SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 322 - May/31/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 1:17:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Question No. 2548 will be answered today.

9 words

May/31/24 1:17:38 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2548—

Questioner: Blake Desjarlais

With regard to government contracts for dentistry services with Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed; (b) what are the details of all contracts signed, including the (i) agency contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of dentists provided, (iv) duration of the contract; and (c) what is the total amount of extra costs incurred as a result of relying on contracted services instead of employing dentists directly?

191 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/31/24 1:17:38 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 1:17:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address an issue that I was not able to address earlier today because of time constraints. I want to amplify this, because my friend in the Bloc raised a really important point. One issue that was constantly being brought up in questions and answers was why the government gave any consideration to the change of date from October 20. It was interesting when the representative from the Bloc articulated, far better than I ever could have, that we were being insensitive by changing the date from October 20 to October 27 because municipal elections were going to be at the beginning of November. He brought up a lot of excellent representations to validate why he was concerned. He felt, in essence, that Quebec was not being treated fairly because we were moving the date to October 27. I understood what the member said very clearly. That is why I asked him whether he would apply the very same principles that he articulated, with his concerns about the municipal elections in Quebec in early November, to Alberta, because for Alberta, October 20 is election day. That would mean for people who live in Edmonton, Calgary or any of the municipalities, the election on October 20 would be in direct conflict with both a federal and a provincial election. A voter on election day in Edmonton would be voting for a mayor, councillors, MPs and the prime minister. We know the Bloc's position. As articulated, the Bloc would not support that if it was in Quebec. They made it very clear that they would not support a federal election that would interfere directly with the Quebec election. We saw the resistance to that when it was getting close to the election. That causes us to ask this question: What about the Alberta members of Parliament? There are 34 members of Parliament from Alberta, 30 of whom are from the Conservative Party. I will say to those particular members that I give the Bloc some credit for taking into consideration the concerns of Quebec, even though they do not care about Alberta. However, what about Alberta MPs? There is not one word. In fact, from their seats they say they are fine; they are okay, no problems. There is no consideration whatsoever. At the end of the day, when I look at the issue the Conservatives continue to raise, I see they want to label it for a reason, and I understand why. As a government, we brought forward the legislation, but as I said in my remarks when introducing the legislation, as a minority government, a majority of MPs, which implies more than one political party, have to support the legislation, including the changing of a date. I understand where the Bloc is coming from, and there are some principled positions there. However, the Conservatives are one hundred per cent political in their nature. We should not be surprised by that, because the Conservative track record on reforming election laws is not all that good. I was in the chamber, and I actually did a little bit of research on this one on openparliament.ca. I looked up a gentleman by the name of Brad Butt. Do members remember him? He was a Conservative MP who was sitting in the government backbenches. We were talking about the Fair Elections Act. He said: I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID. One has to put the bizarre, untruthful comments to the side and understand what the Conservative Party was trying to do at that time. Conservatives might have called it the Fair Elections Act, but what they were trying to do was deny Canadians the opportunity to use the cards that Elections Canada produced as part of ID, not sole ID, but as a part of it, for one purpose: They wanted to try to minimize the number of people participating in the election. They came up with their arguments to try to justify it, and Mr. Butt actually ended up retracting the claim, saying he never actually saw the incident and that it was just made up. I have been a candidate in 10 or a dozen elections, and I can recall one mistake where I actually boosted a Facebook post, which I should not have done. I admitted that I should not have done it. No one is perfect. Even though I would argue that it was unintentional, there are intentional things that I see and have seen from the Conservative Party. We all remember the robocall scandal, where Conservatives were spreading misinformation in terms of not voting at a particular place on a particular day, trying to prevent or discourage individuals from voting, through misinformation directing them to other places. It was voter suppression. Do members remember the in-and-out scandal? In fact in that one, the Conservative Party was actually charged for its inappropriate behaviour. What about Dean Del Mastro himself? I believe he was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. He is a gentleman who ended up leaving in handcuffs. We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party. We see the frustrations and the Conservatives' general respect for election laws. I say it in this tone because I say that if one takes a look at what I said this morning, I thought I was maybe a little bit more diplomatic and kinder in my words, ultimately believing that all of us were supportive of the fine work that Elections Canada has done. The legislation before us was brought forward as a way in which we could make some positive changes to ensure that we have even healthier and stronger elections where we see more voter participation. After I articulated it for a few minutes this morning, in the first question there was a labelling of the legislation as if it were not what it is meant to be: legislation that would enhance opportunities and strengthen our election laws. Then we have the Conservatives, in particular, who are trying to make it out as a conspiracy that we are trying to beef up 32 Conservatives' pensions, as well as the pensions of 22 Liberal, 19 Bloc and a half-dozen NDP members. It is as though that was the only consideration for this legislation and that no consideration was given to the Province of Alberta, which is going to be electing mayors and councillors in Edmonton, Calgary and other municipalities, or that we are not recognizing the Indo-Canadian community and Canadians, many of whom acknowledge and celebrate Diwali, including myself. At the end of the day, as I said earlier this morning, we need to recognize the valuable role Canada plays today and can continue to play in leadership on democracy by supporting such things as the independence of Elections Canada and by looking at ways in which we can strengthen our election laws. That is the primary purpose for the legislation, and members opposite know this full well. I heard that the NDP is going to be bringing in a motion to change the date and that the Bloc is going to support the motion. As for the Conservatives, who knows what they will do? They are likely going to support that motion too, so the only thing that has to be decided is what day. I would suggest that maybe we should be considering what the Bloc said about the Province of Quebec and municipal elections. Maybe we should also be considering what is happening in Alberta. After all, the Bloc members said it is the government's problem. We have to deal with the Alberta situation; the Bloc only deals with Quebec. The government is at least putting it on the table, and if the Conservatives want to ignore it—

1393 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/31/24 1:30:05 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. I need to interrupt the hon. member. We are out of time.

15 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/31/24 1:30:44 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

34 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/31/24 1:32:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-317

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: 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.

1014 words

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

May/31/24 1:32:03 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/31/24 1:32:03 p.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/31/24 1:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on division.

4 words

Division

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/31/24 1:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

May/31/24 1:41:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member's efforts on this critical issue, I am concerned about the fact that it reinforces a pattern we have seen from the Liberals and the Liberal government. That pattern is a lot of concern about the impacts of climate change but a lack of action. Here, in our part of the country, we have seen a record wildfire season already, with much more aggressive fires and much earlier than normal, because of the drought conditions resulting from climate change. Most recently we have heard very concerning statements from the military. They see the kind of support they provided as recently as last year as “wickedly wasteful”. Does the member support the Liberal government not taking bold action on climate change? Does he believe that the federal government should be able to call on the military when needed, to keep communities such as mine and others across the country safe in the face of climate emergencies?

164 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/31/24 1:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not agree that the current government has not taken the environment in general, and climate change more specifically, seriously. Of all the governments in the history of Canada, ours is the one that has put forth the most ambitious and most multi-faceted environmental policies, including in the area of climate change. We fought all the way to the Supreme Court to protect an Environmental Assessment Act that we revamped in 2016 so that we could take into account emissions from projects when they are being evaluated. We went all the way to the Supreme Court so that we could gain jurisdiction and defend our policy of putting a price on carbon. Therefore we have really, I think, put our money where our mouth is. As far as the military is concerned, over the last few years it has done a remarkable job helping us address domestic emergencies, whether it was the pandemic or helping with firefighting and so on. I am very proud of the members of our military, and I know they will be there when they are needed.

185 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

May/31/24 1:43:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have more of a comment to build on the last question from our NDP colleague, because I want to put it on the record. I have huge belief in our Canadian Armed Forces members to move forward and be there for domestic operations, but that is not their primary role. They will be there to do those tasks that nobody else in the civil service can do, or if municipal or provincial capabilities do not exist. However, something I would encourage the government to look at is how we can restructure a federal force to be able to deal with those tasks, one that would not be part of the Canadian Armed Forces.

116 words

Armed
Role

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/31/24 1:44:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very good point. I agree that the people who join the Armed Forces probably have their eye more on serving in conflict zones and so forth. However, yes, from time to time in all countries, the military is called upon to lend a helping hand in situations of emergency. I do believe that the government has stood up a humanitarian force to deal more specifically with domestic situations, which is, I guess, an outgrowth of the fact that, yes, we are facing a climate emergency and it is having impacts here in Canada.

98 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/31/24 1:45:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, whom I hold in high esteem, for his speech. My question is quite simple: How does he think this bill is going to improve coordination among the various stakeholders who manage weather forecasts? Is this bill really going to improve things for them?

50 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/31/24 1:45:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said in other speeches, weather management is really a federal responsibility. The Canadian Meteorological Centre manages weather forecasts. I am talking about weather forecasting and how to make better predictions. That is already being done. Forecasters are already talking about it, but we need something a little more structured.

53 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/31/24 1:46:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, and for good reason. He thanked all those who worked in committee and in the House to move his bill forward. That happened because someone opposite wanted it to happen and took the necessary steps to make it work. I am talking about the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I would also like to remind the House that, in less than four weeks, at the end of June, he will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of his election to the House of Commons. I knew that I had seen him somewhere before. I was a journalist when the Right Hon. Paul Martin became prime minister. There was a large gathering in Montreal for the prime minister. Obviously, I would have to assume that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis was there. Why are we supporting this bill? There are three major reasons. The first is that it does not cost anything. That is important to us. We have an excellent federal public service. These people are equipped to ensure that the necessary steps are taken and that the work is done with the provinces and municipalities. This can be accomplished using the department's existing budget. That is important to us. The second reason is that this bill is based on a principle that is near and dear to us: collaboration between the different levels of government, coordination and information sharing. That is exactly what we are talking about. Obviously, we recognize that every place has its own unique characteristics. Each province has its own expertise. Sometimes, a province may have several completely different kinds of expertise. The expertise in northern Saskatchewan and southern Saskatchewan can be dramatically different. The same goes for Quebec, the Maritimes and British Columbia. In short, our country is magnificent. It is large, vast, distinct and different. That is why we need to share best practices to inspire people to take the most effective approaches used in a specific location and transpose them to another context. That takes coordination, collaboration and information sharing. Here is the third reason why we support this bill. The leader of Canada's Conservatives, the member for Carleton, said something important last September in his keynote speech at our national convention. It was his first major speech to all Conservative Party supporters. More than 2,500 supporters from all 338 ridings gathered in my part of the country, in Quebec City. The future prime minister of Canada, the member for Carleton, spoke to a group of grassroots supporters about the realities we are facing today. He sent a clear message that we need to face the realities and impacts of climate change, which is real and requires that we work together. The main purpose of this bill is to enable us to work better, to get to know each other better, to exchange ideas and to learn from one another's experiences as we face the new challenges of climate change and learn about the best approaches to take when dealing with spills and floods. As the member for Lac-Saint-Louis put it so well, his riding is very familiar with this reality, as the name suggests. This does not happen as much as it did before, but when I take the plane in Dorval, most of the time we fly over bodies of water. It is a chance for me to see the power of Quebec's water resources. Quebec is a beautiful land that is just covered in lakes. Two weeks ago, I went to Val-d'Or. I did the return leg from Val-d'Or to Quebec City with a local company, Air Liaison. The flight was just over an hour and went very smoothly. We flew over La Vérendrye Park and all of that. It is incredible to see all the lakes that we have. We have a country of land and water and we can be very proud of that. This also gives us responsibilities. From our point of view, this bill is a step in the right direction. If by chance Canadians give us the honour of putting their trust in us, we will be very happy to work with this new body that will be charged with exchanging information that is essential for the future of Canada.

734 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/31/24 1:51:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-317

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.

847 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

May/31/24 1:57:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-317

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.

1339 words