Debates of Feb. 12th, 2018

Department of Veterans Affairs Act

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-378, which is an act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.

I would like to thank our colleague from Barrie—Innisfil for his ongoing attention to the welfare and well-being of our veterans. It is my passion too. My dad was on a corvette. My mom repaired airplanes at No. 10 Repair Depot in Calgary. Both my grandfathers served in the First World War for Canada. My great-grandmother got the keys to the City of Vancouver for sending eight of her boys off to fight in World War II.

I think all members of the House would agree that the well-being of veterans and their families is important to them, and that Canadians want the best for these men and women should they fall ill or become injured. We all want what is best for this country's proud veterans, and I am pleased to be able to speak to how far this government has gone.

We have heard from veterans and their family members. We have spoken to thousands across this country and the comments are always in the same vein. When soldiers come home, all they ask for is to have the services and care they need for themselves and their families. We could not agree more. This is what our government promised to do when we came to office just over two years ago, and this is what Veterans Affairs Canada endeavours to do every day as it delivers benefits and services to over 190,000 Canadian Armed Forces veterans, Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans, and their families.

The proposed amendments to the Department of Veterans Affairs Act speak to the principles that guide our government every day, the principles of action that guide Veterans Affairs Canada and its commitment to ensure veterans and their families receive the care, compassion, and respect they deserve, and principles similar to those already enshrined in the Veterans Bill of Rights. They are the same principles that the Minister of Veterans Affairs leads his department by, and which led to the announcement in December of the new pension for life. However, they are not objective principles that should be written into law, which is why we cannot support Bill C-378. This bill offers no benefits or services for veterans or their families.

I assure members that just as veterans and their fallen comrades sacrificed everything to safeguard our future, this government is here to safeguard theirs and that includes the work we do to deliver services and benefits to veterans. What we can and should all support are measures to increase benefits for veterans, measures like our promise to re-establish a tax-free pension for life for pain, which recognizes and compensates veterans for disabilities resulting from a service-related illness or injury.

It is important to deliver on our government's promise while also delivering on our commitment to treat veterans with the dignity, respect, and fairness they deserve, and to support them as effectively as possible, to ensure a smooth transition with a focus on well-being. “Well-being” means a veteran has purpose, is financially secure, safely housed, in good physical and mental health, highly resilient in the face of change, well-integrated into the community, proud and cognizant of his or her legacy, and is valued and celebrated. We know that each of these qualities means something different to each individual veteran, because all veterans have their own unique story and their own individual needs. That is what led to the pension for life and making this nearly $3.6 billion investment a reality.

Combined with the over $6 billion in initiatives that we announced in budgets 2016 and 2017, the result is a flexible package of benefits and programs that allow veterans and their families to decide what form of compensation works best for them. With these changes and enhancements, veterans have access to tax-free financial compensation to recognize pain and suffering caused by a service-related illness or injury, an income replacement benefit to help with financial support during rehabilitation or to make up for lost earnings, and support programs to help veterans with such aspects as education, employment, and physical and mental health. The new pension for life is a combination of benefits that provide recognition, income support, and stability to members and veterans who experience a service-related illness or injury.

One of the key new benefits is the pain and suffering compensation. This is a monthly lifelong payment recognizing the pain and suffering of members and veterans caused by a disability resulting from a service-related injury or illness. The monthly amount can be cashed out for a lump sum, giving members and veterans the flexibility to choose what works best for them and their families.

Additional support for those with service-related, severe, and permanent impairments causing a barrier to re-establishment in post-service life is available through the additional pain and suffering compensation provided as a monthly benefit. The income replacement benefit is another monthly program that will provide income support during transition for those facing barriers to re-establishing themselves because of health problems resulting primarily from service. In an effort to streamline services and simplify the application process for veterans, the IRB will replace six current benefits: earnings loss benefit, extended earnings loss benefit, supplementary retirement benefit, retirement income security benefit, the career impact allowance, and the career impact allowance supplement. Additionally, veterans who wish to join the workforce may earn up to $20,000 per year from employment before any reduction in their IRB payment.

With that said, we know that a successful transition requires more than money alone; it must address personal and professional growth. In fact, the most successful transition occurs when a veteran has a positive state of well-being, a balance of financial, mental, physical, and social factors. Pensions for life provide a holistic package of financial security and wellness elements to help veterans and their families transition to the next stage of their life and make choices about what they want to do next, whether it is education, work, or retirement.

Now that we have delivered a balanced and effective combination of programs and services, of which pension for life is a key piece, we are turning our full attention to delivering them with the excellence that veterans and their families want and deserve. These investments and enhancements all speak directly to the goal of my colleague's proposed amendments in his bill. I might also remind my colleagues that the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act was revised in early 2015 to clearly speak to the just and due appreciation owed to members and veterans for their service to Canada. It is gratitude shared by all Canadians and not one to be taken lightly.

Among the reasons I ran for office was to do my part to ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces members, our veterans, and their families, have access to the benefits and services they need when and where they need them. This government is proud of our brave men and women in uniform, and we are grateful for their service and sacrifice for their country. Make no mistake, treating veterans and their families with fairness, respect, and dignity is the cornerstone of the delivery of our programs, benefits, and services, which are the principles in the Veterans Bill of Rights. They are respected and embraced by the government in everything we do. It is also why they need not be written into the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.

I applaud our government's continued efforts to improve the experience of our veterans. I applaud the spirit with which my friend from Barrie—Innisfil has put forward his private member's bill as we recognize the sacrifices and contributions of veterans and their families.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Seeing no further debate, I invite the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil for his right of reply. The hon. member has up to five minutes.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everybody who contributed to this fulsome debate on Bill C-378, my proposed amendments to the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.

I want to make clear right off the start that this was not intended to coincide with the unfortunate comments of the Prime Minister, which he made in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago. This bill was introduced in October 2017 after I and my colleagues travelled the country to talk to veterans. One of the things we heard over and over again was the sacred obligation, this covenant, that the Government of Canada and the people of Canada should have, which mirrors exactly what Sir Robert Borden spoke about in advance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. He spoke about the sacred obligation and military covenant that our country has to its veterans.

I am intending to put that into the legislation by amending the Department of Veterans Affairs Act so that it does not become an aspirational thing for members of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown to be looking at. It is for the current and future governments to be reminded of that sacred obligation that we have to our veterans, and it is being done with the sincerest of attempts.

I will remind everyone again of the covenant. There is only one elsewhere in the world, and that is in the United Kingdom, which has the military covenant act. It deals with veterans, as well as their families and survivors, that they be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness. Veterans and their duties are unique among Canadians, and I think all of us in the House can agree with that. There is an obligation to care for veterans because of sacrifices made by them, and that obligation must and should extend to their families.

One of the areas that I know needs some work, and when it gets to committee we can look at this in a fulsome way, is that the care, treatment, and transition of Canadian Armed Forces in and to civil life are dealt with in a timely manner. That is the kind of work that the committee can do to deal with what exactly is a “timely manner”. I will remind the House that the backlog right now is about 29,000 cases for disability claims, and that number is going to increase as we move forward.

We talk about sacred obligation, and the Prime Minister has spoken about sacred obligation several times. On December 9, 2014, he said in Hansard, “Mr. Speaker, we have a sacred obligation to our veterans who chose to put everything on the line for their country.” Again on December 9, 2014, in Hansard, he said, “Mr. Speaker, we have a sacred obligation”. On August 24, 2015, when he stood in Belleville with his hand over his heart and made the promises we have talked about, he said, “We have a social covenant with all veterans and their families—a sacred obligation we must meet with both respect and gratitude.”

On November 25, 2014, the Prime Minister said, “Mr. Speaker, we have a sacred obligation to our veterans, but too many are struggling”. Over and over again, not only the Prime Minister but the current Minister of Veterans Affairs and the former minister of veterans affairs all talked about this sacred obligation that we have to our veterans. What I am trying to do with this bill is to enshrine that in legislation, so that not just the current government but future governments, future prime ministers, future ministers of veterans affairs, and future employees at Veterans Affairs Canada understand that it is the will of Parliament and the Canadian people to make sure that we live up to and fulfill this sacred obligation that we have to our veterans.

I was elected in 2015 and have had the privilege of coming into this place as one of 338 members across this country. Since Confederation, only 4,000 of us have sat in the House of Commons. When I sit here and think of the sacrifices, I think of the blood that has been spilled, the lives that have been lost, the lives that have been decimated by war, those who fought for this country, fought against tyranny, fought against oppression, fought against Naziism, and who fight against Islamic jihadists to allow us the privilege and honour to sit in our symbol of democracy. We owe them no less than this sacred obligation and I am calling on the government to live up to that obligation and support Bill C-378.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 14, 2018, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Taxation

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in adjournment proceedings to follow up on a question I asked in the House in October. In October, the House was seized with a number of tax-related issues. The finance minister was dealing with the backlash over the small business tax changes he had recklessly brought in during the summer without much forethought.

We were also becoming aware that the finance minister, after castigating small business owners all summer and talking about how business owners used complex corporate structures to reduce their taxes, had continued, through a complicated arrangement of a number of private numbered companies, to own shares in his publicly traded family business, Morneau Shepell, much to the surprise of everyone, including, presumably, his own Prime Minister.

Around that time, we also became aware that the Canada Revenue Agency, through a change made to its assessment process for the disability tax credit, was rejecting a full 80% of applicants with type 1 diabetes. This was in contrast to right up to May 2017, when approximately 80% of applicants who suffered from type 1 diabetes were approved.

On October 23, I asked the question we can see in Hansard. The answer from the minister that day was not adequate. The minister talked at that time of being in the process of hiring nurses to assess DTC applications. That did not really make any sense then and it still does not make any sense now. If the agency were capable of processing DTC applications without any problem in particular for type 1 diabetics who had been applying and had been approved 80% of the time for over 10 years, why all of a sudden, in May 2017, would a shortfall of nurses employed by the CRA have anything to do with what was going on? Subsequent events have revealed that this is nonsense. This was really a matter of the minister and/or employees in the CRA simply deciding to make it more difficult and to raise the bar for eligibility for type 1 diabetics.

Here we are. This is a government that has gaping holes in its budget and an out-of-control spending problem. It will go after any low-hanging fruit for additional revenue, including pursuing type 1 diabetics and single parents or any sort of angle to generate more revenue. We saw and heard talk again last week about retail and restaurant employees. However, it is really a spending problem and a case of misplaced priorities government-wide, made all the more bitter by the hypocrisy of the finance minister himself.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to clarify that it is our government that is committed to lowering taxes for small businesses, and actually have done so.

To answer my colleague's specific question, I am pleased to once again clarify the information shared in the House on the disability tax credit.

Let me be absolutely clear. Our government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians, especially our most vulnerable Canadians, receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled.

While the member opposite's party cut services to Canadians, while it was in government, it even took away the committee that was put in place to give Canadians with disabilities and those who advocated on their behalf a voice in the CRA. It took away this important forum back in 2006. This meant that for over 10 years, these groups had to sit on the sidelines, without a formal mechanism for advising the agency on how to best serve Canadians with disabilities. However, we are giving these groups back their seat at the table.

Now let us talk about what our government has done.

We have made it easier for Canadians to apply for the disability tax credit by allowing nurse practitioners to certify the medical information and the effects of their impairment on the application form. Nurse practitioners, as we know, are often the first and most frequent point of contact between patients and Canada's health care system. This is especially true in remote regions of Canada.

This is great news for Canadians with disabilities as it makes the application process easier and more accessible.

We also reinstated the disability advisory committee to provide a way for stakeholders and experts to provide recommendations to the CRA on how to improve the disability tax credit. This committee met for the first time in January. I repeat, we are committed to ensuring Canadians receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled.

More Canadians accessed the DTC last year than ever before. This is good news, but we know we can do so much more.

Over 6,000 Canadians participated in the national consultation to inform the development of a the new federal accessibility legislation. In 2016, the Minister of Health announced five new SPOR chronic disease networks, led by CIHR. Through two of these networks, funding is supporting a continuum of research that engages patients as partners to improve diabetes and kidney disease outcomes.

Again, Canadians can rest assured that we will continue to work for Canadians to make the DTC even more accessible to them.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, only with the Liberal government could someone speaking for it say that the government is pleased with its ability to make it easier for Canadians to access credits to which they are entitled even while rejecting 80% of the applications.

Right up until May 2017, it had 80% approval; after May, it had 80% rejection. The parliamentary secretary is congratulating the Liberal government on its ability to ensure that Canadians get the deductions to which they are entitled?

With respect to the small business tax rate, only the Liberal government could characterize the undoing of a broken promise to reduce the small business tax rate to the rate that the previous government had already scheduled it to be reduced to in 2015.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of our government's commitment to support persons with disabilities and their families.

This is part of our overall approach to improving health care and quality of life for all Canadians. Disabilities affect the lives of many Canadians, and we understand the concerns raised and are working to address them.

Canada is at its best, and all of society benefits, when everyone is included. That is why our government is committed to ensuring greater accessibility and opportunities for Canadians with disabilities in their communities and workplaces.

As I said before, Canadians can rest assured that we will continue to work to make the disability tax credit even more accessible to Canadians who need it.

The Environment

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in response to a question I had on November 2, 2017, which was the eve of the disastrous Korean-owned Hanjin Seattle spill, which saw 35 shipping containers insulated with styrofoam contaminate the coastline of the west coast of Vancouver Island.

To date, I will note that the government has provided zero funding to clean up the spill, while the community-led initiatives and volunteers sprung into action and continue to donate hard-earned money and clean up the mess that was left on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

I want to thank the groups that led the charge: Ocean Legacy, Pacific Rim chapter of Surfrider, Clayoquot Clean up, the Tla-o-qui-aht, Indigenous Guardians, the leaders in Tofino and Ucluelet, and the Nuu-chah-nulth leaders. They called for support from Ottawa, which did not happen. During the year that we did not get support on the west coast, the government indicated, after a year, that there was a near-complete legislative and regulatory void for coastal debris cleanup, and no dedicated fund.

When this incident took place, I came into the House of Commons, notified the government, and called for support. The government did not provide any support. Early last year, in 2017, the parliamentary secretary of Transport at the time identified that the government's position was it did not feel that ocean plastics and marine debris posed an immediate threat to the environment. We know that is ridiculous.

Through debate, even today, as we debated the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, it was clear in hearing from members that they do not understand how important the ocean is for us. It is not just about the economy or the environment, or our food security and recreation, because it is all of those to coastal people, but it is our home. It is what connects us. It is our language. It feeds us, and we rely on it every day to sustain our communities and sensitive ecosystems.

During the time that the government has shown no action, I have raised this concern in the House of Commons repeatedly. The response I have been given is that the government has created a world-class oceans protection plan. That is invisible on the ground. We have not had any support. Meanwhile, the government went to the United Nations' first world summit on oceans last June. They signed on to agreements to help tackle ocean plastics. We know with ocean plastics that if we keep going the way we are going, they will outweigh fish by 2050. We recently heard that the government wants to use the G7 to talk about ocean plastics and combatting them.

My question is directly to the Prime Minister, and to the parliamentary secretaries of the environment, fisheries and oceans, and the transport minister. All of them keep touting this world-class oceans protection plan. When it comes to ocean plastics, we have seen nothing. What we would like to see is a national strategy to combat plastic pollution in aquatic environments and creation of a permanent, dedicated, annual fund to help clean up efforts like this in the future.

This was a serious incident that took place, and the Government of Canada was invisible. We expect more. Everyone expects more, and certainly coastal people expect more. I hope the government today will come forward with a solution that it is not going to leave our communities high and dry if an incident like this takes place again. We have seen global trade with Asia growing at a rate of 6% a year over the last two decades, and we have seen no support on the ground for the impact that marine highway is having on our sensitive ecosystems.

I outlined how important the ocean is to us. I hope that the member opposite will share a positive solution moving forward.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with goods being shipped to and from Canada's coast, it is imperative that these products get to market in a safe and responsible way. That is one reason behind why the government announced the oceans protection plan, a $1.5-billion investment to ensure safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation that protects marine environments and communities. This initiative will allow us to achieve a world-leading marine safety system that can respond to marine accidents that threaten Canada's oceans and waterways. It will allow us to further strengthen the Canadian ship-source oil pollution fund.

Our government is also addressing the risks of other types of hazardous and noxious substances transported by ships and is adopting regulations as the final step toward Canada's ratification of the 2010 hazardous and noxious substances convention.

Altogether, these measures will set Canada's regime as the international benchmark for a robust polluter pay ship-source pollution liability and compensation regime.

The safety and protection of our waterways and shorelines, and the many people who make use of them, are at the heart of these regulations. Canadians, as well as visitors, enjoy our coasts and waterways for a variety of purposes, and we have a duty to ensure that they are protected.

Our government will continue working with marine stakeholders, indigenous groups, and coastal communities to implement the various measures in the oceans protection plan. Indigenous and coastal communities will have many opportunities to participate in responsible shipping. They will contribute to and have access to information on marine shipping activities and will also be offered training and have the opportunity to participate in search and rescue missions, environmental monitoring, and emergency spill response.

It is through the participation of marine stakeholders, indigenous groups, and coastal communities that our oceans protection plan will succeed, and our coast and waters will be preserved for future generations.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the oceans protection plan does not even mention ocean plastic anywhere, or any measures on how the government is going to tackle it.

The Government of Canada did not do anything when the spill happened. The local community and quick-thinking Pacific Rim National Park staff appealed to the bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy court got $72,000, which came to Ottawa. That money sat in Ottawa for five months, not in the hands of the coastal people who were doing the hard work of the cleanup. The Liberal government failed coastal people.

Today, there is no answer as to how the government is going to amend its oceans protection plan to talk about ocean plastics. We have put forward a clear strategy that talks about plastic debris discharge, how to limit microplastics entering our environment, and a permanent dedicated annual fund, which is necessary not just for ongoing use but especially if there is an emergency.

The government has provided no answers again today.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government takes the safety, security, and protection of life in the marine environment as our key priorities, and that has been the core of various initiatives announced through the oceans protection plan.

Parks Canada has been involved in this cleanup. Funding was provided by Hanjin as part of the debris cleanup. Those funds were provided to Parks Canada Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. I would like to add my thanks to all the groups that helped make a difference.

Moving forward, our measures as part of the oceans protection plan will set Canada's regime as the international benchmark for a robust polluter pay ship-source pollution liability and compensation regime.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in adjournment proceedings to return to a question I asked on October 23 of last year. Some will remember this question only for the uproarious laughter that ensued, most inappropriately, as some members in this place thought the Minister of Transport had misspoken. He referred to the kind of sense of shared commitment the opposition benches all felt in opposing the omnibus budget bills put forward by the previous government.

In the spring of 2012, the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, repealed our environmental assessment act and destroyed the Fisheries Act. We fought very hard against that, and then in the fall of the same year, there was another omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45, that gutted the navigable waters protection act. In referring to that, the hon. Minister of Transport referred to remembering spending the whole night with me, which of course, was in this House over 24 hours of straight voting. Very few members actually stayed in their seats voting continually on every amendment and every motion, but since most of the amendments were mine, I stayed here in my seat for 24 hours voting straight through. It certainly was not an occasion for raucous laughter, but we know sometimes people in this place do not rise to the occasion. They sink to grade two or maybe kindergarten.

In any case, I want to return to that, because now we have seen the proposed amendments to the Navigation Protection Act. In fact, they were tabled in this place just last week. I have reviewed them thoroughly. I had extreme concern, which I raised in my question, that the Minister of Transport was not likely to meet the mandate letter, in which the Prime Minister had instructed him to restore lost protections to the Navigation Protection Act. It appeared from discussion papers and from the report of the parliamentary committee on transportation that the government was going to be prepared to say that this is what the previous government did, that it took some 99% of navigable waters from our inland waterways out of the act and created a short list of about 100 named waterways that are internal to Canada, and that is that. If a waterway is on that list, it is navigable water. If it is not on the list, it is not. It appeared for quite a while that the Liberal approach would be to say that they would create a system whereby people could add waters to the list by application.

It was a real relief, in reading Bill C-69, one of the few places in reading that bill that I was actually relieved, that the definition of navigable waters has been changed such that it is not just the schedule of waterways that will be considered navigable waters but any waterway human beings are currently using. It would not be as broad as what there was in 1881, but any body of water, anywhere in Canada, in which one could put a canoe or a kayak and navigate one's way through would require a permit from the federal minister before that body of water could be obstructed. It is much broader than it was under Harper. It is not a complete restoration of lost protections, but a much bigger swath of interior waters of Canada would now be under a navigable waters act.

One of the aspects of the lost protection was that the issuance of a federal permit would trigger an environmental review. Under part 1 of Bill C-69, we would now have what would be called an impact assessment, but without any triggering to review projects where a federal minister had to give a permit. We await finding out what the designated projects would look like, but it would still fall short of what was promised.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her tireless commitment to environmental protection. She has made a difference.

Our government committed to restoring navigation protections, and that is what it has done. On Thursday, our government introduced Bill C-69, which contains amendments to the Navigation Protection Act and would create the new Canadian navigable waters act.

This new act is informed by a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, as well as 14 months of listening to Canadians, including indigenous peoples, boaters, industry, other levels of government, environmental non-government organizations, and the Canadian public.

The new Canadian navigable waters act delivers on our government's mandate commitment to restore and better protect the rights of Canadians to travel on Canada's vast network of waters. It will do this by introducing navigation protections for every navigable water in Canada, increasing transparency in our processes, giving indigenous people and communities a say in projects that may affect them, and by providing opportunities for indigenous people to become partners in protecting navigation.

Indigenous peoples have a sacred relationship with waterways and use those waterways to exercise their rights. This is why the Canadian navigable waters act is an important opportunity to advance our government's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

Indigenous people have told us they want more information about development on the navigable waters in their traditional territories. The Canadian navigable waters act proposes new notification requirements and the creation of a public registry that would make information available about new projects in all navigable waters in Canada. It also proposes a new process that would allow indigenous people and communities to raise concerns about projects with project proponents, and for the government to assist with resolving these concerns when needed.

The proposed Canadian navigable waters act is aligned with the principles and approaches of the broader environmental and regulatory system introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, on February 8. Any permitting decisions under the Canadian navigable waters act will be fully integrated into this new impact assessment system so that we can protect our environment, fish, and waterways, rebuild public trust, and create new jobs and economic activity.

Together, we are committed to implementing a new environmental and regulatory system that responds to the needs of Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if in my first introduction to adjournment proceedings I did not state clearly enough my appreciation to the Minister of Transport for listening to the concerns that the very narrow approach of allowing additional waterways to be added to a schedule was inappropriate, I am grateful he listened. Again, it is not the full restoration of protection but it is much closer.

I also want to add my voice of thanks to his hon. parliamentary secretary here tonight because I know she did a lot of the heavy lifting herself.

I do not see in the act the thing she just mentioned, so I would love to know where it is, which is the full integration of granting permits on navigable waters for obstruction under this new system of impact assessment. There is no law list in the new impact assessment legislation. It is only by project list designations, and those are not yet complete, or if it is on federal land. We have lost other environmental assessment triggers and it is a much weaker piece of legislation than the one Harper repealed. I would love to know how we, in fact, have an assessment before the minister gives permits under the navigable waters act.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. There was an awful lot of work that went into this, and these amendments that created this new Canadian navigable waters act include protections for navigation on every navigable water, including lakes and rivers. Through this legislation, we are delivering on that commitment to restore navigation protection. We are providing for greater transparency and accessibility to give local communities a say in projects that could affect navigation.

We recognize the importance of navigable waters to indigenous peoples and to providing them with opportunities to partner with Canada. That is why we developed a comprehensive and complementary protection regime that will preserve our priceless environment for generations to come.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:31 p.m.)