Jeff Kibble

“I support sending this clean water bill to committee, but it needs big changes. Right now, it is too weak. It only asks the government to make its best efforts instead of legally forcing it to act. In my riding, an illegal dump on federal land is leaking toxic waste toward the Cowichan River, and the government has done nothing for years. This bill must include real power to stop polluters, guaranteed long-term funding to run water systems, and clear deadlines to clean up toxic sites.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island: seniors, families, fishers, workers, youth, business owners and Cowichan Tribes, the largest first nation in British Columbia. Before I turn to Bill C-37, I would like to take a moment to pay my respects to Mr. Bob Saunders, who, sadly, passed away just a few days ago at the age of 91. Across Vancouver Island and beyond, Bob gave without counting, to health care, veterans, mental health education, youth, and community services. As a runner for the Wounded Warrior Run BC team, I personally saw his generosity as he supported our fundraising efforts for those who carried the weight of service. He gave not just in dollars but also with hope, dignity and leadership. Bob inspired me and so many others across British Columbia. Through his generosity, his kindness and his philanthropy, he showed the very best of what it means to be Canadian. Not long ago, I had the honour of joining Bob and his beloved wife, Norma, at the Victoria Shamrocks’ season opener as Bob and Norma celebrated 70 years of marriage. His son Dave has closely followed in his father’s footsteps with the same kindness, generosity and commitment to our communities. What Dave gives to Vancouver Island is not a copy of his father’s work; it is a continuation of it. My and Angel’s thoughts and prayers are with Dave and the entire Saunders family today, and to the late Bob Saunders I wish fair winds and following seas. I now turn to the business at hand of Bill C-37, the first nations clean water act. Clean water is a necessity of life, not a privilege and not a favour. Let me start with this: Conservatives have always supported clean, safe, reliable water for first nations, and we support sending the bill to committee for key amendments to make it stronger. Support is not a blank cheque but a promise to do the work of making the bill better. Let me begin with what the bill would do. It would affirm first nation jurisdiction over water on first nation lands. It would set minimum standards for water quality, quantity and waste water, and it would create a first nation-led water commission. However, let us look closely at what this commission could actually do. It could advise. It could support capacity building. It could help first nations develop their own water laws. What it could not do is order a cleanup. It could not compel a polluter. It could not force a federal department to act, even when contamination is already creeping towards first nations’ water that families rely on. A commission with no enforcement power is a resource, not a remedy. Bill C-37 would also rely again and again on two words: best efforts. With a binding obligation, says the government, it must take action, but with best efforts, says the government, it only has to try. Families cannot drink best efforts. Let me show the House what the difference looks like on Vancouver Island. The Cowichan River begins at Cowichan Lake, winds lazily through the town of Lake Cowichan, through the forests over Skutz Falls and into the fertile farmland of the Cowichan Valley, then through Duncan and the Cowichan Tribes reserve lands, past the Cowichan River hatchery before it empties into the ocean at Cowichan Bay. It is not one community’s river. It is the backbone of a whole valley. It is drinking water. It is fisheries. It is farms. It is identity. For Cowichan Tribes, the river and its salmon are also central to food, culture and ceremony. Since 1978, Cowichan Tribes and Fisheries and Oceans Canada have successfully partnered on a hatchery to rebuild the river’s salmon. In a statement, Cowichan Tribes called pollution and contamination of reserve land and water a “national problem.” They said the tools to address it are “primarily under federal jurisdiction” and that “the Government of Canada [has been] reluctant to prosecute polluters.” Let us explore that statement. On reserve land, along that same river, on Indian Road, sits what looks like, at first glance, a pile of waste. It is not the only illegal dump site in the Cowichan Valley, and it will not be the only one I raise in the House, but this site is unambiguously on federal land and is federal responsibility, and that is why I am turning my efforts to it first. However, it is not a pile. A 2023 consultant’s report put its volume at more than 290,000 cubic metres accumulated over two decades. It is not a dump; it is a mountain. Government and consultant reports list what is in it: heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc; hydrocarbons; volatile organic compounds; small amounts of asbestos; and lead-based paint. The list goes on. The reports found that the site is producing leachate that is moving through the groundwater, creeping toward the river. Testing continues. Separately it has been reported that contamination may now also be present in the Cowichan River itself. Though this has only been reported, a river this important should not have to wait for proof of harm before the government takes action. Cowichan Tribes says it has asked for action since 2010. The site sits on reserve land but, importantly, outside the nation’s land code. Under law, that makes this a clear federal responsibility. It is not a grey area, not a shared file and not a matter for another order of government to resolve. It is Ottawa’s duty and Ottawa’s duty alone. In April, I wrote to the Minister of Indigenous Services, but despite years of warning, meaningful federal enforcement and remediation of this water travesty have not materialized. Many people bear responsibility for how this site came to be: those who illegally dumped, those who profited and those who turned a blind eye. I am not here to point fingers today. I am here to have the illegal garbage dump and the contaminants that are impacting the river and the groundwater remediated and cleaned up, and to compel the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to take action. I will always fight for the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. A consultant’s 2023 estimate was $5.3 million to move the waste or $2 million to cap it, and those costs have only risen since. Turning back to Bill C-37, let us consider the money behind this bill. The 2021 settlement agreement promised a one-time, $6-billion amount to achieve safe drinking water access by March 2030. That is construction money with a deadline. However, the bill would not replenish that. It would not guarantee what comes after. There is no statutory commitment to the ongoing operating funding that keeps a treatment plant running or cleanup of an illegal garbage dump moving once the announcements are made and the cameras leave. Best efforts, as is repeatedly said, will not clean up this site. The people of Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley deserve better. Let me now look at what the bill would offer for a case like this. It mentions cleanup of source water in one place, as some regulations may address. Protection zones beside the reserve would not be defined until those regulations are made, and they would require the province and Canada to agree. The minister’s duty on environmental protection is to consult, to co-operate and to achieve results. The bill would not come into force until one year after royal assent, and the minister would only have to make best efforts to begin consulting on the regulations six months after that. The Assembly of First Nations has raised weak source-water protection, lack of sustainable funding and other challenges with the bill. It is my duty, as a member of the House, to hold the government to account, but that duty is not an end in itself. It means to make a bill better, one worthy of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and every community the bill is meant to serve. With that duty in mind, I offer the following. First, replace best efforts with binding, measurable duties. Second, have a public federal plan with timelines to remediate issues such as the illegal garbage dump and its pollution into the groundwater and other similar sites. Third, provide not only stable operating funding that is set up but construction funding as well. Fourth, there should be regulations that come back to the House so Parliament can see the details and not just the promises. I offer these in the spirit of working with government, with Cowichan Tribes and with every community on Vancouver Island that depends on clean water. This matters on the island, it matters across B.C. and it matters across Canada. The Cowichan River, Cowichan Valley, Cowichan hatchery rebuilding the salmon stocks, and Cowichan Tribes all deserve a federal government that acts. I support sending the bill to committee. Let us collaborate and work to make it worthy of the people it serves.”

“The government has failed to meet the target to spend 2% on defence. The Prime Minister makes announcements, but does not follow through.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for mansplaining the past. The government has failed to meet even the 2%. The Prime Minister has made numerous defence announcements that have— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“The government picked new military planes without a fair competition, even though the air force did not want them. Now, this bill gives a new government agency more power to hand out military contracts without competition or written reasons. I want the government to explain how this bill improves fairness and accountability.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced a global aircraft project that does not meet operational requirements, to the surprise of the air force. L3Harris Canada and other contenders were not consulted. With no open competition, clearly politics was put ahead of defence. This is not the type of procurement Canada needs. Bill C-40 would bring an updated DIA Crown corporation with no defined procedures. However, there would be 13 exceptions for sole-source contracting, with no written reasons required. How would the government bring open competition and enhanced accountability, when Bill C-40’s focus is on giving the DIA more power and the government less accountability?”

“The government made big promises with the first bill, but they never actually built anything or signed any deals. Now they just added the word strong to the name. They make announcements instead of taking action, and this new bill will fail just like the last one.”

“Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had the Building Canada Act, with grand promises of new organizations, Liberals will do this, they will do that, and with all kinds of platitudes but short on specifics. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North just stood up and said there was half a trillion dollars of commitments, but there are no signatures. There are no deals. There are no new mines. There is nothing. We now have this building Canada strong act. The Liberals have added the word “strong”. Does the member feel that, under Liberal governance, the Liberals are doomed to continue failing, as they did with the first bill? They have added one word. Are the Liberals doomed to failure through their inaction and announcements, lack of signatures, and lack of actual decisions and projects starting, let alone being completed?”

“I am presenting a petition from people in my riding. They want the government to make October 22 a memorial day and lower the flag to honor over 2,400 Canadian Armed Forces members who have died in Canada during peacetime.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island. The first petition is from members of the Malahat Legion Branch 134 and residents across Vancouver Island who note that over 2,400 Canadian Armed Forces members have died on Canadian soil since 1914 in the line of duty in peacetime. Petitioners ask the government to designate October 22 each year, starting this year, as peacetime service and sacrifice memorial day, and they also ask that the national flag be lowered in recognition of those who have sacrificed Petitioners offer special thanks to the members of the Malahat Legion for their service to our community.”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“I want to vote against this housing bill. It wastes money and does not build enough homes. The government spent $13 billion to build only 11,000 houses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great question. I appreciate my colleague’s kind words and the opportunity to speak a little, very briefly in the time I am allowed, about some of the improvements. I laid it out fairly clearly in my speech, but it is about accountability. Look, we love when money is spent to help housing in Canada. We are always accused that we are voting against that and voting against Canadians. No, we are voting against lousy bills that are wasting money and are not building houses, and we have seen that with $13 billion for 11,000 houses. That is what we are voting against. We are voting for Canadians. I encourage my colleague to review my notes and go over the four points for bringing accountability.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 38 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 →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government spent 13 billion dollars to build only 11,000 homes, and now it wants another 1.7 billion dollars. The Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes a year, but builders started only 260,000 last year. There is no accountability for this money.”

“Mr. Speaker, to be frank, I am absolutely not worried what the member opposite thinks, and neither are Canadians. There have been 11,000 homes built so far under a project for $13 billion that is looking for an extra $1.7 billion. Let us be serious. There is absolutely no accountability. The Prime Minister pledged 500,000 homes per year, and there were 260,000 starts last year. My math says we are short 240,000. That is what Canadians care about, not what the member opposite has to say.”

“I oppose this bill. It gives the finance minister $1.7 billion for housing with no rules, no reporting, and no guarantee that any homes will actually be built.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will share my time today with the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. Before I turn to the business at hand, I would like to share that I was in Hamilton this morning for the change of command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I have had the honour of serving and sailing with both naval officers, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee and Vice-Admiral Dan Charlebois. After four years of distinguished service and amazing leadership, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee has turned over command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I think of all the amazing things he did, and he should be acknowledged for his care of those sailors and the others who worked for him. As well, I want to send my congratulations to recently promoted Vice-Admiral Dan Charlebois, who will be taking over command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I have no doubt that he will lead with distinction. Today, I rise to oppose Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. As always, I rise on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island, the seniors, the young families, the trades workers, the veterans, and the men and women who get up before dawn, work hard, play by the rules, yet watch the dream of owning a home drift a little further out of reach every year that passes. In the Cowichan Valley today, the benchmark price of a single-family home sits above $780,000. Across Vancouver Island, it is close to $800,000, and in greater Victoria, including Langford, the average sale price is now nearing $1 million. However, there are people behind those numbers, and I know many of them by name. I know veterans, men and women who once wore this country’s uniform, who are now living out of their trucks. I know forestry and mill workers who have been knocked down by mill curtailments and closures and are now living in campers. I know people who have been taxed out of the very homes they worked their whole lives for, who are now living in trailers and tents. I know young couples who have all but given up on the idea that they will ever stop renting. When I speak about housing in this chamber, I am not speaking simply about a line in a budget. I am speaking about the greatest single worry in people’s lives right now. This bill is such a disappointment to me because the people I represent do not need another illusion. They need a home. The government has a real gift for illusion. Bill C-26 is dressed up as Emerald City on the Hill, with $1.7 billion announced with a great deal of fanfare, and all of it said to be for housing. What I would ask of every member of Parliament is that they pull back the curtain and reveal what the illusion is. When they do, they will find that the whole substance of this bill is in a single small section that says, “The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion”. It also says, “The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance.” Those payments may be made “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.” That is the entire bill. There are no conditions attached to it. There is no requirement to come back and report to Parliament, no definition of what “improving housing supply” is even meant to mean, and nowhere does the government commit to building so much as a single home. The government claims there will be 11,000 for the $13 billion it is spending. What we are being asked to approve is not a housing plan at all, but a blank cheque, and we are being asked to trust the one man who gets to fill in that amount. We have seen this before, and not long ago. Buried inside division 16 of the last budget bill, Bill C-31, was the Defence Investment Agency act. I studied it closely as a member of Standing Committee on National Defence, and tucked away in it was a remarkable power: the authority for a single minister to draw up to $1 billion at a time out of the very same consolidated revenue fund. It is the same fund, the same kind of open-ended discretion, and it is once again being slipped quietly into a budget where most Canadians would never think to look. I spent a better part of three decades in uniform, and I can plainly tell members of Parliament that we do not rebuild a military or a country on a blank cheque, a fancy press release and announcement. Now, here we are again with Bill C-26. It is a different minister and a different file, but the very same approach. The Minister of National Defence was reaching into that fund $1 billion at a time, and now the Minister of Finance is reaching into that fund for $1.7 billion more. The illusions have many names, and it is my job to pull back that curtain and expose the reality. This is not a coincidence. It is becoming a habit of the government to gather the money and the decisions into as few hands as possible, strip away the accountability that ought to come with them and trust that the fancy announcement of the day will carry the day. I would gently remind the House where that kind of governing tends to lead. When enormous public resources can be moved around by a handful of powerful people with little real scrutiny, we are no longer describing a healthy democracy. We are describing something closer to an oligarchy. An oligarchy is never built one dramatic stroke at a time. Rather, it is built quietly, one billion unaccountable dollars at a time. When money on that scale can move on the say-so of one minister with no criteria and no audit, I think we all know who tends to benefit in the end, and it is rarely the young family in Langford or the senior in Duncan. Instead, it is the well connected and the well placed. This brings me to the real question at the heart of this bill. It does not ask us to trust an institution with all of its checks and balances and safeguards. It asks us to trust one man: the Minister of Finance. I think it is fair to ask whether that trust has been earned. Let us consider the record. The minister told Canadians he had recused himself from the Alto high-speed rail file, one of the most expensive projects in our country’s history, because his own wife serves as vice-president at the very corporation building it. He wrote a letter, he announced a screen, and he assured us he had stepped aside. However, when a motion came before Parliament that would have stripped the high-speed rail provisions out of the government’s budget bill, the minister did not step aside at all. He stayed and voted to protect the project. Both of these things cannot be true at the same time. Either he genuinely recused himself or he voted on a matter that reached his own wife’s employer. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent and poured into that project, and the track has yet to be laid. I do not raise this to make anything personal. I raise it because accountability is the whole purpose of Parliament, and this is the same minister who is asking for the same trust on the same terms, only now the figure is $1.7 billion higher. I have not risen here only to criticize and to show the illusion. The people of Vancouver Island deserve better than what this bill offers, and there is a better way forward, so let me set it out. First, we could tie the money to results rather than to announcements. The funds should flow against real, measurable increases in housing starts and completions that are verified and made public. Second, we would put the conditions in the legislation itself, not in one minister’s head. We need clear criteria, clear timelines and clear reporting back to Parliament. Third, we would bring in the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General to follow this money, from the first dollar to the last nail, and tell Canadians honestly whether it worked. Finally, we could direct the funding to the communities that are actually developing, improving and building homes, be it on Vancouver Island or across the country, rather than rewarding the ones that stall. That is how a government could actually improve the housing of Canada. The people of Vancouver Island are not easily fooled. They have been shown the Emerald City before. What they are asking for this time is a home they can afford in a community they love and a government they can actually trust with every dollar it spends. They are watching this debate right now, and they are waiting. Let me be clear: I cannot support Bill C-26 as it is written. If it does proceed to committee, it must not pass unchanged. It must be fixed. It must be amended to carry the safeguards I have set out today. We need real conditions, real reporting and real oversight so that every dollar is tied to a home built and not one more announcement. The people of Vancouver Island deserve nothing less. The people of Canada deserve nothing less. They deserve a government they can trust and a Parliament with the courage to hold $1.7 billion of taxpayers’ money to account. I urge every member of Parliament on all sides to summon that courage.”

“The government promised to build 500,000 homes a year, but it only built 11,000. Does the member agree that the government is short 489,000 homes after spending $13 billion?”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard from the member opposite that 11,000 homes were built. Of course, that is assuming agreements. I also heard “will allow” four times and “MOUs”. The government’s promise was 500,000 homes per year. Minus 11,000 homes, my calculation says that we are short 489,000 homes for $13 billion. Would the member opposite agree with my mathematical calculation of 489,000 homes short this year?”

“This bill claims to bring back mandatory minimum sentences, but it still lets judges give lighter sentences. It ignores the Supreme Court's clear advice on how to write these rules properly. Who will the government blame when offenders get weaker sentences under their own bill?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for both his compassion and his expertise. The member examined the fine print of the bill. The party opposite stands here promising to restore mandatory minimums, and on the very next page, would hand the judges’ clauses to sentence below them, and no proportionality test. The Supreme Court told us in the Senneville case exactly how to draft minimums that survive. The bill ignored that road map. My question for my colleague is simple. When a victim’s offender walks out at below the minimum sentence under the bill, who does he believe the party opposite will blame, the court or the bill that was written to let this happen?”

“This bill gets rid of mandatory minimum sentences and gives judges more freedom. I have a question about what happens when an offender is let out of prison.”

“Mr. Speaker, the protecting victims act would remove mandatory minimums. It would give judges that freedom. My question for the member opposite is very short. When a victim’s offender walks out of—”