National Flood and Drought Forecasting Strategy

Summary#

This bill requires the federal government to create a national strategy to improve how Canada forecasts floods and droughts. It tasks the Minister of the Environment to lead, consult widely, assess needs and benefits, and propose a cooperative national forecasting service. It sets deadlines to table the strategy in Parliament and later report on its effectiveness (s.3, s.4, s.5).

• Develop a national strategy with provinces, municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, universities, and industry, including insurers (s.3(1)-(2)).
• Assess needs for national coordination, new investment, and new technology in forecasting (s.3(3)(a)).
• Assess the need for models that identify properties and infrastructure at flood risk (s.3(3)(b)).
• Assess opportunities to meet short- and long-term information needs across Canada, including current and future floodplain mapping (s.3(3)(c)).
• Prepare a proposal for a cooperative national hydrology and water resources forecasting service based on the existing federal–provincial model (s.3(3)(d)).
• Table the strategy within 2 years of the Act coming into force, publish it, and table a 5-year effectiveness report (s.4(1)-(2), s.5(1)-(2)).

What it means for you#

• Households
  • No immediate changes to insurance, building codes, or flood maps. The bill sets a planning process, not new rules (s.3).
  • You may see better flood and drought information in the future if governments act on the strategy’s proposal (s.3(3)(c)-(d)).
• Farmers and rural landowners
  • The strategy will consider short- and long-term drought and flood forecasts that could support planting, water use, and risk planning. It does not fund new services by itself (s.3(3)(c)).
• Businesses and insurers
  • Insurers and other industries will be consulted. The strategy will assess risk modeling that could inform underwriting and supply-chain planning, but there is no immediate change to data access or rules (s.3(2), s.3(3)(b)-(c)).
• Local governments
  • Municipalities will be consulted and could gain access to more consistent forecasts and proposed tools for future floodplain delineation. No mandates or costs are imposed by this bill (s.3(2)-(3)).
• Indigenous communities
  • Indigenous governing bodies will be consulted to ensure the strategy meets their information needs for flood and drought planning (s.3(2)-(3)).
• Timeline
  • Strategy due within 2 years after the Act comes into force; online publication within 10 days of tabling (s.4(1)-(2)).
  • Effectiveness report due within 5 years after the strategy is tabled; online publication within 10 days of tabling (s.5(1)-(2)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• The bill authorizes development of a strategy and reports. It does not appropriate funds or create new programs (s.3, s.4, s.5).
• Federal departments will incur planning and consultation costs to draft the strategy and reports; amounts are not stated. Data unavailable.
• Any future spending to build a national forecasting service would depend on separate approvals; this Act only requires a proposal (s.3(3)(d)).

Proponents' View#

• National coordination can reduce gaps between provinces and speed warnings, since current systems operate separately with limited federal support (Preamble; s.3(3)(a)).
• Advanced models need shared data and computing power; a national approach can integrate weather, snowpack, glacier, lake, and streamflow data (Preamble; s.3(3)(a)).
• Risk mapping for properties and infrastructure would help communities, farmers, and insurers plan and price risk more accurately (s.3(3)(b)-(c)).
• Canadian universities already have strong models; a national strategy can apply them at scale in Canada rather than abroad (Preamble; s.3(3)(c)).
• Clear deadlines and a 5‑year effectiveness review create accountability without committing funds before analysis is complete (s.4(1), s.5(1)).

Opponents' View#

• Overlap and jurisdiction risk: Provinces now do forecasting; a federal strategy could duplicate work or strain federal‑provincial roles (Preamble; s.3(1)-(2)).
• Cost uncertainty: Building national systems with supercomputers and extensive observations could be expensive; the bill provides no cost estimate or funding plan (Preamble; s.3(3)(a)). Data unavailable.
• Implementation risk: Success depends on voluntary cooperation from many parties; the Act only requires tabling reports and has no enforcement tools if deadlines slip or partners disagree (s.3(2)-(3), s.4, s.5).
• Indirect impacts: Future floodplain delineation and property‑level risk modeling, if later adopted, could affect zoning and insurance. The bill does not address how such changes would be managed (s.3(3)(b)-(c)).
• Timing trade‑off: A 2‑year planning window delays near‑term upgrades; rushing complex national systems could also reduce quality (s.4(1)).