 55,000 people per month. In Saskatoon, 23,000 people use the food bank every month, which is up from roughly 17,000 per month in 2019. That is an increase of about 35% in five years.

Christmas dinner is going to be more expensive for everyone right now. If we think about what makes a great time at Christmas, it is getting together with family and friends and eating turkey, stuffing, potatoes, carrots, ham, Brussels sprouts, pumpkin pie, perogies, sausages and all the wonderful things that really make that time a lot of fun. Brussels sprouts can't be right; scratch that.

I will quickly go through a list of increases we see right now. Beef ribs are up 114%; beef strip loin is up 74%; beef top sirloin is up 62%; chicken breast is up 52%; a dozen eggs is up 54%; my wife's favourite, coffee, is up 76%; olive oil is up 120%; margarine is up 67%; cheddar cheese is up 59%; butter is up 57%; pasta is up 50%; and baby formula is up 71%. Baby formula is now almost always the most-stolen item in stores, because young moms and dads cannot afford to buy it. This is causing hardship for everyone. Parents should not be stressed about buying food for their kids.

I cannot support the budget. Canadians need real solutions to handle the cost of living crisis they are seeing right now. They cannot afford the government and the moves it is making. We need to actually do things to increase the wages of our people. We need to have meaningful projects that actually create jobs and increase the wages and earnings of our people so Canadians can afford to feed themselves, clothe themselves, buy housing and live the way they are intended to.

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion 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.

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-241, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, put forward by the MP for Terrebonne.

As always, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of La Prairie—Atateken.

Bill C-241 proposes the development of a national strategy to ensure that partners and stakeholders have access to the information they need to forecast floods and droughts.

Canadians are on the front lines of climate change. They are increasingly experiencing its devastating impacts in the form of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, wildfires, heavy rainfall, floods and powerful storms from coast to coast to coast. Flooding is the most common and costly disaster in Canada. In the past decade, floods cost nearly $800 million per year on average in insured losses. Similarly, droughts affect the economic viability of water-dependent sectors such as agriculture and lead to increased risk of destructive, costly wildfires.

Across Canada, 2025 was a significant drought year, with dry conditions deepening and spreading across much of the country. The lack of rainfall and the intense heat helped drive one of Canada's worst wildfire seasons on record, especially in the Prairies and British Columbia. In Manitoba and other provinces, farmers faced parched fields and stressed crops, as prolonged dryness threatened yields and strained water supplies. As the bill states, damages caused by flood and drought have risen in Canada and are expected to rise further due to extreme weather and water events related to climate change.

Access to comprehensive, high-quality data and information is essential to support water quantity forecasting, particularly as more and more Canadians are exposed to extreme weather and water events. A national strategy on drought and flood forecasting would ensure that Canadians can better respond to severe weather events and reduce the impact of climate change by accessing information required to make, in some cases, life-saving decisions.

The Government of Canada is already carrying out key activities in relation to flood and drought forecasting. For example, National Hydrological Services, under Environment and Climate Change's Meteorological Service of Canada, is the federal authority responsible for the collection, interpretation and dissemination of standardized water quantity data and information in Canada. The service administers a national hydrometric program by way of a collaborative cost-sharing partnership with provinces and territories.

Through this partnership, National Hydrological Services operates 2,300 water quantity monitoring stations on lakes and rivers across Canada. This represents 77% of the national program, with the remainder being operated by provincial and territorial partners. The data provided by this network of monitoring stations is made publicly available on the web in near real time. This provides an integrated view of surface water in Canada to all governments, as well as the academic and scientific communities, industry and the Canadian public, to support flood and drought forecasting, water management and emergency response across the country.

These hydrometric data, along with weather and other environmental data and analysis products generated using Environment and Climate Change weather and environmental modelling and high-performance computing systems, are essential to provincial and territorial forecasting programs. The data are also used to feed hydrologic prediction models that generate water quantity information and flow predictions products. These are shared with provincial and territorial governments to support them in their responsibilities related to hydrologic forecasting, transboundary water-sharing agreements and water regulation planning.

In budget 2025, the government proposes to invest $2.7 billion over nine years to modernize the Meteorological Service of Canada's high-performance computing capacity. This system runs the model required to produce accurate weather forecasts, alerts, warnings and climate projections, as well as the Meteorological Service's environmental data reanalyses and hydrologic prediction models.

Timely and accurate weather prediction is essential to key sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, transport and marine shipping, and helps Canadians make decisions to protect against adverse impacts of extreme weather, such as flooding. While flood forecasting and warnings are the responsibility of provinces and territories, Environment and Climate Change Canada works daily with provinces and territories to provide integrated briefings on weather-related conditions that may cause a threat to Canadians. Moreover, federal government departments and agencies work together in delivering critical services to Canadians in relation to flood and drought forecasting.

For example, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the department responsible for drought monitoring, uses Environment and Climate Change Canada's weather forecasts to issue drought forecasts. Natural Resources Canada leads flood mapping efforts to provide Canadians with critical information about their flood risks. The department also produces critical geospatial data used to urgently create maps and other near real-time data that are shared with Public Safety Canada and responders during ice jams or floods. Public Safety Canada plays a central role in coordinating the flood management efforts of federal departments and agencies during emergencies.

Despite all of the federal programs and initiatives, we know that flood and drought forecasting could be better coordinated across the country. An effective national strategy would build on programs that work well, such as those at Environment and Climate Change Canada. It would also identify ways to address existing gaps. We are already aware of some of them. These gaps include the lack of public awareness of flood risk data, the lack of information to identify and mitigate flood risks, and the potential lack of intergovernmental coordination on flood and drought forecasting.

Within five years of the strategy being tabled, the minister responsible must table a report on the strategy's effectiveness. This work will be done in collaboration with other relevant departments and in consultation with the provinces, municipalities, indigenous governing bodies, experts and stakeholders.

The global climate is changing and will continue to change, and Canada will be no exception. Extreme weather events will continue to occur, resulting in growing costs for our society. The need for a national strategy for flood and drought forecasting has never been greater.

That is why I am proud to say that the government supports Bill C-241. Although we support the bill, some provisions will need to be amended. We will encourage the committee to carefully review the provisions of the bill to ensure that the strategy does not duplicate measures that are already in place and to make the bill more effective in achieving its objectives. Nevertheless, I am very pleased to announce that the government will support Bill C-241.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-241 today.

It is important for us all to recognize, at the end of the day, that having a national strategy respecting drought and flooding and our ability to forecast is critically important. When I say that, I would obviously recognize the lead roles that provinces and municipalities play in dealing with local flooding and so forth.

I am going to highlight that in the province of Manitoba, just to give a better sense of why it is so important that we have a strategy, we have had occasion to experience all forms of disasters. Flooding is probably the biggest one. In fact, we have a premier who is still referenced today because of flooding. That was Premier Duff, because he constructed what we call Duff's Ditch. It was that premier's vision to try to avoid the types of floods that were devastating, in particular, for the city of Winnipeg, so the government back then decided what it wanted to do was to take the water coming into Manitoba and have it go around the city of Winnipeg. Before we had Duff's Ditch, Winnipeg was constantly being flooded.

Every time there is a flood in the province of Manitoba or any sort of a climate issue in Manitoba, it is the province that often plays the lead. Municipalities will also get deeply engaged because those are the communities that are more directly affected and they look to the province for guidance, and indigenous communities also. Floods have a very significant impact in those areas.

When we talk about the strategy being proposed through the legislation, we recognize that it is not something that Ottawa does alone. We have to be able to work with the different stakeholders, in particular those different levels of government. It is absolutely critically important. However, in developing that strategy, it is also important for us to recognize that the federal government already does play a role, directly and indirectly.

My colleague made reference to things such as Environment Canada, which, generally speaking, does an outstanding job at being able to forecast and predict both short-term and long-term weather conditions. Environment Canada works with the different jurisdictions when issues of drought or flooding come up. We have other departments as well. When a flood takes place, we have the department dealing with emergency services, whether it is disaster relief or public safety.

Ottawa does play a role in regard to the impacts of flooding and droughts. To that extent, I would argue that we need to see national coordination take place. Ultimately, by working with the different levels of government, we could come up with a strategy that could help in the long run. That is what we should be hoping to achieve.

Within the legislation, from what I understand, there is a tabling of a document. If the legislation were to pass, within two years we would see that tabling of a document. That document, I think, could help set a framework based on co-operation. That is what I believe would actually take place. Canadians as a whole, as has been demonstrated by the Prime Minister and the discussions we have had with regard to things such as the one Canadian economy, respond very positively when they see the different levels of government working together.

The issue is serious. I have had first-hand experience. A couple of years ago, I was north of the beautiful community of Gimli, taking a tour of a cattle farm. The farmer was telling me about the drought conditions and how they needed to see more water on the ground. In other areas of the province, we had more of a flooding condition that was taking place: too much water.

I honestly believe that there is more we can do as a society to better manage the water that comes through snow and rain and so forth. The management is so important. That is why I was so pleased when the government of the day made the decision to have the Water Agency located in the province of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, for all of Canada, to look at ways in which we can improve not only the quality of water but, I would ultimately argue, the management of water.

If members think of the prairie provinces, I can tell them that it is a very serious issue. I hear about it in Saskatchewan. I know the concerns that Alberta has in regard to wanting to be able to retain water and use it for irrigation and other issues.

At the end of the day, in the province of Manitoba, we are very much concerned about the quality and the quantity of water that is coming into our province. It is not just an issue for Manitoba alone. We need to have something that goes broader, outside of the province. When I look at the legislation, I commend my friend and colleague for bringing it in, because we have recognized the importance of how the federal government can and should play a stronger role.

When we think of climate change today, we see that it is more extreme. More and more, we are seeing flooding. We are seeing disasters, whether they are fires, droughts or other disasters. I think it begs the question of what we are doing as a House of Commons, as parliamentarians, to address this growing issue into the future. That is why I look at the legislation as a visionary idea to bring forward.

I make reference to the two years. Not only does it have a mandate for two years; I believe that it also has an assessment that takes place five years later. We are not just saying that we want to have a committee and that the committee comes in and provides a report after doing a considerable amount of consultation and working together and coming up with that strategy. We also want to take a look at it a number of years later, formally, the first one tabled here in the House and the second one an assessment in terms of how it is processed or what has actually taken place over the years. How effective has it been? Are there ways in which we can improve the situation? I think that is something that is a very positive aspect of the legislation.

One of the reasons I would like to think that the member vested a great deal of energy in presenting the bill that is before us today is that, because it is a private member's bill, we have programming. We know that after two hours of debate, it is going to go into committee. That is the nice thing about private members' bills. I think we need to have more programming for government bills, but that is another debate for another day.

The point is that this is substantial legislation. It is sensitive to our environment. It helps all concerned, the many different stakeholders. It is legislation that we should all get behind and support, and I applaud the member for bringing it in.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-241, which proposes the creation of a national strategy for flood and drought forecasting.

While the intent to improve coordination and data sharing is commendable, the bill risks becoming yet another Ottawa-driven exercise in paperwork rather than delivering real solutions. Canadians have seen first-hand the devastation of floods and droughts, from Abbotsford's submerged farmlands to Lytton's compounded disasters of fires, landslides and so on. They know that forecasting alone does not save lives or homes.

Our communities need timely funding, streamlined approvals and regional collaboration to turn warnings into action. Bill C-241 offers promises on paper while families in my community, and in my former riding, remain vulnerable on the ground.

In November 2021, British Columbia endured an atmospheric river that devastated communities across the Fraser Valley and interior. Abbotsford's Sumas Prairie was submerged, highways and rail lines were washed out, and the village of Lytton, already scarred by wildfire, faced impossible recovery hurdles. These events were not isolated. They disrupted national supply chains and cost billions of dollars in lost trade and other related damages.

The failures we witnessed were not due to a lack of forecasting models. Environment Canada and the provincial agency had already issued flood warnings. We knew we were at risk of another flood. The real breakdown was in preparedness, funding and execution. Communities had data but lacked the resources and authority to act accordingly.

The irony is stark. While Ottawa drafts strategies to predict disasters, British Columbia lived through one, armed with forecasts but abandoned when it came to action and funding. Today, we still have not received infrastructure dollars to improve regions where we know other disasters are predictable and foreseeable.

While I acknowledge the positive intention of the bill and the previous one that was in the last Parliament, I continue to worry about why the federal government is ignoring the critical infrastructure needs of British Columbia. In Lytton, after the wildfire, and subsequent landslides and flooding, the village could not access federal mitigation programs like DMAF, because applications demanded extensive engineering analysis, something a town with one public works employee simply could not provide. Bill C-241 does nothing to address these capacity gaps or the reality of remote and indigenous communities.

In Abbotsford, when Sumas Prairie was inundated in November 2021, the devastation was unprecedented. Thousands were evacuated; tens of thousands of livestock were lost, and Highway 1, the backbone of Canada's supply chain, was closed for nine days. The city responded quickly, developing a $2-billion flood-mitigation plan within six months, including new dykes, pump station upgrades and designated floodways.

However, despite the urgency, federal funding calls under the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund were closed. By the time applications reopened, critical months had passed, leaving Abbotsford vulnerable and forcing the city to shoulder many interim costs alone.

Mayor Ross Siemens expressed his frustration bluntly:

To find that our application was denied, that the City of Abbotsford won't be receiving the funding support that we need to protect our community from a future flood disaster, that is brutally devastating news.... We feel completely abandoned by our federal government.

According to an article, he added that “they were told that if the province was on board, they would likely get the DMAF money.” He said:

That is brutally devastating news and shows a blatant disregard for our city, our region, our economy and, quite frankly, a disrespect for the fairness of due process.

I asked federal officials, after that devastating news happened in my community, whether they had even engaged with the city of Abbotsford, after the photo ops and people had left. The answer was no.

Four years later, recovery work is nearing completion, but Abbotsford remains far from flood-proof. Merritt and Princeton remain far from flood-proof. Lytton is only building up now.

This experience illustrates a core flaw in Bill C-241 and the broader approach to major disasters in Canada. Forecasting alone does not protect communities. Abbotsford is a mid-sized city. It had data and plans but lacked timely funding and streamlined approvals. Without access to climate change mitigation dollars and a government model that empowers local action, families in flood plains will remain exposed not only in Abbotsford but in other parts of the country. This is not because we cannot predict the next flood, but because we have failed to act in respect of climate adaptation and infrastructure investments that account for increased population and other factors, such as the forestry sector and the impact it has on our waterways.

I have another quick example. After the floods, the District of Kent reinforced its dikes, but the flood risk shifted downstream to Seabird Island first nation, which had little protection. Again, I raise that point in the context of remote and indigenous communities, which do not seem to be properly addressed in this legislation.

Bill C-241, to my point, ignores the need for regional coordination and infrastructure, not just data sharing with the federal government. In summary, we have to look at jurisdictional overreach. The bill centralizes forecasting under Ottawa, but provinces already manage the system. What communities need is funding for mitigation, not another federal report.

My second point is that there is no funding mechanism. I recognize that this is a private member's bill, but the call for flood infrastructure in B.C. has been loud and clear.

Third, there are delayed timelines. The bill outlines two years to table a strategy and five years for an effectiveness report. We have all seen these tabled in Parliament. Frankly, why can the public servants not do this already? Why can the deputy minister not report to Parliament? Why do we need legislation like this in the first place? It is more bureaucracy.

Fourth, I would have hoped a bill like this would address the insurance crisis. Flood insurance remains inaccessible for many homeowners. Without reforms to make coverage mandatory and to broaden our policies federally on insurance, we are still going to run into many of the issues we faced in British Columbia because of the need for change.

What did we learn in 2021? We learned that disasters demand speed, flexibility and local empowerment. Local governments need continuous access to mitigation funds. We need improved cost-sharing models for rural and indigenous communities that do not have the capacity of mid-sized or large cities. Funding for public infrastructure needs to be brought in with higher standards to account for floods as well.

We also need an integrated regional model. For example, we have mayors from metro Vancouver coming to Ottawa who are demanding one thing for infrastructure, yet the demands in the Fraser Valley just a few kilometres away are different. That has never been coordinated. This legislation would not address the elephant in the room around the things that we need fixed in British Columbia.

In closing, Canadians deserve more than forecasts. They deserve action. We need a plan that delivers real dollars for mitigation, regional coordination and insurance reform. We do not need another Ottawa-driven report tabled in Parliament. Let us learn from what happened in B.C. Forecasting alone will not save lives. We knew the flood was coming in 2021. Investment and execution do save lives.

I implore the Liberal members of cabinet who have ignored me, who have ignored my community, to listen. I plead with them to help us, help Abbotsford, help Lytton and help the Fraser Canyon. All of Canada's trade to the port of metro Vancouver goes through my riding. They have ignored us. If this were Montreal or Toronto, the money would have already been spent. The upgrades would have already been done. However, we are not treated the same way in British Columbia, and that is not right.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

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.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to represent our beautiful riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, a part of our country that is shaped in every way by water. Our sea, our rivers, our swimming holes, our creeks and our wetlands are an intrinsic part of our identity. They are where we fish, farm and play; where our kids swim in the summer; and where many of us first fell in love with the great outdoors.

On Vancouver Island, our water is not only beautiful; it is vitally useful. Properly harnessed, it provides us with clean, renewal energy. It nourishes the crops that feed our families. It incubates our salmon and provides inspiration for our cultural traditions. On Vancouver Island, water is fundamental to our lives. Whether it is the Nanaimo River, Haslam Creek, Westwood Lake, or Colliery Dam, our community feels a deep, personal connection to these places. Like most powerful forces, water needs to be respected, revered and conserved. When it rains, it pours for days on Vancouver Island, and when it does not rain, the grass turns brown, the earth cracks and the landscape becomes tinder just waiting for a match.

The chaos resulting from extreme weather in B.C. threatens not just our livelihoods, but our very lives. Floods, earthquakes, tsunami warnings, droughts and wildfires uproot our lives and threaten to scatter us to the wind. Local farmers tell us about drought and water insecurity, which threatens livestock, stresses irrigation systems and creates the conditions for deadly wildfires. On the other side of the ledger, flooding can contaminate soil, erode coastlines, knock out power and wash away roads. Water is at the centre of almost every risk calculation we make. Water is part of our identity, but water can be volatile: too much or too little can threaten our lives.

This brings me to Bill C-241, which we are discussing today. One thing that unites people everywhere is our desire to know the weather forecast, along with the knowledge of the reality that it is usually wrong. However, we keep trying to predict the weather, and in Canada, doing that, like with many other things, means navigating the complex web of federal and provincial powers laid out in our Constitution.

The federal government provides much of our weather forecasting through the Meteorological Service of Canada, but the provinces and territories are responsible for flood forecasting and issuing flood warnings. The provinces and territories also have jurisdiction over specific applications and emergency management activities within their boundaries. The federal government predicts the weather, while the provinces and the territories manage the response on the ground to the impacts of that weather. What could go wrong?

Bill C-241, in a way, takes a crack at making one flood and drought forecasting strategy out of 13. It would require three federal ministers to work together, along with the provinces and territories, to develop a national strategy around flood and drought forecasting in the hopes of generating the information we need to better plan for these events. This is a noble cause, and as a means to greater collaboration, I support sending the bill to committee. I applaud my colleague across the aisle for raising these issues and facilitating this important debate. However, hope, as we all know, is not a strategy, and as an end in itself, the bill before us falls woefully short.

The past few years have shown how vulnerable British Columbia is to extreme weather, yet the federal government has not provided the support that farmers, homeowners and small businesses need to prepare and recover. Floods in B.C. and beyond have destroyed farms and livestock and left families facing massive repair bills, but federal programs have been slow, confusing, inadequate and underfunded. Many communities, including those that my colleagues have spoken of today, are still waiting for the promised assistance or have been told they do not qualify because the programs were not designed for disasters of this kind, scale, scope or whatever.

Instead of working with the province to build a faster and more reliable response system, the government has left people to navigate red tape while they are already under enormous financial and emotional strain. Canada's current model of disaster compensation is one under which taxpayers cover much of the cost of major flood events, and it is increasingly unsustainable as more and more insurance companies include carve-outs in their contracts that specifically exclude compensation.

Better forecasting and mapping could make private insurance more valuable, reducing the burden on the public purse. This is a point worth studying further in committee. If improved modelling can reduce risk and improve predictability, families and small businesses may have more affordable insurance options while taxpayers may face lower costs after major storms, but it is all a question of implementation and execution.

Provincial jurisdiction also needs to be respected. Water management is primarily a provincial responsibility, and communities on Vancouver Island rightly expect collaboration, not intrusion, from Ottawa. It is incumbent upon the government to ensure that coordination does not turn into federal overreach, as it does in so many cases. It means making sure the provinces can access shared tools and shared data when they need them. It means ensuring that modelling developed with public funds is accessible, standardized and usable across the country.

That standardization is crucial. Right now, rainfall, soil, moisture, lake levels, snowpack and stream-flow data are collected differently across different regions. This makes forecasting harder and emergency response slower. Any national strategy must ensure that provinces, municipalities, indigenous governments and industry can all share and interpret data in ways that are consistent and reliable.

I want to remind the government about the need to invest in the aging infrastructure needed to support major weather events like floods. In my community, Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is the backbone of emergency care, not only for Nanaimo but for much of the island, including in the case of flooding and tsunamis that could come with an earthquake. When roads wash out and communities are cut off, it becomes the critical hub for treatment, evacuation and coordination. However, NRGH's patient tower was built in 1963, making it the oldest on the island and one of the oldest of its kind in use anywhere in the country. It is not earthquake-proof, and in a real disaster, whether it is a coastal surge, widespread flooding or a seismic event, we might just not have it to rely on.

Local advocates have done a fabulous job of sounding the alarm, but the Liberal government's latest budget sets aside only $5 billion over three years for health care infrastructure, including medical schools, across the entire country. It is nowhere near enough to help the provinces rebuild aging hospitals, reduce wait times or ensure that every Canadian has access to a family doctor. The government cannot convince Canadians that $5 billion is a big number while trying to convince us that $78.3 billion, when it comes to a deficit, is a small one. All that tells us that the government is not focused on building the infrastructure we need to withstand floods, earthquakes and tsunamis.

If we expect NRGH to serve as a lifeline during the next major flood or emergency and to provide safe, modern care every other day of the year, we need the federal government to recognize that nation building includes building hospitals with Canadian lumber, Canadian steel and Canadian know-how.

When I meet with families who love their local swimming holes, farmers who depend on predictable water supply or volunteers restoring local creeks, the message is the same: Our water systems are changing, and we need the tools to understand those changes and better coordinate our response to them.

I will support Bill C-241 at second reading so that the committee can examine it carefully, strengthen it and ensure that it remains practical, efficient and respectful of jurisdiction.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-241 raises the major issue of flood and drought prevention. These phenomena are no longer isolated incidents. They have become recurring realities that disrupt our communities, weaken our infrastructure, and threaten our economy.

The numbers cannot be denied. Over the past 10 years, the average cost of insured disasters in Canada has been $2.5 billion a year. Last year, we reached an all-time high of $8.5 billion in insurable weather-related losses. That is the cost of climate change.

In Quebec, an average of $428 million a year is spent on compensation for climate disasters. These amounts are not abstract. They are very real. They represent destroyed homes, closed businesses, displaced families. They represent lives turned upside down.

That is not all. Prolonged droughts are affecting our agricultural producers. According to the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec, half of all vegetable growers have no insurance against drought-related losses because they cannot afford it. Meanwhile, municipalities are imposing water restrictions, and some even have to import drinking water.

We have seen forest fires ravage our forests. We have seen catastrophic floods force 6,000 people to leave their homes; that is what happened with the Lac des Deux Montagnes in 2019. In the riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île, we are also feeling the effects. We have to spend millions of dollars to combat riverbank erosion, and power outages are becoming more and more frequent.

These phenomena are all amplified by climate change, which the Liberal government has decided to ignore, pretending that it does not exist or making it even worse by investing in oil.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of improving forecasting and coordination, but why create a new federal structure when the Meteorological Service of Canada already exists and Quebec's environment ministry has recognized expertise, with 230 hydrometric stations that collect, analyze and disseminate data on water levels, flows and flood zones?

Bill C-241 is a distraction. It does not amend any provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It does not explain at all why these services cannot be provided by the Department of Environment's current meteorological services. I am actually a little surprised that my Conservative colleagues seem to want to support this bill at second reading, because, more than anything, I see it as another layer of bureaucracy.

Why would it be useful or necessary to create a new government organization in parallel to the Meteorological Service of Canada? There is no new funding. There are no concrete measures to support the provinces and municipalities. All the bill does is announce a strategy and schedule a report in two years' time. Meanwhile, disasters continue and costs soar.

Is the bill a response to the crisis or is it a communications exercise? Is it a tool for action or a smokescreen to create the appearance of action? The answer is obvious. It is all smoke and mirrors.

The Bloc Québécois is clear: We want concrete action. We want immediate investments to strengthen infrastructure resilience, support farmers, protect citizens and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What do we see? We see some concerning setbacks: the elimination of consumer carbon pricing proposed by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberals; the suspension of electric vehicle incentives; and the scrapping of the zero-emission vehicle strategy. The government talks about adaptation, but is turning its back on addressing the underlying causes of the problem. It makes no sense.

We are proposing clear, costed demands: increase the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund by $875 million; create a co-insurance program for flood-prone areas to protect vulnerable households; invest $500 million to combat shoreline erosion; and transfer funds to municipalities, which are best positioned to manage the consequences of climate change.

These are tangible measures. They respond to the real needs of communities. They would have an immediate impact. If we want to improve flood and drought forecasting, we need to focus on smart co-ordination, not the bureaucratic centralization that the Liberals are once again trying to impose.

The Quebec government already provides the public with weather, hydrological and flood forecasts. For example, the Vigilance web application provides 48-hour flood forecasts for many rivers in southern Quebec. To prevent flooding, Quebec uses numerical environmental forecasting, which is based on the collection of recent meteorological and hydrological data, including temperature, precipitation and snow accumulation on the ground, as well as numerical models. These numerical models simulate environmental processes, meaning the interactions between different components of the environment, such as the atmosphere, water, soil, vegetation and ecosystems, in order to predict how they will change over time.

The federal government's role should be to facilitate the exchange of information, to fund advanced research and modelling and to support provinces and municipalities in their adaptation efforts.

Quebeckers do not want a federal website that tells them it is raining. They want roads that do not collapse, houses that do not flood and farms that survive droughts. They want a government that takes action, not piles of reports.

That is our position. I think it is shameful to see the Liberal government abandon climate action. Indeed, an environmentalist, the former head of Equiterre, resigned from his position as minister. That is very symbolic. We will see what happens next, but if we do not get our act together, we are heading in a direction where we will see more and more environmental disasters, and bureaucracy is not going to solve the problem.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to recognize the hon. member for Terrebonne for her right of reply.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

We have debated Bill C-241 on the national strategy for flood and drought prevention. I think it is essential to speak to the House about the fact that this bill deals with an issue that directly affects the safety, well-being and resilience of our communities. Extreme weather events are now part of everyday life in many regions. Every year, municipalities across the country see their infrastructure weakened, their roads submerged, their soil dried out and their homes flooded.

I am thinking of my own riding of Terrebonne, where I have seen first-hand the very real effects of heavy rains. Sudden rainfall events, unexpected flooding, and erosion risks are not simply meteorological phenomena. They are part of our daily lives. When the Mascouche River or the Mille Îles River threaten to overflow, it is about more than just hydrological data. These are families who fear losing their homes, business owners who risk losing everything, and infrastructure that is being put to the test. That is precisely why Bill C-241 is essential. It proposes establishing a national strategy for flood and drought forecasting based on coordination and transparency.

If this strategy is to be truly effective, we need high-quality, consistent data. Today, each province, territory and indigenous government collects its own hydrological information using different instruments, observation networks that vary from region to region, and analytical methods that are not always compatible. These differences create silos that limit our collective ability to effectively anticipate floods and droughts. To move forward together, we need to narrow these gaps and strengthen interoperability. Bill C-241 does not seek to centralize or remove these powers, but rather to bring together this knowledge and these tools around a shared objective, namely, to strengthen our capacity to anticipate and prevent hydrological disasters.

Experts from across Canada, including UQAM, the University of Saskatchewan and across Quebec, are telling us how important good data coordination is. In this context, data sovereignty is essential if we are to have full control over our forecasting capabilities. Today, our country still relies on data provided by foreign agencies, such as NASA in the United States. While useful, this data has sometimes proven to be inaccurate or ill-suited to Canada's unique realities. Bill C-241 aims precisely to correct that dependence by strengthening our autonomy and ensuring that our decisions are based on data produced here for our own needs.

It proposes a co-operative model where information collected by different jurisdictions can be interconnected and analyzed jointly. That will allow us to offer all municipalities, from coast to coast to coast, the means to respond faster, to plan smarter and to protect their residents. The costs of doing nothing are already immense. In 2024 alone, insured losses related to climate events in Canada reached $8.5 billion. Tropical storm Debby caused $2.7 billion in insured damages in Quebec, and thousands of residents had to be temporarily relocated.

Bill C-241 provides a national framework for planning infrastructure, improving access to data, coordinating responses and, ultimately, saving lives. We need to choose prevention over reaction, coordination over isolation and resilience over vulnerability because so much more than property damage is at stake. At stake are people with faces, names and addresses, members of our communities. I invite my colleagues to support this bill so that we can work together on building a Canada that is better prepared to meet climate challenges.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Finance

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, the budget included $97 million to establish a foreign credential recognition action fund. According to the budget, this fund would help address doctor shortages by supporting credential recognition of foreign-trained doctors. Given that there are at least 13,000 internationally trained doctors currently in Canada but not working as doctors, can the government tell us exactly how many doctors this $97-million fund would get licensed?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, the question that was submitted had to do with spending on the backs of future generations. There were concerns about whether the Prime Minister realizes that his spending is lining the pockets of his banker and bondholder friends, instead of funding our doctors and nurses.

Budget 2025 makes generational investments while maintaining Canada's strong fiscal advantage. This foundation allows us to make ambitious and responsible investments and build a Canadian economy that is the strongest in the G7.

We are changing how government works, spending less on operations so we can invest more in Canada's future: creating high-paying careers, building our country and growing our economy.

Budget 2025 introduces a new approach to fiscal discipline and strategic investment. Our ambitious savings plan means Canadians can count on their government to be more efficient in delivering essential services while reducing operational costs. In fact, we are slowing growth in direct program spending from 8% to 1%. We are also introducing a capital budgeting framework that clearly distinguishes day-to-day operational spending from capital investments. That will strengthen our economy and make it grow for Canadians.

The result is that more public funds will go to the infrastructure needed to build the country, clean energy, innovation and productivity, and fewer public funds will go to day-to-day operating expenses. Sound fiscal management is a vital part of reallocating resources and enabling the intergenerational investments that will secure Canada's future.

At the same time, we were very clear in the Speech from the Throne. Even though the government will be spending less, transfers to provinces and territories will be maintained. This includes the Canada health transfer, which provides provinces and territories with predictable funding for health care.

As the hon. member may know, this transfer will increase by at least 5% per year until 2027-28. In addition, the 2025 budget announced the creation of a $5-billion health infrastructure fund. This fund will complement the support already being provided to provinces and territories in the area of health care. It will help them ensure that their health care infrastructure, such as hospitals, emergency services, urgent care centres and medical schools, can meet the health care needs of Canadians.

We are taking a collaborative approach with all the provinces and territories. Canadians deserve timely access to health care services wherever and whenever they need them.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member clearly did not answer my question. I asked how many doctors this $97-million foreign credential recognition fund would get licensed. Does the government have any idea how many doctors would get licensed for $97 million?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Madam Speaker, budget 2025 is about fiscal responsibility. We are determined to make responsible choices to reduce government operating expenses and wasteful spending, so Canadians can invest more in the workers, businesses and infrastructure that will build Canada strong, and so we can strengthen our health care system in collaboration with the provinces and territories.

Public Safety

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, what is the consequence of a weak immigration system? It is extortion.

What is the consequence of a government that believes that the perpetrators of crime are in fact the victims? It is extortion.

What is the consequence of loosening bail conditions and reducing sentencing for violent crimes? It is extortion.

We have an extortion problem in Canada because we have a Liberal government that has weakened the Criminal Code. Families and businesses are all suffering the consequences because of the Liberals' decisions.

First, with regard to a weak immigration system, when immigration screening and enforcement are lax, transnational gangs exploit these gaps to recruit members, move individuals across borders and establish operations in Canada. This creates an environment where organized crime thrives, enabling intimidation and extortion schemes targeting vulnerable businesses, especially in sectors like transportation and retail. Strengthening immigration enforcement and closing loopholes are essential to prevent criminal infiltration and protect Canadians.

Second, the government treating perpetrators as victims is an erosion of deterrence. Policies that prioritize offenders over public safety weaken accountability. When violent criminals are portrayed as victims, sentencing becomes lenient and consequences diminish. This emboldens repeat offenders, undermines deterrence and signals to criminal networks that Canada is a low-risk environment for extortion-related crimes.

Third, loosening bail conditions and reducing sentences increases violent crimes. Bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 in previous parliaments have allowed dangerous offenders to be released repeatedly, eroding public confidence and enabling crime to spread. The result is that extortion threats in British Columbia have surged 481% since 2015. Firearms-related offences are up 130%, and homicides have risen 29%. These trends show that soft-on-crime laws are directly correlated with escalating violence and intimidation.

Canada's extortion crisis is not isolated. It is the product of systemic weaknesses in immigration enforcement, criminal justice philosophy and bail-sentencing laws. Businesses and families are paying the price for policies that have prioritized criminals over communities. A year ago, Conservatives put forward a plan to tackle this head-on. Indeed, I sponsored the bill to put in force mandatory jail time for extortion with a firearm and to remove house arrest as an option for these violent crimes. The Liberals did not vote for it. They voted against it. Since then, thousands of new extortion cases have expanded across Canada.

The government's refusal to act until recently has only emboldened criminals and left victims without justice. When will the government make the change, bring forward the legislation that is going to have a real impact and stop this crisis, which is ruining the reputation of Canada, ruining businesses and ruining families?