“Preparing for floods and droughts is important. But why do we need a new law to create this strategy? How will this plan respect provincial powers, especially in Quebec?”

“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?”

“The government does not need a law to create a plan for floods and droughts. Debating this bill just delays real action. Quebec already has its own flood maps and works with other provinces, so Ottawa should not step in. The government should send funding to provinces and towns instead of passing this bill.”

“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.”

“I have doubts about this bill. It creates a new agency to forecast floods and droughts instead of using the weather service we already have. It also does not provide any real money to fix the problem. Quebec already forecasts its own floods.”

“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.”