Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jeff Kibble

Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford 75 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Kibble fights for oversight of defence procurement and against Bill C-40’s sole-source contracting powers, for private property rights after the Cowichan land decision, for veterans such as settling the mefloquine court case, and for local asks like cleaning the dump polluting the Cowichan River; he also sponsors a bill imposing 25 to 40 years before parole for abduction, sexual assault and murder. He castmates opponents’ motives as much as their arguments — the Prime Minister is “more focused on building his own defence industry oligarchy” — and frames government claims as “illusion” hiding reality, often drawing on his three decades in the navy.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
85 / 100 over 67 statements
Signal 77 / 100
Relevance 89 / 100
Reasoning 74 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Averaged over the 67 of 75 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.3.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.5

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.3 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.0

A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.1

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 A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Does well more than most

Answered ×1.8

Says again and again

Echo

Statements 75

Statements by Members ·

Affordability

“Life is getting too expensive for families and seniors in my riding. The Bank of Canada now predicts inflation will reach 3.1% in 2027, which will drive up mortgages and prices. I want the government to spend responsibly and lower costs for Canadians.”

  • Member's statement

    Respect 83 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the political interests of the Prime Minister”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, families in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and across Vancouver Island are working hard, but the bills keep growing. Parents worry about the grocery checkout. Seniors go without because their pensions cannot cover the basics. The Bank of Canada now forecasts 2027 inflation at 3.1%, up from 2% in the July report. This means mortgage payments will go up and prices will rise faster, on top of the already high cost of living Canadians face. Unless wages and pensions keep pace, their money will buy less food and cover fewer necessities. The people on Vancouver Island need breathing room. They deserve decisions that serve all Canadians rather than the political interests of the Prime Minister and his favoured few. I will keep fighting for lower costs, responsible spending and honest answers. The people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford have entrusted me to stand up for them. I will honour that trust every day. I call on the government to do the same.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Natural Resources

“The government allows oil tankers on the southern coast but bans them on the northern coast. The northern route is just as safe, has less traffic, and could follow the same safety rules. This ban stops Canadian companies from shipping oil overseas. I want the Prime Minister to grant an exemption to let tankers use the northern route.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal tanker moratorium, up to 34 tankers can be approved every month on the southern route, yet the northern route is equally safe, has less marine traffic and can have the same protections as the south. Having navigated the navy’s tanker on the B.C. coast for years, I know what it takes to operate tankers safely, and the northern route can also meet the same standards as the south. This is a Liberal embargo on Canada and companies like Strathcona Resources that are standing by to ship Canadian oil overseas. Will the Prime Minister immediately grant an exemption for the northern route, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law)

“I support this bill, and I want the House to pass it quickly. Right now, parents lose their parental benefits and leave if their child dies. This bill lets them keep those benefits without having to fill out more paperwork. I also want the government to put money in the next budget to protect benefits when a parent dies. Finally, I ask Canadians to sign petition e-7765 to give better support to families who lose a baby during pregnancy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to learn that my colleague is a grandmother of 11. I rise today at final reading to examine and explore Bill C-222, known as Evan’s law, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding the death of a child. I speak for the families of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, from Cowichan Valley to the west shore. I speak for the parents of a Vancouver Island family who welcomed a child into their lives, and who were then asked to bear the unbearable. I served in uniform and that service brings a different perspective to the value of life. Those who serve and the families who wait for them know how quickly a life can change with one day, one phone call, one sentence that can never be taken back. This is the lens I bring to this bill. Allow me to explain what the bill would do. When a parent receives employment insurance, maternity or parental benefits, those benefits are tied to a child. Under the current rules, if that child sadly dies, parental benefits end. A parent may switch to sickness benefits, but must report to Service Canada every two weeks to show that they are still grieving. If they do not call within a week of that death, the debt begins to build that the Canada Revenue Agency will later claw back. The Canada Labour Code carries a similar gap, and leave protections may be cut short. Let us consider what that asks of a family. They are grieving and the system presents them with paperwork. Bill C-222 would correct that, and a parent would keep the claim already in place. They would not file again, and they would not have to learn new rules. They would be given time, and time is the one thing grief demands. I look forward to collaborating with the government on this. When a sound idea comes from the government benches, the right response is to acknowledge it. I have read this bill, and I have weighed both what it accomplishes and what it leaves undone. This work did not begin in this Parliament. More than 10 years ago, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane brought forward motion 110, which opened the national conversation on supporting parents who lose a child. This bill rests upon that work. It rests as well upon the courage of families, beginning with the family of Evan, for whom this law is named, who spoke publicly about the hardest day of their lives so that others would not face it alone. To those families, the House owes more than gratitude; it owes results. While Bill C-222 speaks to the loss of a child, it does not yet speak to the loss of a parent. Let us consider a parent receiving parental leave benefits who passes away. That parent paid into the system. They earned those benefits. In a case in a colleague’s riding, the benefits were cut off the moment a parent died. A family already grieving was handed financial hardship on top of their loss. A family that has lost a parent should not also lose what a parent paid for. This is the principle in the bill before us, but applied to a family it leaves out. If we hold that grieving families deserve time and stability, we cannot hold it only when the loss runs in one direction. Grief does not ask which way the law was written. Some will ask why this important issue was simply not added to this bill, and the answer is a rule worth understanding. Under our procedures, a private member’s bill that spends new public money cannot become law without a royal recommendation. This is the government’s formal approval to spend, and without it, a bill, even with majority support, cannot pass. The question was never only what is right, but what is possible, and I understand that. However, through good faith across party lines, a path was found. While this bill advances, it advances with a recommendation in support of families who lose a child. The human resources committee has agreed to study the extension of parental leave when a parent dies and has requested the cost from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is progress, and I welcome it, but a study is not a solution. A committee report does not help a family this month, and that is why timing matters. This debate falls just nine days before the budget is tabled. A budget is the place where the government’s words become commitments. I therefore ask the government plainly to place the additional parental loss benefits to parents in the budget and expand parental leave protections to families who lose a parent. Our shadow minister for employment expects the cost to be modest, because the measure would extend benefits that already exist with leave periods that already exist, for a small number of families who have already paid into the system. The figure from the Parliamentary Budget Officer will show whether that expectation is sound. We remember that an announcement is not a binding commitment, but a line in a budget is. I will continue to press for it in the House, regardless of who holds government. The committee has also agreed to undertake a longer study of employment insurance parental leave in general, and it wishes to hear from Canadians, so those who have lived this or who hold ideas on reform may share them with my office, and I will ensure that they reach the committee. Their experience will shape what comes next. There is one more family of whom I wish to speak, because their story shows where this work does not end. Recently a Vancouver Island couple lost their son in the second trimester of pregnancy. Alongside their grief, they met a second difficulty. They did not know what respectful options were open to them. They did not know whom to ask or whether they could lay their son to rest as they hoped. With the help of a priest, at a cemetery in Cobble Hill near where I live, they could. The father built a tiny oak casket, the mother made a pillow, and their son was buried with prayer and dignity. Their question afterward was simple: Why should any grieving family have to find these answers by chance? From that question grew the Journi May Dignity Initiative, and it calls for compassionate communications, clear written information and meaningful choices for families after pregnancy loss. It is a House of Commons petition, e-7765. It is open for signature today. It is not closed. It has not been tabled. It calls upon the Government of Canada to “Develop and implement a Pregnancy Loss Dignity Protocol within areas of federal jurisdiction” and to encourage provinces and territories to review their own practices. Until it closes, every name counts. As such, I invite every resident of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and every Canadian to read Journi’s story and to sign petition e-7765. That couple asked a simple question, and Parliament can help answer it. Let me close with what the House can do: advance the bill before us without delay; complete its commitment for the committee to study the loss of a parent and bring forward legislation; place that extension in the budget; hear from Canadians on parental leave reform; and listen to families, such as the family from Cobble Hill on Vancouver Island, so that no grieving family searches alone for a dignified path. Supporting grieving families is not a partisan act. It is a standard and one worth upholding, whoever forms government, so I look forward to supporting the bill. I thank the member opposite for their work, and I look forward to seeing further work in expanding the benefits for grieving families, as agreed by committee.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

“I do not oppose government-owned companies, but some fail. This bill says the new defence agency must follow the orders of one minister. I am asking if that puts too much power over billions of dollars in one person's hands.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily opposed to a Crown corporation. There are many examples of Crown corporations that have worked well. There are examples of ones that have been quite the opposite. What it says in the bill is that the Defence Investment Agency “must”, not “may”, follow the direction of the newly created associate minister. Does the member worry that this is putting too much power, in fact almost ultimate power, into the control of one person, who would be in control of billions of dollars? Does that cause her concern?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“The Coast Guard does not count as military spending under NATO rules. Generals should run the new defence agency, not a banker picked by the Prime Minister. This bill gives one minister too much unchecked power over that agency, and that is dangerous.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for pointing out the accounting issue with the Coast Guard. The member opposite knows full well that the Coast Guard spending clearly does not meet NATO’s own definition, which requires it to be trained, deployable and operating as a military. In committee, I was interviewing three generals who, in my opinion, should be the ones running the Defence Investment Agency, not a banker buddy of the Prime Minister. Bill C-40 would give the newly created associate minister the direction that the DIA must follow his directions, not “may” but “must”, with little written accountability to this House. Do you agree that this would give, as has been pointed out by many people, unprecedented levels of power to one person? Is that a dangerous thing?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Weights and Measures Act

“I agree that we need standard, up-to-date measurements. But other government bills have wasted money. How does this bill protect Canadians from higher costs and wasted money?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have a statute mile, a geographical mile, the U.S. survey mile, an admiralty mile, a nautical mile, a data mile, and tactical mile. The list goes on. As a former navigator, I understand the importance of efficiency, standardizing and updating measurements. I thank the member opposite for her impassioned speech. I have weighed her comments, pardon the pun, and measured them closely. My question though is, after seeing so many scandals, wasted money and inefficiencies with other Liberal bills, what protections are in this bill to ensure that Canadians do not see increased prices or increased costs and to prevent money being wasted?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Public Services and Procurement

“The government gave a $12-million contract to an American company instead of the Commissionaires, who employ Canadian veterans. The American company is even suing our government. I want the Prime Minister to give the contract back to the Commissionaires.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have again betrayed veterans, stripping the Commissionaires of a $12-million CRA contract only open to Canadian companies. It went to Allied Universal, an American company with just 1% of its workforce in Canada and tied to Donald Trump’s ICE deportations. The Liberals wrap themselves in the flag at election time, and then pay Americans at contract time. Here is the kicker: Allied Universal has been suing the government for $420 million. Will the Prime Minister give the contract back to the Commissionaires?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Tragedy at CFB Wainwright

“Four soldiers died and 39 were injured in a fire at CFB Wainwright on Saturday. I share my sorrow with their families, their loved ones, and their fellow soldiers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. On Saturday, a fire at CFB Wainwright took four of our soldiers from us: Sergeant Morgan Wong, Private Shaun Farrell, Private Aidan Goulding and Private Hayden Lykkemark. Each one was loved, and each one chose to serve. Canada grieves with their families and all who loved them, and we will never forget them. Their comrades in Patricia’s infantry, including the 39 injured, are not alone. I thank the Leader of the Opposition, whose riding is home to Wainwright, for going and standing with those families. As a veteran, I feel this loss deeply. May they rest in peace.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

In response to a question from James Bezan

“I oppose this bill. It gives the government too much power without enough oversight or accountability.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 40 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

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague, who is the shadow minister for national defence. It is my privilege to work so closely with him on a committee. Absolutely, we have seen a long list of Liberal government corruption scandals, and this, with the lack of accountability and the lack of oversight, would only open it up. It would give unprecedented powers and a lack of accountability. I will not accept it. Conservatives will not accept it, and I challenge Canadians to not accept this complete lack of accountability.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“This bill needs to be changed. The government spent billions of dollars on planes the air force cannot use, and there was no proper oversight. The bill is written in a way that allows corruption and outside interference.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 47 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the track record. The GlobalEye is an aircraft that does not meet the air force’s operational needs, and there could be an ability for billion-dollar draws without oversight and accountability. Clearly, the way the bill is written would allow for corruption and outside interference. It needs to be changed. Although the structure of a crown Corporation could be good, the bill certainly fails to meet the need.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I do not support this bill as it is written. Government companies can work well, but this bill lets one person make huge choices without reporting to Parliament. When Conservatives made quick deals for military gear, we had to write down our reasons. This bill does not hold anyone accountable.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I indeed said that Crown corporations have proven successful in other countries, but these unaccountable regulations, which would allow one person to make these powerful decisions, are the problem. That is the failure. Conservatives have used single-source contracts to much success to arm our troops quickly when there was a need, but there were written reasons. The bill is focused around 13 expandable reasons that do not require accountability and do not require reporting back to the House. That is the problem, not the Crown corporation.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I do not want this bill to pass as it is. It gives one minister too much power to spend billions of dollars on military equipment without a fair bidding process or oversight. I want the bill changed to make the government publish its reasons for handing out contracts without competition, report regularly to Parliament, and follow strict conflict of interest rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee. I rise today with a heavy heart. On Saturday afternoon, a tragic fire swept through a training area at CFB Wainwright and four members of our Canadian Armed Forces were reported killed, and 39 more were injured, many of them critically. I say to their families, their comrades and the injured still fighting to recover, they are in our thoughts and Canada grieves with them. The Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday to the House of soldiers and firefighters who ran toward the danger. I wore a uniform for decades. I served as a captain of a ship. I oversaw the security and surveillance of Canada’s west coast, and I served on multiple deployments. I know the courage of our men and women in uniform, and I know what it costs their families. In Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, many of those families are our neighbours. This is non-partisan. We, as Canadians, stand together in sorrow and with respect. We owe those soldiers that same standard of respect in our work here today. Before us is Bill C-40, the third version of the Defence Investment Agency in less than a year. In clause 9 of the bill, it says the Defence Investment Agency “must do” as the associate minister directs. It does not say “may”, it says “must”. More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle wrote that an oligarchy is ruled by the few for the benefit of the few. This, I offer as a test for this bill. Who decides for what reasons and to whom they are accountable? Who decides under Bill C-40? It is just one person. The new associate minister position would be created and it would have even less Treasury Board oversight with less accountability to Canadians. The member expected to take a seat in that role has served this country as a fighter pilot, and I deeply respect his service. The head of the DIA has no military experience and was reportedly threatening to quit, though he is an experienced business and banking leader. However, it does not matter what someone’s experience or service is, as no one person should hold this amount of power over this amount of public money. For example, a family replacing its roof gets three quotes. A company signing a billion-dollar contract needs its board to approve it and its auditors to check it, and then the company reports back to its shareholders. In national defence, Canadians are the shareholders. This year, we will spend about $75 billion in defence, and by 2035 it will be $163.6 billion per year. Our allies do not do it this way. In the United Kingdom, an independent regulator oversees the pricing of single-source defence contracts. In the United States, the sole-source contract must be justified in writing and made public, but Bill C-40 asks Canadians to accept less. Let us look at the GlobalEye surveillance aircraft announced by the Prime Minister at CANSEC in May. There was no competition and no reasons given. The vice-president of L3Harris Canada, also hoping to bid on that project, himself a former deputy commander of the RCAF, said that he was quite surprised by the announcement. With gaps in radar coverage, no air-to-air refuelling and critical NORAD compatibility issues, the GlobalEye does not even meet the Air Force’s own operational requirements. I oversaw the surveillance of the west coast while I was in uniform, and I know what a gap in radar coverage means for those standing watch for Canada. Why would we sole-source, and by what authority? What were the reasons? Worse now, Bill C-40 gives 13 reasons to skip the competitive bidding process. The last reason lets the newly minted associate minister add more reasons without reporting them back to the House. There is no disclosure for individual projects. There is only one annual report for billions and billions of dollars of procurement. That is not accountability. Bill C-40 would go so far as to remove the fines and prison sentence an associate minister would otherwise face for failing to run a competitive process. The Defence Investment Agency would be approved to draw up to $1 billion from the consolidated revenue fund, with nothing in that bill on how often, by whom and under what conditions. Between 2020 and 2023, approximately $5.4 billion in approved defence procurement spending went unspent. Money is tight in this country, and Canadian families feel it every day. That is exactly why every defence dollar demands accountability. Take the F-35, now 18 months into a six-month long special review. If the F-35 decision moves under the Defence Investment Agency, the associate minister, by himself, could completely change the course of the fighter jet program without giving Parliament a single written reason. The member designated to hold that new associate minister position has publicly opposed the F-35 project for over a decade, a position that has drawn mockery from his own fellow fighter pilots. This decision belongs to a fair and open competition, not one man. For the record, the F-35 has already won such a competition twice. Faster procurement does not require less accountability. Here is how we do that: keep sole-sourcing for genuine operational needs, but require written, published reasons; report regularly to Parliament on every ministerial direction; and put conflict of interest rules directly into the bill itself. Everyone who advises or votes on these decisions, including the Prime Minister and cabinet, must disclose any interest in the companies being considered, and anyone with a conflict must recuse themselves. The Prime Minister relies on an ethics screen covering more than 100 companies. If that safeguard is needed at the top, it also belongs with the sole position making these multi-billion-dollar decisions. Lastly, we need to set real-time procurement timelines and measure against them. Let me bring this back to the people this bill is meant to serve, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who selflessly defend the sovereignty of Canada. They ask me regularly, “Where are the tanks and the ships and the submarines? Why are the clawbacks almost as big as their pay raises? Where is the ammunition and equipment the government keeps announcing? Why are soldiers on patrol in Latvia without ammunition in their guns, wondering why the artillery supporting them does not have enough shells?” None of this equipment matters without the people trained to use it. The government will say that recruiting and enrolment is up, but enrolment is not recruitment and a recruit is not a trained soldier. The Auditor General found that only one in 13 applicants made it to basic training and that there are not enough instructors, equipment or facilities to train the people that do enrol. Failure rates have climbed from 15% to 23%, and some reports are now putting it as high as 45%. However, we are still thousands of members short in the specialized trades we need filled right now. Enrolment numbers make good headlines, but only trained, qualified members can defend our country, and we keep them by giving the equipment they need to defend Canada. I am not asking the government to scrap the Defence Investment Agency, other countries use this model, but before we debate the vehicle, we must fix the philosophy driving it. These are not partisan questions. They are the least Canadians should expect of any government spending their money to defend our country. I ask every member of the House to measure Bill C-40 against that standard and to heed Aristotle’s warning that the path we choose today will shape our country that our children will inherit and the safety of those who defend it.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“I want the member to explain how the government can claim we are meeting NATO's defence spending goal. NATO says a coast guard must be trained and equipped like a military, but our Coast Guard head said ours cannot do that. The government's claim that we meet the spending target is an illusion.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned NATO spending. I will ask this question again, as I fail continually to get an answer in the House. According to NATO’s own definition, a coast guard must be trained in military tactics, equipped as a military force, able to operate under direct military authority and able to be deployed to operations realistically outside of national territory in support of a military force. At committee, the head of the Coast Guard testified that the Canadian Coast Guard cannot meet this goal, so can the member justify how the Liberals can have a big parade and victory lap over meeting the 2% NATO GDP spending target when it is clearly an illusion? Can the member justify it? I am not interested in any other answer.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“I want the government to explain why it counts the Coast Guard as defence spending for NATO. NATO rules say coast guard forces must have military training and equipment to count. My committee confirmed that our Coast Guard does not meet those rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it has been a hot topic today, about NATO GDP spending, which ties directly into what the DIA says. I wonder if the member opposite could explain how the government can justify supporting the Coast Guard budget under GDP spending, when NATO’s own regulations, right from its website, say that coast guard forces are to be “trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force.” I have confirmed in committee that our Coast Guard cannot meet those requirements. Can the member justify the government’s use of the Coast Guard as part of NATO GDP spending?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“This bill says the new defence agency must do whatever the minister tells it to do. Given past failures, why should Canadians not be worried about this kind of government control?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, clause 9 of Bill C-40 says, “The [Defence Investment Agency] must do as the Minister directs”. It does not say “may”, but “must”. I am wondering if my colleague can tell me why this should cause concern to Canadians if the GlobalEye failure under the Defence Investment Agency’s current mandate predicts a path forward and to give an example of what we can, unfortunately, expect going forward under this new bill.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“The government talks about choosing preferred providers, but not about signed contracts or delivered equipment. How will the member make sure the government reports the reasons for all no-bid defence contracts to the House?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member opposite mentioned numerous announcements that are only about preferred providers, not signed contracts or delivered equipment. The member stated, “remain accountable for the results.” Will the member ensure that the reasons for all sole-source contracts signed under Bill C-40 are reported to the House, and how will he ensure that is done?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Grocery prices are up 30% and thousands of jobs were lost last month. Government relief plans are not helping most people. I want the Prime Minister to make food affordable for families.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, in the face of over 68,000 jobs being lost last month, this Thanksgiving, families on Vancouver Island are doing the math at the checkout. Statistics Canada reports that grocery prices have risen 30% since August 2021. Neighbours are stepping up and donating, volunteering and picking up the phone to check in on one another. Canadians should not have to carry this alone. The Liberal government talks up its relief plans, which never reach most Canadians at the till. When will the Prime Minister close the gap so that all Vancouver Island families can afford a Thanksgiving?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

First Nations Clean Water Act

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“The courts have not finished deciding on Indigenous land rights yet. I agree this water bill should look at how nearby businesses outside reserve lands affect water, and the committee should add that.”

  • 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, to be frank, aboriginal title still has to go to the B.C. Supreme Court. With respect to industry setting up outside reserve lands, absolutely that needs to be incorporated at committee to consider that factor.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

In response to a question from Ellis Ross

“The government has a bad record on First Nations issues. Instead of passing more bills, I want the minister to take real action and clean up the illegal dump that is polluting the Cowichan River.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 42 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

  • 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, I thank my colleague for his sound advice on so many first nations-related issues. He speaks of a track record that not only applies to this bill but also seems to have been common throughout so many Liberal bills over 11 years. Therefore, I am calling on the minister to clean up the illegal garbage dump that is contaminating the water in the Cowichan River, and help the Cowichan people. Let us finally have some action.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“The Liberals have made announcements about clean water for decades, but nothing has changed. I want them to work with Conservatives to make this bill stronger and get results.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I agree that there has been a lack of action. The Liberals have waited for decades. We have had announcements without results, with respect not only to this bill but so many others also. Therefore, I am calling on the Liberals to collaborate with and take input from the Conservatives so we can get results. They need to work with the Conservatives so we can strengthen the bill and finally have results.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis