44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 24, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/24/23 10:22:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, because he emphasized the merits of the union movement. As a former union president, this means a lot to me.
I would also like to thank the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Allow me to explain why I am taking the time to pay tribute to him. Since its inception in 1989-90, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting for anti-scab legislation at the federal level, and the first bill in that regard was introduced by the current dean of the House, so I wanted to take a moment to highlight the work of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.
Here is my question for the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. There is still an 18-month delay before the bill receives royal assent. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has asked that this be done before Christmas. Does the member know the reasons for this delay?
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/23 1:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is truly very much in favour of the bill. The House will recall that the Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 such bills, with the first attempt dating back to 1990. It was the dean of the House who introduced that first bill.
This morning, my colleague from Saint-Jean asked the parliamentary secretary a question. She wanted to know why there will be an 18‑month waiting period before the bill comes into force once it receives royal assent. The parliamentary secretary told her that we could ask that question in committee.
However, why this change when usually a bill comes into force as soon as there is royal assent? Since this is a Liberal bill, I wonder if my colleague can give me the reason for this delay.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to commend my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. He is always so committed to protecting water, freshwater in particular, and the environment as a whole. In his speech, he clearly demonstrated the links between the environment and health. He explained that they were intimately linked. He also talked about the economic costs of floods and droughts. We could also add in the economic costs of all health problems. It all adds up.
On the subject of Bill C‑317, we already have the Canadian Drought Monitor and Environment Canada's weather services, for example. Do we need another piece of legislation to improve coordination?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for introducing this bill. I also thank him for his environmental convictions and his great patience as chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
There have been, as we know, a lot of floods in Quebec over the past decades, and the related socio-economic costs have constantly increased, including health costs related to the trauma and mental health issues that the impacted people can develop afterwards. Floods and droughts are natural phenomena that are amplified by climate change. Adapting to the impacts of climate change will require public authorities to rely on science to guide public decision-making. This will involve ensuring access by the public and all stakeholders to relevant data on weather events, including droughts and floods.
A lot of that work is already being done by public authorities. It remains to be seen how a bill to establish a national strategy respecting the prevention of floods and droughts will improve current processes. However, I will say that the Bloc Québécois will support the bill, because we are not opposed to virtue.
We now that launching national strategies—gosh, I get so sick of the word “strategy” sometimes—is quite popular within the Liberal and NDP ranks, even though it usually results in the creation of laws, policies or committees that have no real effect beyond adding more bureaucracy and making people feel like they accomplished something.
By the way, we should take the opportunity to remind this House that Canada is not a national state with a population that represents a single people. As I have said before, words matter. There is no single Canadian nation. Canada is a society consisting of multiple nations, including the Canadian majority, the Quebec nation and the indigenous nations. Always using terminology like “national strategy” and “national policy” is a bit disingenuous. That said, it is well established that a country can flaunt diversity as a cardinal virtue while disregarding the diversity of nations that is at its core. I have a particular country in mind. I do not know if we are all thinking about the same one.
That being said, our primary concern about Bill C‑317 is its purpose. Why introduce such a bill? With all due respect to its sponsor, we are wondering if the provisions in the bill are liable to improve public action in any way, especially the ability of governments to plan and operate climate change adaptation measures. Indeed, that is what this is about: The phenomena identified in Bill C‑317 are accelerating and increasing and the climate crisis is to blame.
Again, when we hear the word “strategy” we think of military strategies. However, the dictionary defines it as the art of developing coordinated plans of action; a set of coordinated actions. That is interesting because the Government of Canada is already monitoring droughts through the Canadian Drought Monitor, or the CDM, as I mentioned in my question to my colleague. This tool “uses a variety of federal, provincial, and regional data sources to establish a single drought rating based on a five category system. These ratings are shared through monthly maps that show the extent and intensity of drought across Canada.”
Given that the Government of Canada already has operational tools within the CDM, how will Bill C‑317 add to that? Its preamble justifies it by stating that “current flood and drought forecasting in Canada is conducted by the provinces without coordination between them and with limited federal technical support.” I would like to emphasize the words “limited federal support”.
In this context, it would be wise to carefully analyze public actions related to the prevention and predictability of relevant climate events already undertaken by the provinces. Once that has been done, and knowing that technical support is limited, it seems to me that it is time to take action.
Let us take a look at what exists in Quebec. Quebec's flood protection plan presents sustainable solutions to better protect our living environments.
Quebec's plan is based on four areas of intervention. The first involves coherent flood mapping at the watershed level in order to study flood risks in Quebec. The second is to respond and provide oversight by ensuring consistent and strict development rules for flood zones, and by establishing rules governing flood protection structures. The third is planning and responding, in other words, planning responses at the watershed level through flood-related land use planning and support for the introduction of flood resilience and adaptation measures. The fourth is to learn and communicate, in other words, to improve flood predictability, support planning, learn about best practices, promote the development and maintenance of flood-related expertise, improve access to information by various segments of the population, and disseminate information on flood-related risks more effectively.
It is a rather comprehensive plan, and we are proud of ourselves.
There is also an app called Vigilance. I think that is a good name for it. This app helps Quebeckers to better prepare for flooding by keeping them informed of changes in water levels in each community. The app is a good way for municipal and government stakeholders to maximize the impact of their activities in case of emergency.
In general, we can say that the Government of Quebec is the one that has the expertise needed to protect its land and people from flooding. What is more, Quebec has an excellent strategy, the Québec Water Strategy, which is the result of serious government reflection that takes into account all past experience.
The strategy will be implemented through three successive action plans. Taken together, the measures put forward in the first action plan for 2018-2023 represent investments of over $550 million.
Quebec's strategy is working very well without any intervention from the federal government, which is not required to protect the environment or manage Quebec's natural resources. That being said, it is true that Environment Canada, through its weather service, already makes weather information and official weather warnings available to citizens, organizations, businesses, and provincial and territorial governments. This is really the best way to determine whether or not federal support is required. If it is required, how should that be set up?
We believe our study of the bill should involve trying to assess the need for coordination and technical support from the federal government. Furthermore, in assessing what is currently being done, how can existing detection and notification processes be improved? Are the technologies really up to date?
These are things that could be observed without necessarily resorting to a legislative mechanism. We believe that this study must absolutely be conducted in advance.
Finally, I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill introduced by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. If there is truly a need, we have no reason to oppose the federal government's initiative to provide better quality weather information that public authorities will find easier to use. If that information contributes to the process and decision-making by public authorities when the time comes to plan preventive action for extreme weather events, so much the better. That is why we are voting in favour of the bill.
1255 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
