Debates of Oct. 9th, 2026

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

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

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

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

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that we are just going to carry it. We are anticipating that we will get into debate right away. We request that it be carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again today at third reading stage of Bill C-241, which seeks to establish a national strategy for flood and drought forecasting.

Since I introduced this bill in the House, we have had the opportunity to discuss it with our colleagues, hear from various experts and look more closely at several important issues when it was studied by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work, as well as the witnesses who took the time to share their knowledge and recommendations. I also want to sincerely thank Dr. John Pomeroy from the University of Saskatchewan for his expertise and his valuable contribution to this bill. I am also grateful to my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, for working on this bill with me.

When I began this process, what I wanted most was to address a very real concern: What can we do to make sure our communities are better prepared for floods and droughts? In my riding of Terrebonne, flooding is not a remote risk. The 2017 and 2019 floods reached my riding and highlighted the vulnerability of certain waterfront areas. In January 2018, rising waters on the Rivière des Mille Îles caused flooding in a number of homes in the Côte de Terrebonne area, forcing municipal authorities to declare a flood.

We know that these events can significantly impact families, businesses, farmers and municipalities. We also know that Canada has extensive scientific expertise in this area. However, there is still work to be done to better coordinate our efforts and facilitate access to reliable hydrological forecasts. In many Canadian communities, anticipating risk is essential for protecting our infrastructure, supporting municipal planning and, most of all, keeping residents safe. That was the goal I had in mind when I introduced Bill C‑241. I am not claiming that we can prevent natural disasters. I am proposing an approach that will allow us to better understand needs, strengthen collaboration among the various stakeholders, and look for ways to improve hydrological forecasting in Canada.

The context in which we are discussing this bill also deserves our attention. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development released a report last May on flood hazard mapping in Canada. This report contains findings that should concern us all. According to the commissioner, roughly 80% of Canada's highly populated areas are located, at least partially, in flood hazard zones. He also points out that, between 2016 and 2025, our government spent an average of $230 million a year on post-flood relief. These figures illustrate the financial consequences of such disasters, but they do not tell the whole story of how these events affect people's lives. When a family has to leave their home, when a business has to close temporarily or when a municipality has to repair damaged roads and infrastructure, the impact goes far beyond the immediate costs.

The report also notes the challenges associated with producing and distributing flood hazard maps. The commissioner also observes that the information available is not always easily accessible or user-friendly for those who need it most. The commissioner's report reminds us of the importance of having reliable data, sharing it more effectively and ensuring that the information produced can truly support decision-making. These concerns align with the objective of my bill.

Canada already has considerable expertise in the field of hydrology. Our universities, researchers and water management agencies are doing vital work to better understand the phenomena affecting our waterways and watersheds. Several provinces also have their own monitoring and forecasting systems, tailored to their geographic realities and responsibilities. The challenge, therefore, is not to start from scratch, but to determine how these efforts can be combined and better coordinated.

Waterways do not follow administrative boundaries, and hydrological events can affect multiple municipalities, provinces or territories. When information is collected in one region, it may also be useful in another region. That is why it is to look at how to improve data compatibility, promote data sharing, and strengthen ties between different forecasting networks.

However, I want to be very clear: Bill C-241 is not intended to take responsibilities away from the provinces or to replace their current systems. Rather, it aims to establish a framework for collaboration that recognizes existing expertise and assesses opportunities for improvement at the national level.

During my testimony before the committee, I had the opportunity to explain that differences among observation networks, measuring instruments, and analytical methods can complicate information sharing.

I also emphasized that better coordination must involve respect for one another's jurisdictions. It is easier to share information when we all speak the same language.

Among the amendments adopted, one specifies that the strategy must consider measures that the Government of Canada may take in response to the assessments set out in the bill. In particular, it refers to the preparation of a proposal for the establishment of a co-operative, national hydrological and water resources forecasting service and system based on the federal-provincial distributed model of the national hydrometric program.

This reference to the national hydrometric program is particularly relevant because it paves the way for an approach based on co-operation rather than centralization. Bill C-241 instead calls on the government to examine needs, assess opportunities and put forward measures that could be implemented in collaboration with relevant partners.

One aspect I would particularly like to highlight today is the importance of working together to tackle the risks of flooding and drought. Although these two phenomena are different in nature, they present many of the same challenges when it comes to forecasting, water management and community preparedness. Floods often have immediate and visible consequences. They can force evacuations, damage homes, disrupt local economies and place considerable strain on municipal public services. In contrast, droughts tend to develop more gradually and have significant effects on agriculture, the water supply and certain industrial activities.

The agricultural sector is particularly affected by these challenges. Farmers must make decisions based on weather and water conditions that can vary considerably from one season to the next. Better forecasting tools can help them plan, particularly in terms of water use and managing risks associated with periods of drought or heavy precipitation. During the committee study, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted a brief laying out the specific needs of the agricultural sector, and I would like to thank the CFA for that.

We also have to recognize the needs of indigenous communities, including those in remote regions or flood-prone areas. Both local traditional knowledge and scientific expertise have an important role to play in helping us understand hydrological conditions and prepare for extreme events. That is why Bill C‑241 provides for consultations with provincial and municipal governments, indigenous governing bodies, universities, civil society organizations and the private sector.

Another important aspect of the bill is the structured approach it proposes, complete with timelines and accountability. The strategy will have to provide for an assessment of the benefits of improved national coordination, modelling needs and opportunities to improve short- and long-term forecasting. It will also have to consider investments and novel technologies that could help develop these capabilities.

This will give us a way to collaboratively reflect on how we can improve the forecasts on which many important decisions depend. For municipalities, this information can help with infrastructure planning and emergency preparedness. For farmers, this information can support certain water management decisions. For governments, it can help them better understand the needs of communities and guide preparedness efforts. Scientific data has considerable value, but its usefulness also depends on our ability to make it available, interpret it properly and incorporate it into the decisions made on the ground. This practical aspect is particularly important to me in the context of Bill C‑241.

Since the beginning of this process, I have been able to observe how water management issues involve diverse expertise and concerns. Scientists are interested in data quality and forecasting models. Municipalities are dealing with operational and budgetary realities. Provinces have important responsibilities to fulfill in managing water resources, while citizens primarily want to be able to live and work in their communities safely.

In Terrebonne and in communities across the country, people expect the different levels of government to work together when public safety is at stake. They should not have to worry about which level of government holds certain data or which network is responsible for a forecast. What matters is that the necessary information is available and can be used effectively by the relevant authorities.

It is in this spirit that I hope to see the bill move forward. We already have institutions, researchers and partners carrying out vital work. We must now examine how best to pool their knowledge and capabilities while respecting each party's responsibilities.

In introducing this bill, I hope to contribute to a debate that goes to the heart of the safety and future of our communities. I remain convinced that we must continue this work in order to improve Canada's ability to anticipate the risks of flooding and drought and support decisions made by stakeholders on the ground. I therefore invite my colleagues to continue their consideration of Bill C-241 in this spirit of collaboration and responsibility, so that we may move towards better co-ordination of hydrological forecasting for the benefit of Canadian communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I was at the committee when the government brought forward very substantial amendments to the member's legislation. I am curious how she can rectify the difference between what the intention of the bill originally was and what the government ultimately ended up doing by gutting it.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not feel as though my bill has been gutted. I think these were entirely reasonable amendments that I was able to discuss with the committee members.

The goal is really to have a national strategy and to be able to help as many Canadians as possible. That is the direction we are taking with this bill.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for introducing this bill. We all know how important it is that we improve our flood and drought preparedness.

There was a question that came up in committee, and I think it is important to allow my colleague to explain it to people. Why is this bill needed in order to implement a strategy? The government often launches strategies without legislation.

Furthermore, how can we ensure that a province, especially one like Quebec, which is ahead of the curve, will be respected within its jurisdiction when the federal government implements a strategy of this kind?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the whole principle of this bill is based on a forum for collaboration with the various provinces. I would like to specify that Quebec has a great deal of expertise in this area. Some researchers from UQAM are asking to be included in a round table to get everyone on the same footing when it comes to prevention and taking action on hydrological conditions. That will help to protect not only Quebec but all communities in Canada.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

As a former municipal councillor, I understand how important it is that municipal infrastructure be supported to deal with the risks we are facing of increased flooding, and how important it is for municipalities to have financial support, but it all starts with data. I am wondering if my colleague could speak about the feedback or consultations from municipalities she spoke with.

In addition, the member has already mentioned all the folks who helped her in this journey. I am wondering if there is anyone else she would care to thank as part of her remarks.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to thank everyone in the House, including the clerks, who helped me so much throughout this process. For a novice MP, this was quite the process. I am grateful for their help.

As for municipalities, what I keep hearing is that everyone is organizing the information differently with different data systems. As I mentioned earlier, it is really important that we all speak the same language. Once we do, we will be able to collaborate. Floods and droughts do not recognize territorial boundaries. They do not know where a province begins or where a municipality begins and ends. It is important to me that we speak the same language when it comes to data so that we can come together and work in concert to make much better data-driven forecasts.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here talking about Bill C-241, the national strategy on flood and drought forecasting act. We are going to hear speeches about how great this is and how needed it is. We agree on this side. This is definitely needed, given the times that we are living through. To be fair to Canadians, this is a strategy that promises to do something in the future; it is not something definitive today that we would be providing Canadians in terms of forecasting.

Before I begin the bulk of my speech, I want to talk about the forecasting that is currently done in Canada, through Environment Canada, for example. They do a pretty good job. They do an excellent job, especially when we are talking about the Canadian Coast Guard and the VHF marine system forecasting. There are many mariners on the west coast of British Columbia and across Canada who depend on its service. It really does mean life or death in some of the most treacherous areas of our waters across Canada, so we know full well what it means to be forecasting for future events.

Unfortunately though, Environment Canada discontinued its weather radio service on March 16 due to increasing costs and the need for more viable alternatives such as smart phones and weather apps. The weather radio network reached 90% of the Canadian population, but it will be replaced by other services like Alert Ready and the WeatherCAN mobile app. It will continue to provide timely weather information, but this does not talk about those people who do not have that technology, do not have Internet service or do not understand this information age we are living in.

When I think about that, I see that we would be cutting back on an essential service that people depend on. In today's day and age, we are talking about mariners, but we are also talking about farmers who have to predict the weather for their crops. It would be such a cost-saving measure, when we are already hearing speeches about the damage inflicted on Canadians from weather events, the cost to citizens of damage to houses and the cost of damage to infrastructure. As such, we are going to do a budget cut to get rid of weather radio service, but this budget cut is going to affect Canadians.

On the other hand, where is Canada sending its money in light of these budget cuts? A large portion goes to foreign aid. There is something wrong with that. Citizens are depending on services like weather radio service, forecasting models that are currently in place for even just the simple matter of going to get groceries, but the government decided to cut those services and send the money overseas to foreign governments.

One thing in particular strikes me as way beyond unusual and uncalled for: foreign aid to China. I never imagined China would need foreign aid. This is a country that is turning into an energy superpower in its own right, not with political promises, but they are doing it. They are building some of the largest dams in the world to get off the reliance on crude oil and diesel. They actually started buying up crude oil supplies, given this diesel crisis that the globe is facing, and they have the money to do it. They have the capacity to store this crude oil. At the same time, they started restricting diesel exports. They provide a lot of diesel for the rest of the world, but they have the money and the reserves to basically do that for their own country.

In the meantime, Canada is sending them foreign aid. It should almost be the reverse, given our deficit, given our debt and given the fact that two million Canadians are visiting food banks and 34% of them are children. One in four of the people visiting a food bank is a working person who cannot afford groceries. Why are we cutting essential services like weather forecasting when we are sending money to China to help out poor China? It is not poor.

I know we are talking about weather forecasting. I know a lot about it in terms of what is happening in B.C., for example, with the forest fires that are devastating our communities, devastating our infrastructure and burning down houses, with entire communities being evacuated. I was there during the floods in Abbotsford. What is our solution? Let us forecast the next one. Let us propose a study that will take us two years. Let us start planning a study right now so we can plan something in the future, despite the impacts that are happening right now.

To the citizens watching this right now on CPAC, all those millions of people, I am sorry, but this is not an announcement that something is going to happen today or tomorrow. It is going to take two years for the government to develop a strategy and then present it and debate it. Then maybe the government will come up with something to help with forest fires.

The conversation outside this House at least, in earnest, is that we should be doing more to adapt. It is a great conversation, but that is all it is. It is just coffee talk. We are not talking about managing our forests in B.C. to lessen the risk of forest fires. The federal government has a role to play in that. I know government members will get up to say that it is in provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government does have jurisdiction over Crown lands in the provinces across Canada. It has jurisdiction over certain properties. Also, through the Indian Act, it has jurisdiction on reserve lands.

This is okay. It is all right. I sat on the committee as well. However, the focus, I think, should be to develop a more robust plan for forecasting for Canadians, especially farmers and mariners, but also to start talking about adaptation and start helping the people who are being afflicted by these disasters. For the most part, a lot of what we are talking about here is already being done at a very foundational level, whether we are talking about insurance companies, Environment Canada or the Coast Guard.

Collaboration among provinces, governments, municipalities and first nations should not have to be legislated. People should just pick up a phone. We know what the problem is. We have local knowledge. We have municipal knowledge. We have provincial knowledge. Everybody is facing the same issue. We do not have to spend two years studying this, only to then try to draft up a strategy. Everybody wants a solution, but it has to be a wholesome solution. We cannot just pick something that is not going to help Canadians with what they are facing today and what they are going to face tomorrow.

As to budgeting, we have to take a serious look at that. We have to start limiting foreign aid and keeping a lot of that money so we can help Canadians in every situation, whether we are talking about affordability, flooding or forest fires.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, ever since this bill was tabled, we have consistently stated that we want to be persuaded that legislation is truly necessary to advance this strategy. We have also been consistent in raising our grave concerns about the growing number of extreme weather events, whether floods or droughts. The government must treat the climate crisis with the seriousness it deserves. It is serious enough to warrant making concrete and genuine efforts in the right areas.

Tabling a bill that simply requires the government to eventually develop a strategy on floods and droughts further delays the real action that is needed today. Throughout the time spent studying and debating this bill, the government could already have developed and implemented the strategy in question. It could have taken concrete action. Instead, here we are today still debating a bill whose necessity, unfortunately, has not yet been demonstrated.

I asked earlier whether the government could clearly explain what it is unable to do without this legislation. Why does it need this legislation? What is it about this legislation that will enable it to do more in the fight against climate change? I have not yet received an answer, which leads us to believe that this bill is not essential.

Yes, we completely agree with the principle of building resilience to the impacts of climate change with better tools to improve preparedness for extreme weather events and forecasting and response capabilities. Yes, we need to be aware that there are some Canadian provinces that could see this strategy as a step in the right direction. In that respect, we agree that the provinces need support, but do they need legislation, or do they simply want a strategy and the means to act? I believe they want strategies, concrete tools and funding. When we look at Quebec, we see that it is already pretty far along when it comes to preparing for extreme weather events. We may not have a perfect plan, but we are leading the way in Canada, so why does Quebec need this strategy? I still do not understand that.

Who is best positioned to create its own maps, for example? Quebec is already doing that, so why does it need the federal government to create maps that it already has? Why does it need the federal government to be able to talk to Ontario and come to an agreement regarding preparedness? We are already doing that. As a nation, Quebec is capable of talking to its neighbours. It must talk to its neighbours and it must be as well coordinated as possible. Does Quebec need the federal government to act as a go-between? I do not see why it would. I do not understand the government's logic here.

Perhaps there are smaller provinces with fewer resources that need more support. This could help them. We agree with that, and we are entirely open to the idea. It is also important to understand that when Ottawa talks about a so-called national strategy, for a nation like Quebec, it is a bit like nails on a chalkboard for us, especially since Quebec has been recognized as a nation in this Parliament. Now the government has come up with a national strategy that is, in fact, a federal strategy, a strategy for the federation. This strategy could open the door to further interference from a government that has, all too often, shown a tendency to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. Quebec is fully capable of managing these matters itself, coordinating and working with its neighbours.

When it comes to flooding, urgent action is needed. When it comes to droughts, urgent action is needed. When it comes to forest fires, urgent action is needed. Urgent action is needed to address all extreme weather events. What is needed is a federal government that takes the climate crisis seriously, that has much more robust and credible climate adaptation plans, and that provides adequate funding to the various levels of government on the front lines, such as municipalities and provinces, which have enormous adaptation needs.

For Quebec municipalities alone, annual infrastructure adaptation needs are estimated at $2 billion. That is only for Quebec.

No matter how good of a strategy we end up with, the federal government still has to settle the fiscal deficit issue to help municipalities face growing costs in areas like infrastructure, the homelessness crisis, housing affordability, and so on. That is what the federal government should be doing. It has to send the money back where it came from and give it to the people best placed to protect the public from the increasing frequency of external climate events.

Obviously, there is some hypocrisy in that. Unfortunately, the reality is that the government is tabling a bill that will eventually lead to an unknown strategy of unknown content while claiming to be the great protector of regular people against the impact of climate change, yet this same government is responsible for unprecedented setbacks in the fight against climate change.

Yesterday, we learned from the Canadian Climate Institute that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased in 2025. The Canadian Climate Institute says that Canada is 20 years behind schedule on its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target. That means that, the way things are going, Canada will not even meet its 2030 target by 2050.

Of course, the oil and gas sector is the main sector responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. This government is ready to put $43 billion of taxpayer money into a mega pipeline that will transport a million barrels of oil from the oil sands every day. Meanwhile, there is no money for adaptation. There is nothing for emissions reduction. Now, the government would have us believe that, with this strategy, it is taking the climate crisis seriously. What a joke. I think that people are starting to understand this when they see the former minister and member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie resign because he says that he no longer sees a place for himself in this government and that the government has given up on the fight against climate change. That is part of adaptation. For us, it is out of the question to support actions that are intended to make this government look good and appear serious about addressing the climate crisis.

We are talking about extreme flooding and droughts. I would remind members that this summer, thousands of people in Canada were evacuated because of wildfires. That is the reality. We need credible plans in place, and we need Canada to step up its efforts not only on adaptation but also on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of dismantling all the measures that had been put in place, Canada should present a credible plan.

The scientific reality is that once global warming reaches a certain threshold, we will not even be able to adapt anymore. We cannot just talk about adapting to climate change. We have to do both. Unfortunately, the government is currently engaging in climate optics by proposing a bill for a strategy even though it does not need a bill to do this and it is setting us back in many respects. It is essentially like starting a fire and inviting an arsonist to put it out.

Obviously, we are going to take the high road, because when it comes to climate change, we are willing to put partisan politics aside. We are willing to ensure that we are there for the good of the people. That is the only concern guiding our actions. We are not playing politics with this issue. However, if the government wants to get serious, we will fulfill our role as elected members by improving and supporting it.

For now, all that we see is the government's ongoing climate denial, dismantlement of greenhouse gas reduction measures, abandonment of its international targets and neglect of the climate change issue and climate change adaptation. We cannot condone that.

We hope to be here to work on implementing real measures and that the government will someday take the lead in the fight against climate change, because that is no longer the case.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the private member's bill from the member for Terrebonne, Bill C-241, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting. This bill is not just important to the country; it is really important to my riding of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish.

During the Labour Day weekend in September this year, for the second time in less than two weeks, my riding was hit by heavy rain and major flooding that resulted in damage to homes, roads, bridges, small businesses, and major infrastructure that connects various parts of Cape Breton, which is still being rebuilt today.

For days I toured around the riding, listening to constituents who have gotten far too used to the impacts of climate change and weather-related events, witnessing the damage that came from the heavy flooding from more than 140 millimetres of rain in some areas to more than 200 millimetres in other areas, and seeing the damage to homes and small businesses. The forecasted amount of the damages is over $20 million right now. It has been catastrophic for Cape Breton, which had three separate state of emergencies called in less than 24 hours. The most tragic part of this was to hear that in Richmond county, the flood took the life of a Cape Breton woman. My thoughts and prayers are with her family.

Major weather events are happening frequently in my riding of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. In Nova Scotia, during my time as a member of Parliament over the last seven years, three times we have had to access the disaster financing arrangement because of weather-related emergencies due to hurricanes, heavy rainfalls and heavy snowfalls that we have not seen in generations or decades. No member of the House wants to have expertise in accessing and talking about disaster financing arrangements, but unfortunately, during my time as a member of Parliament, I have gotten so used to accessing the disaster fund that I have come to know it well.

It is good that we have a disaster financing arrangement when these major weather-related events happen, that we are there for the provinces, municipalities and first nations communities. Up to 90% of the funding is covered by the federal government as part of major weather-related disasters. These programs are designed by provincial governments, they put the bill in and we pay it. Sometimes I wonder if we are just rebuilding without thoughts to the future about what we need to do to mitigate further disasters.

I want to be clear that the science and data have told us for more than a decade that climate change will impact northern and coastal communities first. In fact, when I was first elected, I went to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which highlighted what climate change would mean to the north, to coastal communities and to indigenous communities, which are often in flood zones. The unfortunate part is that the situation is not an anomaly but is becoming a pattern. From the science and research we have heard with respect to these rainstorms, hurricanes and other weather-related events, over the next 50 years, the rain will not decrease but will increase to amounts of up to 20% to 30% greater than they currently are.

This is why we need a national strategy to improve flood forecasting in Canada as proposed by the bill. It is why I support the bill. It is why, more than ever, we need to work not only to rebuild, but also to have the research and capacity to prevent future floods. We need to build back not just better but also more resilient, and we must flag the areas where we know drainage needs to be improved.

It is concerning to see that infrastructure that was just fixed two or three years ago after the previous disaster is once again washing away due to severe rain and flooding. We have to figure out how to mitigate and adapt to the future of climate change. We need the research, the technology and the capacity. We need to use all the resources at our disposal to make sure we have a strategy moving forward and that we are able to build to ensure that the work we are doing addresses climate change and adapts to climate change.

Canada has significant research capacity in hydrological monitoring. This bill would examine the opportunities to build on this existing capacity and the expertise of our academics. Let us ensure that, with this private member's bill, through this important flood strategy, we make the necessary investments and do the necessary work so that no MP in the House has to stand up to talk about a constituent they lost in their riding due to weather-related events that could have been prevented.

I would like to thank the member for Terrebonne for her private member's bill and her commitment to the environment. It is, indeed, important that we continue to do the work. Not only is she a strong advocate for the environment but for the work that we need to do to address climate change, and I thank her immensely for that. This bill captures the spirit of collaboration and co-operation by ensuring that we would use provincial, territorial and indigenous knowledge to inform a national strategy that can help prevent floods and droughts and allow us to better plan for emergencies. This strategy would be a way to have the entire country speak the same language and share expertise in order to close the gaps so that all communities across the country are safer.

In closing, I want to talk a bit about someone who helps my understanding and our responsibility toward the environment, and that is Dr. Albert Marshall, an elder from Eskasoni in my community. He is renowned throughout Canada not only for his work in indigenous knowledge and his commitment to the environment, but also for his belief that we must use indigenous knowledge and western knowledge in a two-eyed seeing approach to help us ensure that we are consciously aware of the things that we are doing moving forward that impact our environment.

I want to highlight that this bill follows the same approach and explicitly provides for consultation with indigenous governing bodies to ensure the strategy is designed with both indigenous and western knowledge in mind. Elder Albert Marshall always taught me that we are interdependent and interconnected to all elements of the environment. In Mi'kmaq terminology we call it “netukulimk”, and it teaches us that we have responsibilities not only to each other and our communities but also to our environment. It is important for us, when we are looking at this strategy moving forward, that we develop this with balance in mind, living in balance with our environment. This private member's bill encourages us to do so, and I am glad to support it.

A national strategy would ensure that we are prepared for the impacts of the heavy rain, floods and weather-related events that are to come, but this important piece of legislation would help us ensure that we are mitigating the damage to come and make our country a safer place for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair.

I hope members will indulge me by allowing me to acknowledge that today is a very special day for my family. Today is my daughter Morgan's first birthday. After a few challenges after her birth, the lead-up to her birthday and the celebration this weekend offer us as a family much time to reflect upon and appreciate just how tough my little girl is and how blessed we are to have her in our lives. I wish Morgan, on behalf of Mama, Maeve and Dada, a happy first birthday. We love her so much, and I cannot wait to get home to celebrate with her.

Of course, I want to take a moment to wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving as well. We live in a wonderful country, and even with the challenges we are facing as a nation, we have a heck of a lot to be thankful for. However, for many families, times are tough. With the ever-rising cost of groceries, housing and life's other necessities, putting on a big Thanksgiving dinner is not without tough choices for many and is impossible for others. As we count our blessings, let us remember those people who are struggling, and lend a hand wherever we can.

I also want to offer a special thanks to our first responders, our health care workers, our military personnel and everyone else who will be away from their family this weekend, serving and caring for others. Let us reflect on everything we have to be thankful for, be inspired to help others and ensure that we remind all those we love just how grateful we are to have them in our own life.

In terms of the legislation before us today, there is something almost uniquely Liberal about the situation. The Liberals spent years telling Canadians that the issue was urgent, and just when they finally got around to doing something about it and had a chance to pass legislation, they watered it down. That is roughly the story of Bill C-241.

I will begin by saying that flood and drought forecasting is very important, particularly in my neck of the woods. If there is a better way to share data and improve forecasting, we should pursue it. That is why Conservatives will support the bill, but supporting the objective does not mean pretending the process that got us here made any sense.

The legislation was here before, in the last Parliament, in fact, as Bill C-317. It received unanimous support in the House but then died when Parliament was prorogued. It came back in the current Parliament as Bill C-241.

The sponsor came before the environment committee and told us that the bill was essential. She spoke about flooded homes, damaged infrastructure and the need for a national strategy. That is fair enough, but that immediately raised an obvious question to me: If the issue was so urgent, why had the government not acted already? I asked the sponsor that question directly. The previous bill had passed roughly 18 months earlier. The Minister of Environment did not need to wait for another private member's bill to begin developing the strategy that is talked about in this legislation.

The answer was that the sponsor could not speak to why the minister had not done it. The answer became even more interesting when departmental officials appeared. One of the officials told us that the government does not actually need any legislation to create this strategy. She said, “We don't need a bill to create a strategy.” Think about that. The government already has the authority to do this. This issue is supposedly urgent. The minister could have gotten to work, but the government just decided to wait.

Then the bill came back, and Liberal MPs decided it was still somewhat too ambitious of a bill. That is where it all gets very strange. The original bill required the strategy to assess modelling that would identify properties and infrastructure at risk from flooding, which is pretty specific. If somebody tells me they are developing flood modelling, it seems reasonable to ask where the water might go. The Liberals amended that language and replaced it with something much broader about modelling that would simply “support flood and drought forecasting”.

I asked why they had done that. If the Liberals wanted broader language, why not add broader language? Why would they delete the specific requirement to identify homes, roads, infrastructure and properties at risk? Officials said that the broader language could capture more activities, which is fine, but the government seems to think that the less a law requires, the better designed it is. Sometimes specificity is useful. If my house is about to flood, I am less interested in learning that the government has developed a broad suite of flexible modelling capabilities than I am in knowing whether or not the water is about to reach my basement.

Then we came to the most significant change with the amendment from the government. The original bill required the preparation of a proposal for a national flood and drought forecasting service built around federal and provincial co-operation. It would not be the creation of the service. It would not have billions of dollars tied to it. It would not be another department. It was merely a proposal. The Liberals decided that might be going a little too far, though, and their amendment inserted language about measures the Government of Canada “may take”.

In legislation, as we all should know in this place, words such as “shall”, “must” and “may” are always there for a reason, and they mean different things. If Parliament intends something to happen, it generally does not write, “Government may possibly consider getting around to it if everyone still feels like it later, maybe.” The parliamentary secretary said he did not want to be too prescriptive. He wanted latitude. “Latitude” is a wonderful word in government. It usually means there will be plenty of room to avoid doing whatever Parliament thought it was asking for.

I asked officials directly whether the new wording meant the minister was permitted to take these measures but was not actually required to. The answer was clear: The government would no longer be required to act once the government's amendments were passed. The strategy would have to include possible measures, but it would not direct the minister or the government to do anything whatsoever after the government passed its amendments. Apparently, even a plan to make a plan was a bit too much commitment for the Liberals.

I asked what the point of a national strategy is if national strategies do not actually direct government action. The answer was that the strategy would, to use the famous new buzzword, “catalyze” people and bring them together. Now, I am sure these meetings would be excellent. There might even be sandwiches at them. However, Canadians living in flood zones are looking for something slightly more useful. That is where an important difference became clear. Measuring water levels is not the same thing as predicting a flood. The national hydrometric program measures water levels and water flows. That is useful, but officials confirmed that it does not itself issue flood warnings. Provinces and territories take that data and turn it into warnings and alerts.

I asked the obvious question. Collecting the measurement is not the same thing as producing the forecast. If a river gauge says that the water is rising, somebody still has to go and tell the mayor whether the road is expected to be underwater tomorrow. That difference is precisely why the original proposal for a co-operative forecasting service had some value and why Conservatives voted for it at second reading, yet that was the part the government decided to make optional.

We have also heard a great deal about coordination. The Canada Water Agency exists in a federal government where more than 20 different departments and agencies already have some sort of freshwater responsibility. I asked what special authority or capability the new agency had that all these others did not. The answer came back largely to coordination, committees, agreements and funding programs. I asked why, if fragmentation was the problem, the solution was to create department 21. I asked what Canadians would notice if we did not have a Canada Water Agency tomorrow. There was nobody at the table that could give me a straight answer on that one.

That is the broader lesson here. The government is very good at announcing coordination and plans. The Liberals' favourite solution to a coordination problem is to create another layer of coordination to coordinate the coordinators. Eventually, somebody asks what actually changes with all this coordination. Better data matters, but data alone does not solve the problem. Writing a strategy is the easy part. Making sure it leads to better decisions is what counts; it is all that counts.

That brings us back to the bill before us. There are still worthwhile things in it, despite the government's amendments. Let us not pretend that the Liberals on the environment committee made this legislation better in any way. They did not. They made some of the clearest language less specific. They took one of the few tangible outcomes and made it conditional on the minister deciding that maybe they want to do it.

What are we left with? The Liberals say floods and droughts are increasingly serious, and they are. When they had the bill in front of them, they apparently decided the biggest problem was that it asked the government to actually do something about it. However, when a community is flooding, Canadians do not need another strategy; they need action. It is time for action.

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

Madam Speaker, I too would like to wish you, my colleagues and all House employees a happy Thanksgiving and a fruitful constituency week. Naturally, I am also including the interpreters, pages, security staff and all the employees who make it possible for us to do our jobs.

As members know, Bill C‑241 would create new federal administrative structures to carry out meteorological duties that are currently the responsibility of the Meteorological Service of Canada, the branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada that provides weather forecasts, warnings and data.

The bill focuses on the goal of improving forecasting for droughts and floods, which are becoming more common as a result of climate change. More specifically, the purpose of the strategy proposed in the bill is to assess the need for future investment in hydrological and water resources analysis, assessment and forecasting, particularly by using supercomputers with inputs from multiple meteorological forecast models and observations. To that end, the bill seeks to create a co-operative national hydrological and water resources forecasting service and system.

This proposal raises a number of questions that deserved to be studied and did get studied in committee. For one thing, we need to know why these services cannot be provided by the Department of the Environment's existing meteorological service. In other words, how would it be useful or necessary to create a new government agency operating in parallel to the Meteorological Service of Canada?

If the solution for improving meteorological forecasting for droughts and floods is to free up financial resources to bring in new advanced technologies, it seems like the government could remedy the situation when it tables its budget, which it is expected to do in the first or second week of November, before the parliamentary recess.

However, as we know, the current Bill C‑241 has no budgetary impact. It merely suggests that the government assess the need or relevance of making a hypothetical investment. If the problem is not a lack of resources, what legal or administrative obstacles are currently stopping the government from improving the meteorological services provided by the Meteorological Service of Canada?

The preamble of Bill C-241 states that most technologically advanced countries have a national flood forecasting service. Since Quebec is an advanced country, the Government of Quebec already provides the public with weather, hydrological and hydraulic forecasts. For example, it has an app called Vigilance that provides 48-hour flood forecasts for many rivers in southern Quebec.

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

I thank the hon. member. I want to to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving.

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

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 19, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)