Official Hansard
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.
