Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2026

The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, be read the third time and passed.

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of one of my colleagues on what I believe is a bold initiative that could actually make a difference. I can tell the House that, coming from the Prairies, I understand and can appreciate what the member is talking about and just how important it is that we think of water management in general.

We can talk about things like droughts and floods. Winnipeg has been the victim of many floods over the years. From my time in the Manitoba legislature, I can tell members that whenever there are floods in Manitoba, a lot of praise goes to Duff's ditch. Duff Roblin was a Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba. He had the vision and saw the merit in protecting the city of Winnipeg by building a ditch, going from the south of Winnipeg all the way east and into the north, so that the mighty Red River would have a diversion that would ultimately take water back into the Red River. It has saved, just in economic terms, billions upon billions of dollars, because of that forethought. At the time, I am sure, it was a difficult decision to have made.

My colleague's resolution to have a flood and drought strategy, and the role that the federal government could play, is, I think, a responsible piece of legislation. I understand there is a great deal of support for the private members' bill, and I hope to see it go through the system.

It reminds me of the freshwater strategy that is currently in place and how important that strategy is. They are out consulting today with stakeholders, understanding the impact, and not only to our environment. It is very important. That is why we look to indigenous communities and the many other stakeholders, including provincial and territorial stakeholders, all the leaders within the community, as much as possible to solicit and seek advice where we can, and hopefully to get direct input, as they know about the strategy that is taking place.

Our fresh water is one of our commodities that are undervalued. We are very grateful. We are one of the leading nations in the world in the amount of fresh water that we have. We should never take advantage of that. That is why it is important to see that strategy not only be put in place but ultimately come up with some tangible ways to protect our fresh water.

Thinking of floods and droughts, again, I will bring this back to my home province. A few years ago I was on a cattle farm, and the farmer was telling me how a drought had impacted his herd and the farm. That farmer went to the government to try to get additional support. That was part of the reason I went to visit that particular cattle farmer, to get a better appreciation of some of the costs of droughts.

When we see floods, we see the vast amount of water covering a lot of land and causing a lot of problems and damage. That is just physical damage. It does not show the consequences of a drought in a community. Often, we will see people come together in very real ways, whether to toss sandbags, build dikes or just move earth to prevent water from going into areas that could cause even more damage to personal properties, and so much more. Communities will often come together.

When it comes to droughts, it is not quite as visible, but the impact is significant. I make reference to the cattle farmer. I can talk about different commodities, whether it is the wheat farmer, the canola farmer or even restrictions for people living in cities when using water for personal use. We see these types of actions taking place more and more frequently.

On advancing through legislation the need for the national government to play a larger role, I do not see who would oppose it. Why would someone oppose working and supporting the science and the level of expertise across the nation looking for better practices? We are not saying that it is the national government that has to do it all. In fact, we cannot underestimate the critical, frontline leadership role that our provinces, territories, municipal communities and indigenous communities play. However, I would suggest that from a national perspective, there is something we can do that would make a difference. That is why when I look across the way, I am very much interested in hearing other thoughts in regard to the whole issue of collaboration.

I talk a great deal about collaboration, because I genuinely believe that we can achieve so much more when governments work together in collaboration. We can achieve so much more when they do not worry about turf protection but put people first instead, and this is what I see within what the member is putting forward today in her private member's bill. I would like to think that individuals looking to the future and the need for drought and flood proofing realizing that doing this study and looking at ways in which the federal government can complement that is a very positive thing.

Just before the last election, Winnipeg got the Canada Water Agency. The federal government has recognized how valuable it is for us to spend more attention on water management in general. Take a look at these vast, massive catchment areas and the flow of water. Those are all interprovincial. In the Red River case, it is international. It all has an impact.

I believe having a Canada Water Agency makes a big difference. It provides us the opportunity once again to make sure our waterways and supplies are that much more protected, while at the same time recognizing things such as invasive species and their impacts. For example, there are algae blooms that make water unsafe. There are all sorts of things that affect water conditions. I think of the zebra mussels control mechanisms that were put into Manitoba. There are parks that are affected. There are so many aspects to this, and that is why it is good to have things like the fresh water strategy. That is why it is good for the House to be debating how we can contribute collectively to flood proofing and looking at ways to minimize the impact of droughts.

Therefore, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in favour of Bill C-241. I hope to ultimately see more discussion and the ultimate passage of my friend's legislation.

I appreciate being given the opportunity to say a few words.

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

Madam Speaker, I spoke on Bill C-241 at second reading in December 2025, and was largely positive about it. It was after yet another flood in my riding. I had received fresh promises from the Government of Canada that it was going to support British Columbia with its flood mitigation assessment and prevention measures to protect the most vital agricultural land in British Columbia, the national supply chains of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the Abbotsford International Airport and an international border crossing in an area that is so significant to Canada's national interest.

I think it is very important that we look at some of the amendments the government has passed with respect to this bill regarding the contents.

In section 3(d), I will note that the following amendment came forward, “measures that the Government of Canada may take in response to the assessments referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c)”.

Paragraph (a) talks about “an assessment of the need for, and the benefits of, national coordination, new investment and the application of novel technologies in forecasting floods and droughts”.

Paragraph (b) says there is “an assessment of the need for modelling that would support flood and drought forecasting”.

Paragraph (c) says the following:

an assessment of opportunities to develop national flood and drought forecasting across Canada in order to help meet the information needs of the provinces, municipalities, industry, including the insurance industry, and Indigenous communities in respect of short- and long-term flood and drought forecasting, including current and future flood-plain delineation;

The bill outlines the following:

The Minister, in collaboration with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, must develop a national strategy....

What that change does is essentially give the government an out. In the earlier version of this legislation, the Government of Canada would have been compelled to, in other words must do, something in the legislation. The government weakened what it said it was going to do through the committee and amendment stages.

Why does this matter to me and to Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford? First off, none of the powers outlined in this bill do not already exist. Every day during Routine Proceedings, a minister of the Crown has the opportunity to provide a statement or a motion. Those periods of time that are enshrined in our democratic traditions are for ministers to show leadership to Canada for exactly these reasons. Nothing is stopping the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Emergency Management and the Minister of the Environment from working together today. Nothing is stopping them from doing everything in this bill already.

I appreciate the sentiment, as I mentioned in my remarks at second reading in December 2025, that the government was paying attention to these important matters. In good faith I said those words, but forgive me if I am pessimistic about the amendments passed by the government and where we stand in my riding today. I have fought tooth and nail in this House for it to recognize the national interest of the Fraser Valley and other regions impacted by natural disasters never seen in the history of Canada. We were not prepared. There was no coordination. We had to fly in military equipment from Quebec. Infantry officers and their platoons from Alberta had to go through the United States to get into Canada because all of our roads were washed out.

No one in this House is doubting the need for science and forecasting, but what I am doubting now is the government's real desire to listen to science. How could it not compel or require the minister to act on sound science? Why weaken this bill when we have seen so much damage that has cost so much?

Earlier in the debate during Government Orders, it was mentioned that many pieces of legislation require a minister to table a report or review legislation. Many of those go unheard. We do not enforce the rules we put upon ourselves in the chamber.

My plea today is for the government to focus on the areas, like around Penticton, that were hit by forest fires in the Okanagan this summer. My plea is for the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Emergency Management, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to hear the pleas of people in Princeton, Chilliwack and Abbotsford who are calling for a west coast corridor initiative, because the government has not listened to its own forecasting already. My plea is for all the ministers to stand up during Routine Proceedings every day and use that time to update the House, in the way it was intended, on how they are taking advice from public servants on forecasting that has already taken place. Nothing is stopping a minister from adopting new technology. Nothing is stopping the ministers from coordinating together.

To my government friends, in good faith, my communities have suffered so much. My communities live with the uncertainty of whether or not their next crop will be destroyed, because we are having a dry season right now, and we do not know when the rains are going to come, nor how the soil is going to respond to that rain in its current state.

British Columbia does not know how to forecast properly for forest fires. Every year we hear, “We are going to be there for you.” I have had countless pats on the back. The ambassador to the U.K., Bill Blair, said he broke promises to me and the former member from Abbotsford, Ed Fast, about what they were going to do, and he said that in good faith. I ask the government to please help us.

A new MOU has been signed by the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. There was a paragraph in it on Sumas flood mitigation. I sought clarity from the Clerk of the Privy Council on the application of the $20 million referenced to study a pump once again. I hope, when we have a new government in British Columbia, we can move forward on the critical scientific work that has already been done, and we can bring real and measurable change to the people of British Columbia, who have suffered unnecessarily due to inaction.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this important issue. It is fundamental. We are talking about Bill C-241, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.

As my colleagues are surely already well aware, the Bloc Québécois has a major issue with any sort of national strategy. Our concerns are many. However, I want to make one thing clear from the outset. We think that we need as much technology as possible and that we need to work together as much as possible. However, it is not just the provinces that need to work together. We also need to work with other countries. It is vital that we set that up because we need to prevent floods or at least know they are coming so that we can prepare for them. That is why the Bloc Québécois has been consistently making recommendations in that regard. In fact, during the last election campaign, we had an extremely comprehensive platform on this issue. I am talking about real, substantive investments.

Unfortunately, today, we are being presented with an additional structure, even though I am sure it is not the fault of the bill's sponsor, who seems to have only the best of intentions. The bill proposes an additional administrative structure when these tasks can already be carried out quite effectively. They fall under the responsibility of the weather offices at Environment and Climate Change Canada. If the department is having problems with forecasting and prevention, it is likely because the government is not investing enough in this area and is not taking this responsibility seriously. Rather than creating a new structure, let us take this responsibility more seriously.

I am not sure if anyone mentioned this already, but the bill contains no funding measures whatsoever. All the government is doing is adding a new layer of bureaucracy that will override everything else, and telling people what to do, but without actually doing it because we do not have the resources. People are going to get even more bogged down in red tape, even though, across the country, or across both countries, namely Quebec and Canada, people are calling for less bureaucracy.

For a cause that is undoubtedly worthy and critically important, we are being presented with what amounts to an empty shell. That is how I would describe it. The Bloc Québécois has significant reservations about this legislation, and I share those reservations personally as well. As recently as yesterday, I spoke on another matter and said that I was tired of governments pretending and relying on fine words and lofty expressions only to end up doing nothing beyond making speeches. We have concerns about this bill, because we believe that if the necessary resources were invested in the structures that already exist, we would actually have the means to act. That is our main concern with this bill. We are being asked to create a new structure and address new needs, yet we are told that resources are not the issue. The structure already exists. The problem is that it has no resources. Why not provide it with the resources it needs?

The bill's preamble states that “most technologically advanced countries have a national flood forecasting service”. Quebec has in fact done just that. The public is provided with weather and hydrological forecasts. For example, we have a web app called Vigilance. I can provide more details if time permits a little later, but all this is with a view to preventing and anticipating floods. It is very important to prevent them from happening.

I see a bit of a contradiction here, given that the government has been scrapping all its environmental measures since the 2025 election. It even reached the point where a former environment minister was forced to resign, first as a minister and then as a member of Parliament. That is a big move that sends a strong signal. Even for someone who does not know all the intricacies of what has been scrapped, that sends a clear message that the environment is the least of this government's concerns. I also have the impression that establishing a new structure like this would create a clear line of communication. One could say that a national drought prevention policy has been created. I hope that is not the intention, but I am raising this concern nonetheless.

The preamble also states that “current flood and drought forecasting in Canada is conducted by the provinces without coordination between them”. However, there is nothing to prevent that coordination. Data is currently available to the general public. What is needed is the will to establish that coordination. As I said in my introduction, this needs to be established not only among Canada's provinces and Quebec, but also internationally, particularly with the United States, our closest neighbour.

Partnerships are possible, and the Department of the Environment already has the authority to establish them. Why is it not doing so? Perhaps that is the question we should be asking.

If current methods are limited and the purpose of the bill is to invest more heavily in the development of new technologies, which I believe is one of its main objectives, why can that not be done through the Department of Environment and Climate Change? The member will have an opportunity to answer that question when she next speaks to this bill.

If there were genuine political will to do so, I think it could very well be done. However, as I mentioned in my introduction, there appears to be a reluctance to create this new structure.

In her speech, the member for Terrebonne, who is also the sponsor of the bill, was highly critical of the current government. We welcome that, because it shows that she is a woman of vision and foresight. That being said, the government has been in power for 10 years. For a decade, it has told us that that it is firmly committed to fighting climate change. However, over the past year, it has been rolling back environmental measures across the board, leaving us scratching our heads and asking questions.

As I was saying, it is very encouraging that the member is raising these concerns, but the government already has the authority, through existing environmental legislation, to take action.

Is there something in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that is keeping this from being done? If that is the case, why does Bill C‑241 not propose amendments to that act? There is no mention of this at all in the bill.

If the problem does not actually exist and the government already has the ability to act and the means to do so under existing legislation, what is stopping it? Is money the issue? The budget is going to be tabled on November 5, so let me send that message now. I know that the parliamentary secretary is paying close attention to what I am saying and taking notes. I am sure he is writing that Mr. Perron had a good idea and that investing in drought and flood prevention is essential.

Because this matter is important to us, we have no shortage of relevant proposals, as I said earlier. When it comes to climate change, we know that doing nothing is more costly than taking preventive measures and adapting. This is important. Things are going to get increasingly expensive. Insurance is a good example: In some regions, obtaining insurance is becoming impossible because claim payouts have become too high.

That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that concrete measures are needed. To reinvest in infrastructure adaptation and reduce risk, municipalities need funding. For that to happen, transfers need to be made to Quebec so that it can pay the money to the municipalities.

We are calling for an additional $875 million over five years for the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. We proposed protecting Quebeckers' homes by requiring the federal government to establish a co-insurance program to help offset the very problems I just described with respect to insurance coverage. We are calling for a $500-million increase in federal funding to counter shoreline erosion. The federal government can give us a well-crafted speech and a catchy title, but without funding, it is meaningless. Unless I am mistaken, there has been no shoreline protection program since 1997. Does anyone think that makes sense? If someone could answer me, I am pretty sure they would say that it does not. At some point, we need to get serious.

We are also calling for sector-specific funding transfers to the provinces so that they can coordinate these efforts. As far as coordination is concerned, we do not need a national policy that will interfere with and potentially encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. I believe that cohesion and coordination can be achieved with the existing structures.

Bill C-40—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-40, an act respecting production, procurement and investment in relation to national defence and national security.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑241, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, be read the third time and passed.

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

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

The hon. member for Terrebonne for her right of reply.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues who took part in the debate on this bill at each reading and in committee.

When we introduce a bill in the House, we do it because we have an idea, a belief and, above all, a desire to make things better. However, as the parliamentary process unfolds, we learn something fundamental: No legislative initiative moves forward on its own. Every bill involves discussions, research, evidence, sometimes difficult questions and, most importantly, people who choose to put their expertise to work for the common good. That is precisely what I saw as Bill C-241 made its way through the legislative process.

As that process comes to an end today, I want to take a moment to recognize the work that has been done and the contributions that have helped to move this initiative forward.

I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Professor John Pomeroy of the University of Saskatchewan. His expertise and contributions helped inform our thinking and improved our understanding of the opportunities available to Canada to strengthen its forecasting capabilities. His involvement underscores the importance of dialogue between the scientific community and public decision-makers, because scientific knowledge is especially valuable when it can help inform decisions that directly affect Canadians' lives.

I would also like to thank the chair and members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, as well as all the witnesses who took part in its study of this bill. Their contributions helped deepen our understanding of the issues at stake, raise important questions and examine the different facets of this initiative. I would especially like to acknowledge the contribution of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which reminded us how important it is to take the realities faced by farmers into account in our deliberations. These discussions served as an important reminder of a fundamental principle: Behind every public policy, there are people, industries and communities whose needs must be heard.

This goes to show why committee work is so valuable. It is not simply about examining legislation; it is about testing our ideas against the realities on the ground, listening to diverse perspectives and working to improve the proposals before us.

This process also reminded me why dialogue and collaboration play such an important role in our democracy. We do not always share the same views on how to achieve our goals, and that is to be expected, but we all have a responsibility to consider proposals carefully, ask the right questions and look for solutions that meet Canadians' needs. I would like to thank the members from all parties who contributed to the discussion on Bill C-241. Their questions, observations and different perspectives are an integral part of our parliamentary work.

As the member for Terrebonne, I am especially mindful of the trust that people place in us when they ask us to represent them. This trust comes with a responsibility, that of looking beyond immediate concerns and thinking about the challenges that our communities may face not only today, but also tomorrow.

Bill C-241 does just that. It encourages us to look at how we can capitalize on existing knowledge, skills and resources to improve flood and drought forecasting in Canada. It also encourages us to consider how all of the provinces and territories could work together and truly put each one's knowledge to good use. It proposes an approach based on assessing needs, consulting with relevant partners and improving coordination. Most importantly, it reminds us that the decisions we make today must also take into account the needs of tomorrow.

As this stage draws to a close, what I will remember is the valuable collective effort that went into this initiative. I will remember the scientists and organizations who got involved and the parliamentarians who put in the work for the common purpose of better understanding the challenges facing our country. I will take this opportunity to acknowledge some of the people who gave us food for thought, including Professor Pomeroy, whom I mentioned earlier, the insurance experts who told us about the challenges that a lot of people are facing, and the agriculture stakeholders who talked to me about their struggles with droughts and floods. I sincerely thank them for all the work they did.

As I see it, Bill C‑241, is not the end of the road, but the beginning of a journey.

[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 would 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 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:05 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:05 p.m.)