Bill C-317

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting

This enactment provides for the development of a national strategy to provide key stakeholders with the information they need to forecast floods and droughts.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑317 be read the third time and passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Khan, I don't know if you've heard of Bill C-317. It dovetails with everything you're saying, and I hope it gets through the Senate.

That was a really interesting discussion from a different perspective—not from the perspective of provinces like Ontario, Quebec and B.C., but from the perspective of provinces in the Atlantic, which have different needs and a different perspective. Thank you. I think we benefited greatly from your testimony.

We're going to take a short break because we're going into a 106(4) meeting, colleagues.

Thank you again for making the trip to Ottawa for this meeting.

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to C-317, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting. Let us be clear. In Canada, we are facing a climate change crisis that is leading to more and more severe floods, and more and more severe wildfires. Let us also be clear that the government is failing, not only to deal with climate change, but to deal with the impacts of climate change.

The proposed bill requires the development of a national strategy to forecast floods and droughts. The bill is peak Liberal: It consults and forecasts, but it would do nothing to deal with climate change. It is yet another attempt to pathologize what is wrong with the patient instead of doing everything we can to bring the patient back to life, but what is worse is that the bill is a Liberal private member's bill. It is associated with a government whose actions are making climate change worse. Despite all of the PR stunts, the greenwashing and the lofty commitments internationally, Liberals have failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The reality is clear: We are facing a climate emergency.

Earlier this month, we saw major wildfires on the west side of our constituency, by Cranberry Portage, Wanless and Flin Flon. We have never seen such aggressive wildfires so early in this part of the country. The fires moved as fast as they did because of the drought conditions, because of climate change. Hundreds of people were evacuated. Tens of thousands of hectares burned. Power and telecommunication lines were destroyed.

This is just the beginning. This is happening, not just across Canada, but around the world. Let us be clear that many communities in our region are being impacted disproportionately by climate change. When we talk about floods, no community knows this reality better than Peguis First Nation, the largest first nation in Manitoba and a community I am honoured to represent.

Peguis was forcibly relocated to a flood plain by the federal government, but it is now bearing the brunt of climate change. Just over two years ago, the community once again faced extreme flooding, destroying homes and forcing over 2,000 people to flee to Winnipeg. At the time, Chief Hudson said that he had never seen flooding that bad and called on the military to step in. This a community that knows what it is talking about, having dealt with flooding that led to evacuations in 2011, 2014 and 2017.

I supported the call to bring in the military. The federal government refused to listen. It did not provide the supports needed then, and it has not since, and Peguis has had enough. They filed a $1-billion lawsuit just a few weeks ago against the federal government, the Province of Manitoba and two municipalities. The lawsuit is seeking damages caused by a “breach of duty and care and negligence...which has made living conditions on the reserve land...intolerable and which led to a wholesale evacuation.”

I was in Peguis a few weeks ago. Highway 224 and the roads in the community are torn up. Houses are abandoned and families are still evacuated. Peguis is asserting that the federal government breached its treaty obligations by not providing Peguis with a “sustainable and tolerable living environment, safe and secure from flooding disasters, through adequate permanent flood protection for the reserve land.”

The lawsuit also claimed that the federal government failed to build adequate flood protection at the reserve. So much for reconciliation from the Liberals. Peguis deserves action now. First nations and northern communities on the front lines of the climate crisis deserve action now. Let us be clear that the Liberal government has done the exact opposite of what needs to be done to keep communities safe. Only one-third of all money spent on disaster relief is for long-term solutions. The government would rather fund evacuation efforts than help prevent them. It is band-aids for all when what is really needed is surgery. This is life or death for the communities in our region, but the Liberals refuse to do the work.

Last summer was the worst wildfire season recorded in Canada. It was so bad that Canada accounted for 43% of people displaced by wildfires globally last year. This summer could be even worse, which is why Canada needs to think long and hard about how we are keeping communities safe and who has our back.

This brings me to the news of this week. This week, a story in the Ottawa Citizen shed light on deeply concerning comments made by the chief of the defence staff, Wayne Eyre, who has complained that the use of military personnel has become “wickedly wasteful”. He said, “I made it quite clear to other departments that our capacity to do what we did last year is not the same, especially with reduced readiness [and], increased deployments to Latvia”. Eyre told senior officers during an April 23 video conference, “We're not going to have the same forces available...for the scale and duration of response.”

Regarding “wickedly wasteful”, let us be clear. I know first-hand as a Manitoban and as a Canadian just how much of a difference the Canadian military has made when all other resources have been exhausted in fighting major floods and wildfires. Much of this deployment occurred when Canadians were serving overseas, whether it was in former Yugoslavia or even Afghanistan. Now, when we are sending more troops to Latvia, a key military leader is essentially saying that if it comes to forest fires and floods in Canada, good luck.

Describing these types of deployments as “wasteful” is absolutely unacceptable. However, what is even more unacceptable is the response from our Prime Minister. When I asked him about these comments in question period earlier this week, he responded with a series of indecipherable platitudes. He did not deal with the key question. Will he and his government assure Canadians that when it comes to our military, they will put the interests of Canadians first, responding to floods and forest fires when all other resources have been exhausted, or will the Prime Minister politically play with fire and once again try to have it every which way, trying to stand for everything but in the end standing for nothing?

I want to be clear. When it comes to our military and to the Prime Minister, I am proud of the service of so many women and men. I know first-hand from my family, from my partner, what that service means. That includes being there for Canadians when needed. That, in particular, means being there for northern and indigenous communities when needed. My message to the Prime Minister is to take a stand and make it clear that his government will reject any idea that helping in terms of forest fires and floods is wasteful, and to give the military the resources and the funding it needs to continue that work here at home.

Finally, I want to appeal to this House to take seriously what we are dealing with in Canada and around the world. We must reject the way in which we are increasingly sleepwalking into major policy decisions without considering their consequences. The government's escalation of troop deployment and weapons supplies without debate or discussion, when the military is now saying that it will be incapacitated in its ability to respond to Canada's needs, is not acceptable.

This bill talks about forecasts. I would like to make a forecast: If we do not consider the consequences of our actions right now, we will increasingly be part of the problem, not the solution, when it comes to international conflicts and catastrophic climate change. This would have an impact not only on Canadians today and in the near future, but on the very future of our planet.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in November 2023, I rose to speak to the bill introduced by my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and member for Lac-Saint-Louis, with whom I have the great pleasure of working on that committee.

As I said at the time, the Bloc Québécois does not have any objections as to the content of the bill. I pointed out that it is important to remember that all of the tools already exist and have been implemented in Quebec. I also pointed out that there was a problem that seemed fundamental to me, namely that better coordination was needed among the existing organizations. I am talking about the organizations responsible for handling information related to weather events that result in major flooding and occasional or prolonged drought.

Droughts and floods are natural phenomena, but we know that they are exacerbated by climate change and climate disruptions. In order for us to adapt to climate change impacts, public authorities must come together and take action. They must rely on science to guide the government's decision-making in that area. This means making relevant information available to the public and all stakeholders, which is consistent with this bill.

The committee conducted its study, which went well. It was unanimous. Now, I want to get back to what is happening in Quebec. I am going to talk a bit about climate change, which will certainly come as no surprise to anyone.

Quebec has experienced numerous floods in recent decades, and the socio-economic costs associated with them have been steadily increasing. Philippe Gachon is a professor and holder of the UQAM research chair on hydrometeorological risks related to climate change. He has studied these phenomena extensively and is working to determine why rivers overflow and the future risks. Before there is a flood, rivers overflow from spring flooding, and in some cases, the damage can be considerable.

Let us talk about the Ottawa River, which is near Parliament Hill. In 2017, flood levels on the Ottawa River not only reached areas with just a 1% chance of being flooded at the time, but they exceeded them by a significant amount on two occasions.

The ink was not even dry on the report prepared in the aftermath when flooding returned in the spring of 2019. The Ottawa River once again flooded the streets of Rigaud in a disaster that lasted for more than 42 consecutive days. For the 2019 spring flood alone, the Insurance Bureau of Canada pegged the damage at $127 million. Across southern Quebec, more than 10,000 people had to leave their homes.

Professor Gachon's team is working with Environment Canada software that is used to prepare short- and medium-term weather forecasts. This team is attempting to create a version that can make long-term predictions about the influence of future disruptions at specific locations, while observing the dynamics at work in the watersheds of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. The knowledge that this professor is building would surely be worth sharing to maximize the chances of achieving the bill's objectives.

I am not going to reel off a lot of data or statistics on the increasing number of floods or droughts. We know that these events are increasingly costly and increasingly devastating.

However, I would like to point out that no one is immune to the climate disruptions wreaking havoc on our communities, no matter their geographic location. Most importantly, these disruptions are devastating our agricultural economies. When we had concerns about the benefits of Bill C‑317, I have to say that we did not get enough answers, so we are choosing to be optimistic about this initiative.

I will close by quoting Professor Emeritus René Laprise of UQAM, who spoke in 2019 to the Québec Science magazine about future risks and what Quebec might look like in 2050. He said, and I quote:

The models show that there will be more droughts and more flooding. It seems counterintuitive, but we have to understand that it is the distribution of precipitation in the weather that will change. For long periods, there will be no rain. In a hotter atmosphere, the water vapour will accumulate more, then all of the water will fall all at once. That is why we predict that there will be more floods—with the overflow problems that entails.

...mean sea level will rise by roughly 15 cm. At first glance, that is not a lot, but those 15 cm will add to the reduced ice cover on the St. Lawrence and the potential for more violent storms. This combination of factors will accelerate coastal erosion. The phenomenon is already visible on the shores of the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé peninsula [and the Magdalen Islands].

The gravity of these phenomena deserves our attention. Quebec already has a good structure. I invite the federal government to reflect on the underlying causes of these costly and dramatic changes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to extend some thanks. I would like to thank all the members of the House, particularly those who serve on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. As we know, the bill was endorsed by all the parties. It received unanimous support, and I am very pleased about that.

I also want to thank the scientists who helped me develop and draft this bill, including John Pomeroy, a world-renowned hydrologist. He is an expert in climate change and hydrology in nordic countries like Canada. He was instrumental in helping me draft this legislation. More importantly, he taught me a lot on the subject. I am not a scientist. I have a keen interest in freshwater, but I did not know a lot about flood and drought forecasting. Professor Pomeroy was extremely patient and really helped me learn about the subject, along with Alain Pietroniro, a former public servant at the Department of Environment in Ottawa who now works at the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary is in the process of setting up a faculty dedicated to water studies, which is very impressive. It has a whole team studying this area in depth, and it keeps me abreast of what is going on. The University of Saskatchewan, where Professor Pomeroy works, is recognized for its expertise in water issues and, most importantly, in the science behind flood and drought forecasting.

Earlier this week, I raised an issue when we were debating areas of jurisdiction within the Canadian federation. I said that the Canadian federation is more than a power game or a power relationship. Yes, we do politics here, in the House. Doing politics is part of building and maintaining relations between the federal and provincial governments. However, the Canadian federation is bigger than that. It encompasses the resources and expertise that we share. It also includes a technical component in that we share knowledge and ways of doing things. This is evident in a number of areas, like health, for instance. Each province is like a laboratory and tries to manage its health care system in a certain way. If things work out, other provinces may want to follow suit. I think we have seen this happen in Quebec, where a government agency, Santé Quebec, was just created. Apparently it is similar to what was created in Ontario, but I will spare you the details. It is a bit like the United Nations. Obviously, the United Nations engages in politics, especially the General Assembly and the Security Council.

However, the United Nations is much more than that. It is expertise and resources. Countries collaborate on technical issues, whether it is through the World Health Organization, the International Maritime Organization or the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. A lot of work is being done. It is a bit like what happens here: Often, question period is theatre, but in committee, we do good work. Theatre is not bad. It has its place in politics. I would like to say that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development does good work.

Bill C-317 is a rather technical bill, designed to encourage technical collaboration with respect to forecasting droughts and floods and to better predict them. That is the purpose of this bill. As I said at the outset, I did not know much about this field, but I have learned a lot. This has enabled me to bring in this bill and move it forward.

This bill will encourage collaboration, but without incurring any expenses. This bill will not force an internal reorganization within the Department of Environment. This bill will require federal officials to collaborate with experts, many of whom work in a provincial government, as well as with indigenous peoples and the insurance industry. Everyone needs to work together to develop a plan for better collaboration on drought and flood forecasting. There is some collaboration now, but it is not very formal and it would be better if it were even more structured and streamlined. That is all this bill seeks to do.

It will be a major step forward if the bill is passed in the House of Commons and the Senate and if the departments in question are required to implement this strategy. Why am I interested in flooding? I have been interested in the freshwater policy since I was elected, and floods and droughts obviously impact the amount of water that is available. Either there is too much or too little.

I would also like to talk a little bit about my riding. It is located on the Island of Montreal, in the west end of the city. It is surrounded by water, namely the Lac des Deux‑Montagnes, Rivière-des-Prairies, Lac Saint‑Louis and the St. Lawrence River. Every once in a while, but more often these days because of climate change, there is overflow and flooding. When we see it with our own eyes, we realize just how much devastation and destruction that can cause. That is what prompted me to introduce this bill.

I would also like to take a moment to congratulate municipal councillors, who are really called upon to work together and do crisis management when there is flooding. They do it very well. That is one of the reasons this subject caught my attention. I would also like to thank my colleagues once again, especially those on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I hope that this bill will be passed at third reading. Things are looking good, as I believe it was passed unanimously at second reading. If the bill passes in the House, I will have to wait and see what happens in the Senate. I have to admit that I am not as familiar with the workings of the Senate as I am with the House of Commons, but I will get there eventually.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-317, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C‑317, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. The reference number, so everybody has it, is 13047345, in the top left-hand corner of page 3, for Bill C-317, in both English and French.

Ms. Taylor Roy, I'll go to you to move your subamendment and to speak to it. Then we'll have a discussion on the subamendment.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for the opportunity to come and join your committee today. I sat on the environment committee back in the 42nd Parliament. It's always a pleasure to come back and visit you.

Today, we are going to be studying Bill C-317.

We have witnesses today from the Department of the Environment who will be available to answer questions. At the very back of the room, with this new set-up, we have Wayne Jenkinson, executive director of national hydrological services; and Stephanie Lane, executive director of legislative governance. Welcome to both of you.

We will now go to the clause-by-clause review of the bill.

I have some notes I'll go through before we get into it. The instructions that I'll give you before we start clause-by-clause on Bill C-317 are as follows.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open to debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly, to allow all members to follow the proceedings accordingly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Are there any questions? Are we ready to start? Okay.

Before we start, I will ask if we want to have recorded votes for each of the pieces. That's standard procedure, I believe. We'll do recorded votes as we move through the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and of the preamble is postponed. I will call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

On clause 2, there is amendment G-1, moved by Mr. van Koeverden.

Do you want to speak to it?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, Chair.

It's not a reflection on your job as chair, but since this is your bill, I would move that during consideration of Bill C-317, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, John Aldag be designated as acting chair of the committee.

Mr. Aldag is here, a former member of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The vote is at 5:45. We'll stop whenever we have to stop, but I believe it's 5:45. The bells are at 5:15.

Now, we'll go to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-317.

I believe Mr. Longfield has a motion.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, we used to talk a lot about adapting to climate change or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps that was because we hadn't acted quickly or forcefully enough over the years, but my sense now is that we talk more about adaptation than mitigation, although both are extremely important.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Sanford.

Now I'll go to the representatives of Ottawa Riverkeeper. As you know, I'm very concerned about the Ottawa River, but for other reasons.

As you know, through its meteorological service, Environment and Climate Change Canada is already making very useful data available. It provides citizens, businesses, the government, provinces and territories with accurate meteorological information and official weather warnings. In your mind, however, it's important that we establish a national strategy, like the one proposed in Bill C-317.

Why not review the mandate of that agency, which is currently in a better position to provide forecasts?

[Laura Reinsborough, Riverkeeper and Chief Executive Officer, Ottawa Riverkeeper]

Thank you so much for having us here today.

Mr. Sandford painted a global picture, and I'll bring you very local now to the Ottawa River watershed. Here we are. Whenever your service brings you to the national capital region, you are directly depending on the Ottawa River and its tributaries for your survival. It's our drinking water today as well, so cheers!

I'll be presenting along with my colleague, Larissa Holman, director of science and policy. You recently met her, as she presented at the freshwater study as well.

We were just invited a few days ago to present, and the timing is impeccable. We have prepared a flow-changes report on the Ottawa River watershed using federal data that has existed for years but has never before been analyzed through a watershed lens. So, to truly look at the data for what is happening in the Ottawa River watershed.... The results are eye-opening.

This Ottawa River watershed is vast, with a surface area of more than twice that of the province of New Brunswick. It provides drinking water for you and two million people. The flow of the Ottawa River can be so great that it can exceed that of all of the Great Lakes combined. It has been given the moniker “the sixth great lake” as a result.

We have a mighty river flowing through our nation's capital.

I'll speak about our experiences with the floods of 2017 and 2019 that have informed our comments today. It is also important to note that this mighty river is also affected by drought, so we need to take into consideration that even our mightiest of rivers are impacted by both floods and droughts.

Just two weeks from now we'll be releasing our first watershed report card, and we've analyzed 14 different indicators. Changes in flow is one of them, as I mentioned. Despite the availability of flow data through the water survey of Canada, our watershed report card is the first report that has conducted analysis on the data trends for both flooding and periods of low flow at a watershed scale. The jurisdictions within this watershed are very complex. The river itself becomes a border between Ontario and Quebec.

When the Ottawa River experienced extensive flooding in both 2017 and 2019—many of you will remember that—it caused extensive damage to infrastructure, property and people's homes. Both the Ontario and Quebec governments attempted to address the flooding in different ways, thereby working separately to confront an issue that cannot be solved one side of the river at a time. We see a need in this context, like with many other watersheds, where political jurisdictions need to be coordinated in order to ensure that the response is effective. This applies to predictions and forecasting as well.

We looked specifically at Bill C-317 and have a few recommendations to put forward.

[Wanda McFadyen, Executive Director, Assiniboine River Basin Initiative]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members, and thank you. It is an honour to speak to you today about Bill C-317.

As we all know, water respects no boundaries, be it in time of floods or of drought, so it's critically important that different water authorities across the country come together to share standardized data and be able to share that in a timely manner with stakeholders who work on the landscape and rely on that data.

I want to speak to two flood events that happened within our basin in recent years: the flood of 2011, which was a once-in-300-years event, and the one of 2014, which was a once-in-500-years event. These two floods were catastrophic in nature. In one instance, one community saw 11,000 residents evacuated from their homes and 4,000 homes and businesses impacted.

The mental health impacts to communities in times of flood are astronomical and go on for years and years. The flood of 2014 saw communities as well as rural residents marooned without supplies for days on end. Floods also impact infrastructure, farmland, businesses, etc., so we need to look at and work collaboratively on those across the country. As we've heard from Dr. Pomeroy, insurance is also impacted, which is a huge piece of the puzzle for those on the landscape.

The flip side, of course, is drought. We are starting to experience that at unprecedented levels. The difference between a drought and a flood is that droughts can go on for many months or years, while floods tend to have a shorter impact but wreak havoc on infrastructure for years to come in its replacement. I think it's very important that we look at that.

Both of these impact mental health, the economic well-being of the communities, the environment, the landscape and all the creatures that inhabit those landscapes. When I say “communities”, I'm referring to all communities: first nations, rural residents, urban residents, etc. Also, they cross international boundaries, as we heard earlier. We have to be respectful of the fact that water does flow across rural boundaries.

On behalf of our organization, I would strongly encourage the committee to work towards the development of a true national strategy that would enable all jurisdictions to share data in a standardized and understandable format to prepare for and react to floods and droughts. In working across those jurisdictional boundaries, they must recognize that those boundaries are municipal and provincial, as well as international. Communication, co-operation and coordination are all common goals that will lead to the success of this program, if it's to roll out.

You must invest in working with us, the grassroots stakeholders. Groups like ours, the indigenous communities on the landscape and the agriculture and conservation groups all hold a wealth of knowledge and have developed a network and a trust on the landscape with those impacted. In many instances, they are the first responders on the landscape, working with local residents, be it in times of flood or in times of drought.

Also, work towards creating resiliency, whereby all stakeholders have the ability and tools before them to adapt to change, not only to achieve environmental sustainability but to remain viable on the economic side of things for themselves and for the well-being of their communities. As well, the goals must also realize that research and adaptation of best management practices, and the utilization of tools that may assist in the process that is developed, are key to its success.

Transparent processes are a must. You must include transparent communication and information exchange in order to lead to the success of the programs.

Also, we must never forget the golden rule of water: Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you.

I'm very pleased to present you with this information today, and I'm quite willing to answer any questions. We're very pleased to see this strategy move forward and would encourage those of you around the table not to forget about us, the grassroots individuals who can help this become a success across Canada.

Thank you.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Let's just say that, in the next few months, the bill is voted on and passed in the House of Commons, and then in the Senate. Based on what you know about this legislation and on your experience in Canada and the United States, approximately how long might it take for Canada really to turn together as a single wheel with the 13 provinces and territories and for us to be responsible and effective at the national level?