Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Ellis Ross

Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley 53 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Ross pushes for resource development in northwest British Columbia—LNG, the port of Prince Rupert and pipelines—while demanding full First Nations consultation and consent, and presses for cuts to taxes on fuel and homebuilding. In debate he often drifts from the matter at hand into anecdotes from his years as a First Nations leader: “I have seen this before.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
86 / 100 over 49 statements
Signal 80 / 100
Relevance 80 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.2 Greetings and pleasantries.1.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.5 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 49 of 53 statements graded so far.

Statements 53

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“I oppose this bill because it threatens basic freedoms and our Charter rights. As an Indigenous person, I know what it is like to live without rights. Will the government support our motion, and if not, what can we do to stop this bill?”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 33 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member was knowledgeable in his comments and his speech on Bill C-9. I spoke to this bill. As an indigenous person, coming from the Indian Act and knowing that natives did not have rights until the last 50 years, I was shocked at this. The issue is the potential attack not only against faith leaders but also against the fundamental principle of freedom of all manners. I cannot understand why the House has not taken the charter seriously. We are actually playing politics with it. With respect to the motion that my colleague has put on the floor, is there any chance the Liberal government will come to its senses and support it? If not, what are the options for us as Conservatives on behalf of Canadians?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Food and Drugs Act

In response to a question from Helena Konanz

“Canadians who are very sick wait too long for life-saving medicine because of government paperwork. I want this bill to go to committee to fix this problem by pre-approving certain drugs. However, the bill needs changes so it does not make it easier for people to get dangerous illegal drugs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians might not be able to access in a timely manner. Some Canadians are suffering from serious conditions and cannot access proven life-saving drugs. We know the risks, and we know the science behind these drugs is sound. Those are not the problems. The problems facing Canadians trying to access life-saving drugs are too much paperwork and too much bureaucracy. That is why we are debating Bill C-265 today, so we can get life-saving drugs to Canadians who need them in a timely and efficient manner. This is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. To be more clear, it is meant to provide a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. “Pre-approved” is the key word. Pre-approved drugs cut down on time and bureaucracy. Canada already has a program designed for Canadians with serious or rare conditions when no other treatments exist. It is called the special access program. The problem is that there are no provisions for pre-approved drugs that are based on precedent. The special access program was meant to open a door to therapies already proven to be effective elsewhere. The intent was there, the intent was good, but the implementation failed. In 2025 alone, over 11,000 requests were processed, but each request was treated as a new request. Repeated requests were treated as new requests, instead of a consistent and efficient system that recognized the suffering and complications that some Canadians were experiencing. These are drugs requested before by Canadian doctors, drugs approved by jurisdictions that we consider to be our peers and drugs with real-world data behind them, yet each application started from scratch. Not only do doctors have to go through this process time and time again, but the patients also have to apply time and time again. My own brother, who suffers from a rare spinal disease, had to go through this for years. When his medications ran out, he would have to wait for his application to be approved so he could resume pain management. This left a gap. This left him to self-medicate with non-prescription drugs, which he hated to do, but he could not bear the pain, and I do not blame him. How many other people have considered this option? If the special access program was streamlined for well-established use cases, people like my brother would have less pain and definitely less stress, especially when the drug is referred to as “life-saving”. The paperwork and bureaucracy do not produce or generate new data. They do not generate new knowledge, but they take up time. For patients with serious conditions, time is a valuable commodity. There is no doubt that the Conservatives support this bill, but there are problems with it. My time is limited, so I will not go through them, but many of my colleagues have pointed out the problems with the bill. It is our wish that this bill go to committee. One of the problems is that the bill, as presented, would open the door for dangerous drugs to make it onto the pre-approved list and would effectively create a loophole that would make it easy for people suffering from drug use to be prescribed methamphetamine as liquid caffeine. This is far from being hypothetical. Through the special access program, requests for drugs like LSD and MDMA have in fact been made. Members may also recall that restrictions on the special access program existed to limit opioid diversion under the Harper government. In 2013, then health minister Rona Ambrose amended the program after learning that Health Canada had approved a request granting 21 patients with chronic addictions access to prescription heroin. However, the Trudeau Liberal government later lifted the restrictions that Conservatives had imposed on illegal and harmful substances, such as LSD, heroin and cocaine. Conservatives had put those restrictions in there for a reason. We look forward to seeing this go to committee for more amendments.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

In response to a question from Blaine Calkins

“The government's gun plan targets trained, law-abiding gun owners instead of criminals. It lowers sentences for gun crimes. Conservatives want stricter laws for criminals who use guns, not for people who follow the law.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the gun buyback or confiscation plan is actually going after law-abiding citizens who have PALS and get training. For those who have restricted firearms, the bar is even higher. They are not going to get safety valves. They are going to get a mandatory sentencing. Anything under this is going to get reduced sentences, and that is including firearms offences. The Conservatives have been saying that we have to start tightening the controls and the laws around firearms, especially connected to crimes, but not law-abiding citizens.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“This bill could have been much stronger. The Liberals voted down changes that would have addressed gun crimes.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it could have been stronger. There were even amendments talking about crimes committed with firearms. The Liberal government, through committee majority, voted them down as well. All I am saying is the amendments that were rejected could have made this bill so much stronger, including the amendments that dealt with firearms.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“This bill should include mandatory minimum prison sentences for these offenders. My party proposed changes to make the bill stronger, but the government weakened it instead.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that was not the point. The point is that we should actually impose a mandatory sentencing for these offenders. That is it. That is the starting point. We could have made the legislation so much stronger if we had actually taken more of the amendments that were proposed by my colleagues. Instead, we have watered it down.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“This bill includes good ideas that Conservatives have pushed for years. But the government voted down our amendments to make it stronger. We tried to keep strict minimum sentences for serious crimes and give more rights to victims. The bill is too weak because it lets judges give lesser sentences.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to talk about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. Before I get into the substance of the bill itself, I want to explain the term “safety valve”, because just about every speaker has spoken to this term. It is a mechanism that allows judges to give lesser sentences, as opposed to a strict mandatory minimum sentence. If we are going to give weaker sentences instead of imposing a strict mandatory minimum sentence for some of these crimes, then what is the point of using the term “mandatory minimum sentence”, especially when we are talking about protecting women and vulnerable victims? Even when the government members themselves get up and debate, they admit that the bill is long overdue. In fact, when I was an MLA, we were talking about crimes and how there should be punishment. At the time, the NDP government actually blamed Ottawa for not amending or introducing more legislation. I agree. This is a long time coming. It just so happens that a “southern Alberta man faces criminal charges after police say they found more than half a million child sexual exploitation photos and videos in his possession.... More than 500,000 child sexual exploitation photos and videos were discovered, [making it] one of the largest collections the unit has ever encountered”. Like every other case that has been in the media in the last year or so, this just makes me sick. A lot of other leaders have said the same thing. It makes them sick. I know some premiers who have made some pretty inflammatory comments about what should be done with these kinds of people. It is good that the legislation is up. Is it groundbreaking? Does it go to the full extent of protecting victims? We have to give credit to the Conservatives, who have been asking for the legislation for years. Finally, it is being recognized in Bill C-16, not just in terms of debate but also in terms of some of the content that we are talking about that is in Bill C-16. Making the murder of an intimate partner first-degree actually came from the Conservative MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of sexual deepfakes, digitally manipulated pictures or video using artificial intelligence, came from the Conservative MP for Calgary Nose Hill. Updating mandatory requirements for child exploitation material came from previous Conservative governments. We are pleased to see that the government took its lead from Conservative MPs. To try to frame it now, politically, that Conservatives do not support this or that, somehow, we do not agree with protecting victims is misleading Canadians. That is not the truth. If anything, Conservatives have been leading the charge to actually punish offenders for years. It is now here, but one of the best tools of this institution is committee work. I did not realize that until I got to Ottawa, because committees in the B.C. legislature are different. The Liberal government stacked the committees to, basically, get its own way in terms of votes. Not only is it now a slim margin of votes so that the Liberal government can get everything it wants in a committee, but it actually stacked it even further so that there is no chance of any amendments proposed by any opposition parties. I am talking about the Bloc. I am talking about the Conservatives. The committee is there for a purpose. It is to collaborate. It is to represent the interests and needs of Canadians, the interests and needs of the constituents we represent. The Liberal government is framing this as one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation that has come down the pike in a long time. That is not true. It could have been better. In terms of amendments regarding safety valves, there were six put forward by Conservatives that were all voted down by the Liberal committee members. There was one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have narrowed the mandatory minimum safety valves to only apply to offenders with no prior criminal record. There was one from the member for York Centre, another Conservative, that would have required courts to consider only offenders’ actual circumstances, not hypothetical scenarios such as what the court is saying, when assessing the constitutionality of mandatory minimums. It was voted down by the Liberals. There was another one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have excluded serious offences, including child sexual offences and major drug trafficking offences, from accessing the mandatory minimum safety valve. This means that we wanted the full extent of the law applied to these offenders, especially drug traffickers, sex traffickers and those having anything to do with violent crime. We should give them not a lesser penalty but the full mandatory sentence. We should keep the full mandatory sentence in play. If we really want to protect women, vulnerable victims and children, we should keep that mandatory sentence. If anyone wants to challenge it, they can challenge it in the courts. The Liberal government is so afraid of being challenged through the charter. If victims or Canadians cannot depend on us as lawmakers to stand up and fight for them, and they cannot depend on the courts, who are they going to depend on? There is nobody left. The Liberals should take on the challenge. The Supreme Court can use a challenge, especially when we are talking about a lesser, weaker sentence for some of the worst offenders in our society. It is getting worse. There were six amendments put together for that safety valve, and each one was voted down. There were two amendments for victims’ rights put together by my Conservative colleagues, and they were voted down by the Liberal committee members. One was put together by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South that would have ensured victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control are notified without delay of release orders or recognizance. It was voted down. There was another one from the same member that would have required the Parole Board chairperson to disclose offender information without delay to the victims of intimate partner violence or coercive control offences. It was voted down. The bill could have been stronger. We could have sent a strong message to the women and vulnerable victims in Canada, saying that we are going to fight for them. We are going to take on the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court rules against us, we will think of another fight. Each and every MP could have taken that pledge together, but we did not. The Liberal government backed down at committee through majority votes on each one of these amendments. There were six other defeated amendments. The one put together by the member for York Centre would have protected against charter challenges to child pornography, possession and access offences under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill’s mandatory minimum safety valve. It was voted down. Four pages of amendments were voted down by the Liberal committee members. There were also amendments ruled out of scope, and each one of these amendments was just trying to further strengthen the bill so offenders could not get away. I know there are going to be lawyers arguing this and fighting for lesser sentences or no sentence at all. I know that. However, as legislators, we are the last stop. We are the last hope. Given that the Liberal government actually took recommendations from Conservatives and implemented them in this bill is commendable. To be truly ambitious, the Liberals should not have voted out the rest of the amendments.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“Conservatives support protecting vulnerable people. We tried to change this bill to make sure people who have child sexual abuse material face tough minimum sentences, but the government voted against it. Why did the government refuse to protect these victims?”

  • A repeated line

    “While also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since June 3.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member’s speech was passionate, and I agree. Coming from where I do, the north coast of British Columbia, I have experienced that most of my life. The government wants to portray this side of the House as not being supportive of this type of bill or protecting vulnerable people. The Conservative member for York Centre moved an amendment, CPC-13, that was defeated by the Liberal government. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under section 7 and section 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause, while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill’s mandatory minimum safety valve. Why did the government not protect victims in this equation?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“I support this bill. But I want to know if it will change the sentencing rules for Indigenous people.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the secretary of state for the description of the bill. I agree fully, and I have agreed fully for 20 years as an aboriginal leader, as an MLA and now as an MP. However, I do have a specific question about the Gladue principle. Would that principle survive, or would it get struck down with this bill?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping

“First Nations need economic projects to lift our people out of poverty. The government does not have a clear plan for major projects, and it ignores real consultation with First Nations. The tanker ban does not actually protect our coast, because tankers still travel nearby and British Columbia depends on fuel from the United States.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and more of an honour to go back over the 20 years of experience I have in project development. In 2003, we really did not know what environmental assessment, permitting or aboriginal rights and title were. The Haida court case of 2004 still had not come out yet. By 2004-05, we had to piece it all together and try to understand it. We were living in a condemned residential school building that only had one computer and faxes, but we did it. To understand the process to achieve our objectives was the goal, because nothing else worked for us to get our people out of poverty and to get us out from the paternalistic Indian Act. We tried tourism, forestry and programs, but nothing worked, so we changed our strategy after a while and started engaging the economy. That is how Peace in the Forest, LNG and our deliberations on oil came about. It was all based on process, not on ideology or politics. What is the process in place here? How is the government going to ensure that it is going to engage first nations, as per section 35 of the Constitution? I see that the Prime Minister made an announcement in Vancouver a few days ago saying that it was non-negotiable to deal with aboriginal rights and title. Somehow, people clapped like he invented sliced bread. That has been in place since 2004. The processes that we developed, first nations along with the Crown, the communication processes to breathe life into the Haida court case of 2004, are well established. That ship has sailed. Now the question is whether the Liberal government is going to override all those processes and all that case law to fast-track a project, meaning a pipeline to the west coast of B.C. We have to remember where this came from. The Prime Minister sold himself as the person who could get control of Trump. That was it. Then, from then on, we started to hear all the doublespeak. Back then, the quote was, from the Prime Minister, “We will win this trade war and build the strongest economy in the G7.” He gave up on that. Then, he changed the narrative to “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become weaknesses—weaknesses that we must correct.” That has not gone over so well. There was the slogan of “elbows up”, but I guess Trump did not get the idea of what elbows up meant. Then the Prime Minister said, “Canada...has the best trade deal with the United States. While it’s different from what we had before, it is still better than that of any other country.” I think that by now, Canadians understand that tariffs are here to stay. It does not matter if someone is a Republican or Democrat down in the United States, tariffs are here to stay. It got so bad for the Liberals that they hired a former Conservative leader to be part of the negotiation team to see if they could salvage something, but it is not looking so great. The promise during the campaign was to invoke the Emergencies Act to get projects built, but that was scratched. Then, it was the Building Canada Act. When people come to me and ask what it is all about, I have to tell them that I do not know; I have no idea. I get process, but this is now such a scattered plan. We just heard the Liberals debating against tanker traffic. It is their MOU with Alberta, not ours. They have the gall to mention that there was no consultation on this bill. There was no consultation on the MOU or the co-operation agreement. Even with Pathways, they made the announcement of carbon sequestration and then they went over to the first nation and said, “Okay, now we are going to consult with you,” even though they had made the decision. It was an afterthought. There was no respect for section 35 of the Constitution. Then the government brought in the doublespeak again. To save face, it was going to talk about consent. It had already made a deal to fast-track a project within one year, with shovels in the ground and all that stuff. Then the Prime Minister said that he would not do anything without consent, not only the consent of the first nations, which would have to be an elaborate plan, but also the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The government was fighting against its own MOU. It was fighting against its own co-operation agreement. It was fighting against its own Building Canada Act. All this mixed messaging is failing Canadians. The biggest announcement in the last year to diversify our oil exports was to revive Keystone to bring more oil to the United States. That is not even ironic. The idea was to get away from or at least diversify the markets away from America, not build up more dependence. When we are talking about the tanker ban itself, we have to know what it is. The ban prohibits oil tankers from stopping, unloading or loading in any port in a designated area. That is it because currently people are allowed to import or export, or even load or unload, 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products. The Liberals talked about diesel spills on the west coast, which have been happening for the last 100 years. Tugboats go down. Seine boats go down. Gillnetters go down. It does not matter what one’s background or ethnicity is. Everybody who owns a boat that sank has contributed to that diesel or gasoline spill. That is not new. In fact, the first nations that still depend on diesel for electricity have had spills at their docks. Now we are trying to eradicate that, of course, but it is going to take time. We are talking about a voluntary exclusion zone, a buffer zone between tankers and much of B.C.’s coast extending further offshore. We saw the story of an oil tanker going up Hecate Strait between the mainland of B.C. and Haida Gwaii, but we did not get an explanation as to why. I thought it was because of the International Maritime Organization’s laws, which Canada is a signatory to. We are talking about safety. There was a rumour saying that it is a shorter distance for an oil tanker to come up from Burnaby, B.C., to go up the strait and then head over to China. That is not much of a tanker ban. The risk is still there. The Liberal government likes to talk about risk, but fails to mention all the tankers coming from Alaska to Washington state. What does Washington state do with that crude oil? It turns it into aviation jet fuel, gas and diesel, and we buy it from Washington state. We do not have a domestic energy policy. We are vulnerable. We saw the flooding that happened on the Coquihalla Highway in B.C. It got to a point where the Americans came to B.C.’s rescue. B.C. residents were rationed to 30 litres at a time for a fill-up at a gas station. What did Washington state do? It supplemented B.C.’s supply of gasoline and diesel by barging up more gas and diesel. At that time, the NDP premier mused about expanding the refinery capacity at Burnaby, trying to get away from this vulnerability that Canadians face. There is also a penalty for violating this voluntary tanker moratorium. It can include fines of up to $5 million for each instance of non-compliance. It does not mention anything about Americans. It does not mention anything about the tankers coming from Burnaby.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The Liberals voted against protecting private property rights and are relying on a private business in court to defend them instead. Canadian homeowners need certainty. Will the Prime Minister protect private property rights while building good partnerships with First Nations?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government calls concerns about private property rights fearmongering, yet the Liberals, as the number one defendant, are appealing the Cowichan decision. The Liberal government is depending entirely on Montrose Properties, a private business, to defend private property on behalf of Canadians. On top of this, the Liberals voted against a Conservative motion that would protect private property rights. Canadian homeowners deserve certainty and clarity. Will the Liberal Prime Minister secure the private property rights of Canadians and provide economic certainty while creating respectful partnerships with first nations?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The government told its lawyers not to defend property rights in a recent court case. Canadians need to know that their homes belong to them. Why is the Prime Minister not defending private property in court?”

  • A repeated line

    “Because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since May 6.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case. The judge then ruled that private property was defective and invalid. Canada must pursue reconciliation with indigenous peoples, but these decisions are moving in the wrong direction. Canadians need the certainty that comes with knowing that their homes and property are theirs. With appeals and other court cases coming, why is the Liberal Prime Minister telling his lawyers not to defend private property?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Affordability

“Gas and food cost too much because Liberal taxes are high and government policies have weakened our dollar. The Prime Minister should remove all gas taxes and allow more oil and gas projects.”

  • A repeated line

    “Unblock our oil and gas production and make Canada affordable and strong.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions and speeches, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. In Skeena—Bulkley Valley, gas prices are up to two dollars a litre. The Liberals claim that gas prices are due to world oil prices being $100 a barrel, but in 2014, under the Conservative government, gas prices were around 45¢ cheaper, and the price of oil at the time was $100 a barrel. It is Liberal policies that are hurting the hard-working people of northwest B.C. It is high Liberal taxes and our weak dollar, because of our weak economy. The loonie is down 20% compared to 2014. When we have a weak dollar, every internationally priced commodity, like energy and food, costs more. Why is our dollar weak? It is because Liberal policies blocking resource development are scaring away investment. The Prime Minister should take our common-sense plan to remove all taxes on all gas all year, unblock our oil and gas production, and make Canada affordable and strong.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The government wants Conservatives to just agree with them, but our system needs an opposition. The government has stacked the committees with their own votes and keeps holding meetings in secret. How can we actually work together if the committees are blocked like this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that speech covered a lot of area, I must admit. A number of the member’s colleagues have gotten up and talked about how the Conservatives should get on board, work with them and just agree with the sovereign wealth fund, because it is good for the country. Actually, that is not how this model is set up. The Westminster model is set up with the official opposition, and normally we would go to committee, but committee has been stacked to the point now where we really cannot get debate without the government’s votes stacked in its favour. On top of that, most of our committees are now going in camera, so we cannot even discuss what is being discussed in committees. Does the member have any opinions on how we can actually collaborate, outside of the committees, which have been hamstrung by the new appointments?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis