SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 255 - Nov/24/23

Nov/24/23 1:12:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I said that our proposal may have been slightly different from that of the NDP. The result is better and I will be the first to say that. Yes, we ran on something slightly different, but the NDP said this was a better way to do it and we came to an agreement that is going to be for the betterment of all Canadians. That is the difference between parties that can work together and being confronted with an opposition whose purpose is to be completely obstructionary in its approach. To his question about raising taxes, the member has raised this before. What I am very concerned about, which I can certainly see eye to eye on with the NDP because I know the NDP has raised it, is corporations, the grocery giants in particular. We need to be doing more to control the greedflation that exists. I do not disagree, personally, that it exists. Is it as easy as raising taxes by x amount on every single corporation in the country? I think he would be the first to admit that a lot of small businesses are corporations in this country as well, so maybe that is not the right way to do it.

210 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Nov/24/23 1:13:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we came to this place in 2015, the hon. member probably knew about the horrific track record of the Conservative Party with the legislation it passed under the Harper government. I was wondering if he could enlighten this House on what we saw when the Conservatives were last in power.

53 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/24/23 1:14:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding that has a lot of public sector employees and a lot of people who are impacted directly or indirectly by the public sector. There were so many public sector employees back in 2014-15 in my riding who took extreme issue with what the Conservatives had done. They had even lost the support of corrections guards. That is where we were. I was meeting with corrections employees and their unions to discuss what Stephen Harper had done to them. The reality is that no person, in my opinion, with a memory of the Harper years and how he treated organized labour could stand and honestly say that Stephen Harper was on the side of organized labour. It just did not exist.

128 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Nov/24/23 1:15:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of humorous when I hear the hon. member talk about workers, especially since he mentioned two million Canadians. He is right: Two million Canadians are going to the food bank in one single month. The member of the Liberal Party claims that he stands up for workers. However, recently we learned that the government plans to staff the Stellantis battery plant with 1,600 taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers rather than Canadian workers. Can the member tell me why Canadian taxpayers are spending $15 billion to create jobs that are not even going to Canadians?

100 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/24/23 1:16:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I referenced two million people, I was talking about the two million Ukrainians living in the country who feel as though the Conservative Party turned its back on them. That is what I was talking about when I referred to two million people. To the member's question, does she know why we have a temporary foreign worker program with South Korea? It is because Stephen Harper brought it in in this country back in 2014. It was Stephen Harper who enabled the legislation to make that happen. Notwithstanding that, her data and information are incorrect. She is citing them as though they are fact and they are not. As we heard the minister talk about today, this is contributing to misinformation. He quoted various individuals who were saying it. The reality is that 2,300 Canadian jobs will be made to build the plant and then 2,500 good-paying jobs will be for running the plant. With a foreign company coming to build a new plant in Canada, will there need to be some foreign expertise to show Canadians how to build it? That might be the reality. We might see some foreign workers as a result of that, but they are not permanent—

210 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Nov/24/23 1:17:21 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons like this, but he has far exceeded his speaking time.

27 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Nov/24/23 1:17:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-205

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On September 21, during the debate at second reading on Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act on interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders, I read a quote on the record from Martine Jeanson, founder of the Maison des guerrières. Unfortunately, I mistakenly attributed the quote to Sarah Niman, legal counsel and assistant manager of legal services for the Native Women's Association of Canada. The quote from Sarah Niman should have read: Bill S-205 seeks to provide violence victims something of a voice. This bill places the onus on the criminal justice system to check in with victims, consider their safety through the proceedings, and produce outcomes that consider their safety. Bill S-205 does not create a response specifically tailored to Indigenous women, but it does create a framework for them to be seen and heard in a system that otherwise does not. I deeply apologize for this error. I want the record to reflect accurately what was said and by whom. Therefore, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the Debates and any House multimedia recording of Thursday, September 21, 2023, be amended by deleting the words “Sarah Niman, from the Native Women's Association of Canada” and substituting the following: “Martine Jeanson, founder of the Maison des guerrières”.

251 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Nov/24/23 1:19:08 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. I declare the motion carried.

42 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

Nov/24/23 1:19:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order. I believe that, earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities misled the House during question period. I asked a question as to why Canada is acting as a voice for billionaires on the world stage in fighting against an international system for tax fairness at the UN that would make the wealthy pay their fair share. Instead of explaining Canada's shameful position, the member chose to mislead the House by saying that his government is taking issues with tax fairness seriously and pointed to the government's work in response to the Panama papers, claiming, “Convictions are up.... We will continue this good work.” Earlier this year, I filed an Order Paper question asking exactly what Canada's response to the Panama papers was. The result is not a whole lot. Convictions are certainly not up, as the parliamentary secretary indicated they were. The Order Paper response states: Panama Papers: As of March 31, 2022, there have been seven referrals to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program (CIP) related to the Panama Papers. Of the seven referred cases, five proceeded to criminal investigations. Of the five cases that proceeded to criminal investigations, three were discontinued, while two are still ongoing. I understand that the government is very comfortable paying lip service to Canadians, but this is just straight-up dishonesty. My preference would be for the government to prosecute billionaire tax cheats, including based on what is in the Panama papers. However, I guess we will just have to wait to ask the parliamentary secretary to withdraw his remarks.

278 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Nov/24/23 1:21:49 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member. I can assure her that the Chair will review her point of order and return to the House with a ruling if necessary.

28 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Nov/24/23 1:22:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to time travel and see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

25 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Nov/24/23 1:22:00 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Nov/24/23 1:23:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-317

moved that Bill C-317, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a key role of a legislator, especially when society is faced with a growing multiplicity of challenges, many of which require recourse to science to solve, is to act as a conduit, in essence a conduit for bringing the science that resides in our universities and other research entities, including government departments, into the realm of actionable public policy. This is what Bill C-317 seeks to do. Before I delve into the bill, I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. John Pomeroy, director of the global water futures programme at the University of Saskatchewan, and Dr. Alain Pietroniro, Schulich chair in sustainable water systems in a changing climate at the University of Calgary, both of whom have patiently provided me with a basic understanding of flood and drought forecasting to allow me to argue today, hopefully convincingly, for the creation of a national flood and drought forecasting strategy. Fresh water is one of those complex policy issues that call for urgent political and policy attention. First, let me be clear, Bill C-317 is not about encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. It is not a Trojan horse, no more than the Canada Water Agency, which will be a platform for co-operation in better managing our water resources, would be a Trojan horse. It would be a political conceit, not to mention just plain foolish, to think the federal government could govern fresh water, a provincial resource, in a top-down centralized fashion. That said, we need all hands on deck if we are to properly manage and protect this vital resource, which Canada has been blessed to possess in such great abundance in its rivers and lakes, in its ice coverage and beneath our feet in groundwater. I implore members not to oppose this bill for reasons of politics or ideology. Water, especially when we speak of flooding, is a far too important of a non-partisan policy issue. Bill C-317, if adopted, would help better protect communities across Canada, including in Quebec, from the devastating impacts and costs of flooding. My own riding of Lac-Saint-Louis in Quebec, as well as ridings adjacent to it and further upstream, have been impacted by costly flood events as recently as 2017 and 2019. I have seen first-hand the damage and heartbreak that flooding can cause. My bill calls for the creation of a national flood and drought forecasting strategy. I want to emphasize the word “national” here, as opposed to “federal”, which is a crucial distinction. Water is far too vast and complex an issue for the federal government to be able to take on alone and take sole responsibility for. This would be true even if, by some miracle, the Constitution gave the federal government complete jurisdiction over water, which is obviously not the case. Centralization is simply not the way to go here. The federal government readily acknowledges this fact in its words and actions. The federal government's equivalency agreement with Quebec on the regulation of waste water effluent is a good example of this desire to collaborate, even when it comes to a powers under the Fisheries Act, which falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. That being said, when we talk about water or other environmental issues, gaining knowledge, advancing research and sharing best practices to reach better solutions are international undertakings that require a kind of collaboration that transcends borders. Nothing in this bill challenges respect for jurisdictions, including provincial jurisdiction over water. If the European Union countries can collaborate on a common water policy, the European water policy, the regions of Canada should be able to do the same. The condition of our water resources is increasingly linked to climate change. In fact, water is the canary in the coal mine, an early warning system. I would like to quote one of the most respected experts on water policy, Jim Bruce. He said, “Like a fish that does not notice the shark until it feels its sharp bite, humans will first feel the effects of climate change through water.” Put another way, to quote water policy guru Bob Sandford from his book Flood Forecast: Climate Risk and Resiliency in Canada, water is a child of climate. He writes, “If we follow what is happening to our water, it will tell us what is happening to our climate.” In other words, we experience climate change through water. At this time, I would like to say that, while Bill C-317 deals with both drought and flood forecasting, I will be concentrating on flooding in this debate. According to the United Nations, flooding is the most common natural hazard globally. Due to damage associated with floods, it has been known as the deadliest natural disaster after earthquake and tsunami. To quote Zahmatkesh et al. from an article entitled “An overview of river flood forecasting procedures in Canadian watersheds”, published in the Canadian Water Resources Journal, “In Canada, floods are known as the most common, widely distributed, and the most costly natural disasters which threaten lives, properties, the economy, infrastructure, and environment.” Needless to say, flood disasters hurt the economy. According to the Library of Parliament, an Insurance Bureau of Canada paper states that large natural disasters have a negative impact on economic conditions. A typical disaster lowers economic growth by about one percentage point and GDP by about 2%. The damage from flooding is not only physical, it is emotional and psychological as well. To quote the report of the 1998 symposium on the Saguenay flood: Some authors have observed an increase in depressive and somatic symptoms [and] emotional distress and anxiety [pursuant to flood disasters]. Some flood victims...[have even] exhibited psychological disorders 14 years after the event, including phobias, panic disorders and agoraphobia. I have seen the damage. I have toured flooded areas of my riding with Jim Beis, the mayor of the Montreal city borough Pierrefonds-Roxboro, who has been tackling local flood risk head-on for years, through robust annual springtime flood preparations. He has worked tirelessly to buttress the community's resilience to floods, often not waiting on the city administration downtown to act to protect his constituents, many of whom are also my constituents. Allow me to give a brief overview of major flooding events in recent Canadian history. In 1996, according to the report from the 1998 symposium on the Saguenay flood: More than 16,000 were evacuated and 7,000 families witnessed...damage to their homes or neighbourhoods [in the flood]. Twenty percent of the disaster victims suffered post-traumatic stress and the flood “generated psychological after-effects that were measurable three months later.” Apparently, these floods drove home the reality of climate change for Quebec's Premier at the time, Lucien Bouchard, and its destructive potential. In 2017, the Ottawa-Montreal region experienced extreme flooding and then again in 2019. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the 2019 spring flood in Quebec cost $127 million in insured damages. This brings me to 2013 in Alberta where, to again quote Robert Sandford in his book Flood Forecast: Climate Risk and Resiliency in Canada: Three storm cells combined and then lingered for three days in the same region and unleashed 250 to 270 millimetres of rain in the upper regions, producing some nine million cubic metres of rainfall, suddenly turning mountain creeks into raging torrents. The spring snow melt was late that year and the snowpack was above normal for late June, something that was not recognized in the province's flood prediction system or model. The province's flood prediction system utterly failed and flood warnings were not issued in many places until after evacuation orders were issued. However, the inadequacy and failure of Alberta Environment's flood forecasting system should not be attributed to the skill or knowledge of individual forecasters but to systemic problems related to staffing cuts, reliance on outdated forecasting tools and inadequate field monitoring. The flood caused $5 billion in damages. In British Columbia, in 2021, parts of the southern region of the province recorded between an estimated 1-in-50 and 1-in-100-year rainfall events, triggered by an atmospheric river, delivering about one month's precipitation in a matter of hours. The total flood damages totalled $9 billion. Needless to say, damages from flooding are expected to grow exponentially with climate change. According to a report by GHD consultants entitled “Aquanomics: the economics of water risk and future resiliency”, “droughts, floods and storms could wipe $5.6 trillion USD from the GDP of key economies, with some more affected than others.” In Canada, “droughts, floods and storms could result in a total loss of $108 billion to Canadian GDP between 2022 and 2050, an average of 0.2% of GDP per annum.” Output losses in Canada in manufacturing and distribution alone between 2022 and 2050 could reach a total of $50 billion. One can only imagine the impact on inflation of increasing, widening flooding events. Flood forecasting is a complex endeavour with two key components: meteorological forecasts and hydrological modelling to translate weather forecasts into stream flow and water level predictions. Accurate flood forecasts also require knowledge of watershed characteristics, which influence water flows. It is easy to see that accurate flood forecasting relies on large quantities of data from multiple sources and the ability to create models that are both broad and granular, into which to feed the data. As flood forecasts cover wider and wider areas and take account of more and more factors in an uncertain climate context, greater and greater processing power is required to crunch the data and produce a range of probabilistic scenarios, which means an increasing reliance on supercomputers. According to scientists, “Canada is the only G7 country, and perhaps the only developed country, without a national flood forecasting system”. Flood forecasting in Canada is largely considered a provincial responsibility, carried out by many of the 13 provincial and territorial governments, various municipalities across the country and some 99 of the Ontario conservation authorities. However, there are disadvantages with this approach. The main one is the lack of integration with weather forecasts as well as inconsistent forecasting capacity across provinces. This fragmented approach can lead to the slow adoption of new technology and advanced methods, and to an absence of technical coordination with agencies like the Meteorological Service of Canada. Most jurisdictions in Canada have no modern flood forecast modelling capability. Even the most sophisticated systems use dated software and are limited to major river forecasting. Fragmentation can also be problematic in dealing with transboundary basins when individual systems in each province and territory, and between provinces and territories and the U.S., are not necessarily compatible. Several provinces and territories are still struggling with their forecasting needs because of limited human resources or skills. However, there are advantages in the Canadian decentralized system. It allows provinces to be laboratories to test unique and innovative approaches that, once demonstrated to be successful, can be adopted by other provinces. The benefit of this fragmented approach in flood forecasting is that it allows for developing bespoke flood forecasting systems that are specifically tailored to work at regional scales and to tackle unique local hydrological challenges. I have much more to say on the technical level about what the bill would accomplish, and I expect to be able to touch on those aspects in future speeches in the House and also in committee, if the bill gets there. I would like to end by saying that the benefit of a national forecasting system is that its models are of higher quality, producing more accurate large-scale forecasts with longer timelines than is possible with local forecast models only. The ability to connect national models with local forecasting efforts is crucial for accurate flood forecasting and also for long-term capacity building. National modellers gain experience on a regular basis from floods in different parts of the country. A national modeller could very well predict a flood almost every year. Local modellers, on the other hand, might not predict a flood in their whole career. Working with national modellers facilitates knowledge transfer that strengthens the overall system. The bill is trying to accomplish a formal structure of collaboration among the stakeholders in this area, with the scientists and the forecasters, which is something I believe they all want. At the moment, they do meet informally to share best practices, but there is a need for a more permanent structure that could bring them together to better predict floods for the benefit of all Canadians.

2157 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Nov/24/23 1:38:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis is a champion for all things water in the House and in this country. I would like to thank him for mentioning my old friend, Bob Sandford, who I worked with in the Rockies back in the early 1970s and has gone on to be a global spokesman for water issues on behalf of Canada. It is hard not to agree with the bill before us because the issues are so dire and the need is so great, but it makes me wonder why the government has not been doing this over the last eight years. What we really need for flood protection in Canada, on top of the prediction, is to have communities ready for floods. It is one thing to say a flood is coming in the next two days, but it is another thing to have a community ready. We need dedicated federal funding to help communities reshape their defences for floods ahead of time, and we do not have that.

174 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Nov/24/23 1:39:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure Bob would be very pleased to hear the hon. member mention his long-standing friendship with him. The federal government has been investing in climate adaptation infrastructure, though one can always invest more, and it has recently released its climate adaptation strategy, which is a framework. I would be in favour of as much funding as possible to strengthen the resiliency of communities. With regard to why the government has not been doing this already, in defence of Environment and Climate Change Canada, it is working on the issue. I feel personally that it is not going far enough and I introduced the bill to push the issue forward a little more.

117 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Nov/24/23 1:40:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-317

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

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Nov/24/23 1:41:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. There are various pieces of legislation. The Canadian Meteorological Centre is located off Highway 40 at Sources Boulevard on the West Island. Yes, there are programs in place, but they need to be better coordinated for greater benefit to the country. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the existing elements are better aligned to increase their effectiveness.

69 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Nov/24/23 1:41:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I too know Bob Sandford. When I was the shadow cabinet member in Manitoba for conservation, environment or rural development, at different times, I might add, I spoke with him quite often with regard to issues of Manitoba being the basin of all the water in western Canada coming into Lake Winnipeg and on out to Hudson Bay. I have read some of Mr. Sandford's books. I wonder if my colleague could provide us with his thoughts on how a national strategy would be formed and what type of makeup it would have.

96 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Nov/24/23 1:42:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point of the bill is to really require a strategy because, as the member knows, private members' bills cannot require the spending of money. The idea of a strategy is to create a plan or model for how we can move forward with flood forecasting. I believe the model should be based on the National Hydrological Service as opposed to the Meteorological Service of Canada because the Meteorological Service is a top-down, centralized service that does wonderful work, but the National Hydrological Service is a cost-shared program with the provinces. There is a lot of back and forth and co-operation between the federal government and the provinces and territories, and that is the kind of model that we need, not something that is top-down but that is interactive with the folks who are closest to where the action is taking place.

148 words

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC)

Nov/24/23 1:43:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-317

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-317, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting. I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, for introducing this bill. I enjoy working with him on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This bill covers some very interesting topics, including advance flood and drought forecasting models, sophisticated integration of spatially detailed hydrological management models and water resource management models, supercomputers with inputs from multiple meteorological forecast models, and on-site observations of rainfall, soil moisture, snowpack, glaciers, lake levels, ice jams and stream flows. There are certainly a lot of state-of-the-art technologies and subjects to consider in Bill C-317. Typically, when I debate a bill in Parliament, I often put the bill into one of two categories: good bills that I encourage all MPs to support and bad bills that I encourage all MPs to oppose. After reading Bill C-317, it seems that this bill falls somewhere between those two extremes. Therefore, it would be prudent to support this bill at second reading so it can be further studied at committee. Floods have been around since the beginning of time, and property damage caused by flooding has been around for almost as long. Whenever a major flood occurs, once all the people have been safely evacuated and the flood waters recede, the discussion soon turns to the cost of the flood in terms of property damage. Inevitably, this question is asked: Who will pay for the damaged or destroyed property? Unfortunately, far too often it is different levels of government that have to step in to provide financial assistance. The federal government's disaster financial assistance arrangements program has spent approximately $8 billion in compensation since the program was established in the 1970s. Furthermore, the frequency and the amounts of future payouts are expected to increase as more and more properties of ever-increasing value continue to be built on lakefronts and riverfronts. While I have no doubt that the federal government's disaster financial assistance arrangements program was set up with good intentions, one has to remember that all of the costs of the program are inevitably passed on to taxpayers. I have often wondered why different levels of government have to incur these costs. Why is this not something that is best left to private sector insurance companies? I was so curious that I sat down and had this very conversation with representatives form the Insurance Brokers Association of Saskatchewan. It turns out that insurance markets function very well when there is a high level of predictability in which the insurance companies and their policyholders can operate. If insurance companies and their actuaries can predict with a reasonable level of accuracy that in any given year so many houses will be destroyed by lightning strikes, so many more will be destroyed by fires and so many more will be destroyed by some other type of disaster, then insurance companies can develop their policies and set their premiums accordingly. Unfortunately, it seems that insurance companies have considerably more difficulty in predicting flooding than they do in predicting other types of disasters, such as fires or lightning strikes. As a result, they simply do not offer flood insurance to many Canadian homeowners. When those homes get damaged or destroyed by floods, government programs such as the disaster financial assistance arrangements program get activated, and it is the taxpayers who are ultimately left paying the bill. Clearly, there is room for improvement. There has to be a better way to structure the federal government's policy than to have the disaster financial assistance arrangements program, as well as similar provincial programs, simply dole out billions of dollars to uninsured property owners whenever there is a flood. In fact, these sentiments were echoed in the final report of the expert advisory panel on the disaster financial assistance arrangements, which was presented to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness in November of last year. One line in particular from the report’s executive summary describes the path forward very succinctly: “The Panel recommends the Government of Canada develop tools, information and capabilities to support risk-informed decision making by all levels of government, Indigenous communities, the private and not-for-profit sectors, academia and the public at large.” I feel that the term “risk-informed decision making” is very appropriate. If there is a flood plain right beside a river that is likely to overflow, it makes sense that builders be informed of the risk before they build. It makes sense that municipal and provincial governments be informed of the risk before they grant building permits. It makes sense that potential homebuyers be informed of this risk, and the associated insurance premiums, before they buy. Perhaps the way forward lies in Bill C-317. If the federal government could step in and play a useful role in providing standardized, accurate flood mapping and flood forecasting information in order to facilitate an orderly marketplace for flood insurance for property owners, this would be a beneficial role for the federal government to play. If the flood information were accurate, reliable and stored in a database that were easily accessible to the public and to insurance companies, then a significant element of uncertainty in the marketplace could be reduced. Many private sector insurance companies would then be more willing to offer insurance policies to Canadian homeowners. When a flood inevitably happens at some point in the future, property owners would no longer fill out government forms to receive compensation; they would simply fill out an insurance claim with the private sector insurance company that sold them their policy. This approach would represent a major cost savings for the federal government and for taxpayers. If one considers the cost of establishing and maintaining a standard database for flood mapping and flood forecasting, I think it is very reasonable to believe that the cost would be tiny compared to the billions of dollars of payouts that the federal government has made and will continue to make through the present disaster financial assistance arrangements program. For the vast majority of Canadians, the most valuable asset they will ever own is their home. It makes sense that as many Canadian homeowners as possible should have an insurance policy on their home that includes losses from flooding. With a properly functioning insurance market, perhaps over time, the disaster financial assistance arrangements program could be wound down, and taxpayers would no longer be on the hook whenever there is a flood. In conclusion, sometimes the invisible hand of the market needs the helping hand of government. The need for accurate flood mapping and flood forecasting in the marketplace for flood insurance may be one of those times. Again, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, for introducing the bill, and I look forward to studying it in more detail at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

1192 words