Jeff Kibble · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“You say 'all viable arguments'. But you're not using all arguments. The court already said you can't use your main argument. What other arguments will you use?”

“You Liberals can't defend private property. Your own lawyers' hands are tied. Stop blaming us for your failure.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is spending more time blaming Conservatives for the Liberals' own failures than proposing realistic solutions in his address today, which is a typical desperate Liberal tactic. The member stated that they would vigorously defend private property with every viable argument. Members may have noticed, however, that he could not say “every argument” because he knows full well that the government lawyers' hands are tied behind their backs. They cannot use the extinguishment argument in court. What is the Liberals' plan to vigorously defend it when their hands are tied behind their backs and they cannot even address title and private property, without the extinguishment argument?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't know the details of the Musqueam agreement. I don't want to talk about what a member of my party said. I want to complain the government is being secretive.”

“People in my riding are worried about their property values and mortgages. The provincial NDP government is only making things worse. I want the government to do more to address these concerns and prevent racism and anger from escalating.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really agree with my colleague's statement about empty promises and empty words. People are worried about the value of their property. They are worried about getting mortgages. In fact, it is so bad that the provincial NDP government is now having to back mortgages in affected areas, and it can do that only for a small area. It is going to need to do that for the entire province. People are worried. Property assessments are now coming with waivers saying the property value only stands as long as it is not superceded by aboriginal title. People in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are facing real concerns, and they are facing increasing racism and anger. This comes on top of tough economic times as well. There are very valid reasons for concern, and we are seeing it across Vancouver Island and British Columbia.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You're spreading misinformation. The Prime Minister didn't really defend this. He tied the hands of government lawyers with the extinguishment clause. And the Supreme Court filing wasn't immediate - it was done at the last minute. I want real truth and honesty.”

“I want the government to act on the Cowichan decision. It's creating uncertainty and division. Private property rights are at risk. The government isn't doing anything. They're being silent. I want them to protect private property rights. I want them to make a plan. I want them to convene a committee. I want them to respect indigenous rights and private homeowners. I want economic reconciliation. The Prime Minister needs to act.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Vancouver Island, and especially all of the seniors, families, workers, businesses and, perhaps most importantly, the youth of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Our communities stretch from Langford to Crofton, Thetis Island to Lake Cowichan to Port Renfrew and across the beautiful Cowichan Valley. It is home to numerous first nations, including the Cowichan Tribes, the largest first nation in British Columbia. We are a people who love where we live. We are people who take pride in our homes, our neighbourhoods and our future. We are rooted in the lands, the rivers, the forests, the mountains and, of course, the ocean. They are all integral parts of our soul. Today, we are all worried. The Cowichan land decision has created uncertainty and division that no community, indigenous or non-indigenous, should ever have to face. Be it on the island or across British Columbia, home values are falling, banks are refusing mortgages, sales have stalled, businesses are looking elsewhere or moving away, and anger and division are building. People are lashing out at one another. This is heartbreaking, and it is unacceptable. The Liberal government has offered nothing. There is no clarity, no plan and no leadership. The language in the Cowichan ruling describes aboriginal title as a “prior and senior right to land”, effectively creating a groundbreaking precedent putting aboriginal title above fee simple title. In other words, all privately held and Crown land is at risk. This has now created real fear of whether private property rights will still hold weight across British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada. These are not abstract legal questions, however. They are conversations happening every night in Duncan, Langford, Shawnigan Lake and Mill Bay and within the Cowichan Tribes. Parents are asking whether their home, their single greatest asset, is still secure. Seniors are wondering whether they can afford to retire and young families are questioning whether they can stay on Vancouver Island at all. Our youth are wondering what Canada will look like in the future. Our first nations are seeing reconciliation sentiment taking a major step backwards. Through all of this, the Prime Minister has remained silent. Instead of leadership, we have his litigation directive number 14, which forbids federal government lawyers from defending private property rights. It is a directive that tied their hands in British Columbia's appeals court and will now automatically tie their hands again, this time in the Supreme Court of Canada going forward. This is not reconciliation. This is the abandonment of all Canadians, and it is deepening division, anger and stress among neighbours, friends and families, which is exactly the opposite of what reconciliation should bring. British Columbia deserves better, Vancouver Island deserves better and the Cowichan Tribes deserve better. Reconciliation cannot be built on secretly negotiated agreements or confusion. It cannot come at the expense of homeowners, the very stability of our economy or the core of our country. For decades, we had a made-in-Canada approach that balanced indigenous rights with the needs of society as a whole through an established treaty process. Section 35 of our Constitution recognized and affirmed these rights. It created a framework that brought stability and prosperity. It was not perfect, but it worked, and now the Liberal government has walked away from that. It has leaned on the declaration of the United Nations, which is an unelected body. It is not Canadian and it is not part of our legal system. The declaration is not binding and was never intended to override private property rights, yet the Liberals are using UNDRIP as if it does. The Liberals signed the rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam, which is not a treaty through the court system, but a closed-door, secretly negotiated agreement that failed to explicitly protect fee simple or private property owners and neglected to even mention them. It is an agreement that awarded the Musqueam aboriginal land title over the majority of greater Vancouver, including lands previously awarded to the Cowichan Tribes in Richmond, B.C. They created a conflict between two separate aboriginal titles. In fact, almost all of British Columbia is potentially under overlapping aboriginal land claims. With the Cowichan decision setting the precedent that aboriginal title is superior to private property and Crown title, British Columbia is in a mess. That precedent has now rippled across Vancouver Island, creating confusion and fear from Langford to Ladysmith and across British Columbia. This is not reconciliation. This is recklessness. Today, I am calling on the Prime Minister to act clearly, publicly and immediately. Our Conservative plan has four straightforward pillars. First, put private property rights first in the Cowichan case and restore the extinguishment agreement the Liberals abandoned in 2018. No one should ever have to wonder whether their home is truly their home. Second, make no agreement without explicit protection for all existing fee simple owners. The secret Musqueam agreement failed to do this. The Prime Minister must correct this mistake and guarantee that all future agreements protect people's homes. Third, publish a plan within 30 days to protect Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision in the Musqueam agreement. Do not hold a press conference. Do not make a promise. Do not sign an MOU. Publish a real plan with timelines and commitments, delivered personally by the Prime Minister. Finally, convene a special parliamentary committee to examine every legal, constitutional and political tool available to protect private property rights across Canada. This crisis is not limited to the Cowichan Valley. It has spread across Vancouver Island, Richmond and British Columbia, and it will soon spread across Canada. If we do nothing, we will leave future generations with a fractured legal landscape and a broken economy. There is a better path, one that respects indigenous rights and private homeowners. We see that path in our Conservative platform. It is practical, economic reconciliation. It will put first nations back in control of their own revenues, reduce bureaucracy and government controls, strengthen local economies, including on Vancouver Island, and bring first nations into the federation as full partners, not wards of the state. First nations chiefs from across the country and across British Columbia have said the same thing. They want less Ottawa and more autonomy, and they want to build prosperity for their people. Conservatives agree. Reconciliation must be built on partnership, not secrecy; on clarity, not confusion; on respect, not fear; and on truth, not misinformation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for both truth and reconciliation. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver either. The great people across Cowichan—Malahat—Langford deserve a government that protects their homes and their future. The Cowichan Tribes deserve a government that respects their jurisdiction and supports their economic independence. Canada deserves a government that understands that reconciliation and private property rights are not competing ideas, but are both essential to a stable and united Canada. The Prime Minister has a choice. He can continue down a path of silence and uncertainty or he can act clearly, transparently and responsibly to restore confidence in our legal system and protect the rights of every Canadian. My community is watching, the Cowichan Tribes are watching and Vancouver Island is watching, and we are waiting. It is time for the Prime Minister to show leadership.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want you to talk about risks of secret agreements. It helps when people see the process is transparent. Secret deals behind closed doors are bad.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-06

“The Prime Minister is causing problems. He's messing up the economy. And property values. And making people argue. He says he wants truth and reconciliation. But he's not doing it right. He's stopping his own lawyers from doing their job. He needs to tell us his plan to fix this. What is he going to do now that his lawyers can't protect property rights?”

Government Orders

Report Stage

2026-05-04

“You keep asking the same thing. You talk about one report. There are a lot of reports. Why do you ignore the rest? Tell me about that.”

“The libs are ignoring experts. The bill won't fix things. Most cases won't even go to civilian court. The courts can't handle it. What's the plan? Are you just going to let predators off?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite understands neither the bill nor military chain of command. Removing the committee's amendments, ignoring overwhelming evidence of the experts and MST survivors and, even worse, adding amendments without going to committee is not democracy, transparency or collaboration. The significant majority of military sexual misconduct cases will not meet the threshold of civilian jurisdiction, and of the cases that do meet the threshold, the civilian justice system has testified that it has the capacity to deal with only a fraction of them. Knowing that, what is the Liberals' plan to prosecute these cases and bring justice in the majority of them? Are they just going to give a free pass to predators?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Most military sexual misconduct cases won't go to the civilian justice system. The civilian system can only handle a few cases anyway. That could make the military's culture worse. Predators might get a free pass.”

Government Orders

Canadian Space Launch Act

2026-04-28

“Do you agree this space bill has no details, bad security, and lets one minister ignore Parliament and make secret deals with bad guys?”

“You're promising to launch a rocket in 2028? That's ridiculous. Unless it's a toy rocket, I don't believe you. Your bill doesn't have any way to review security or protect us from foreign interference. And where are the parts about defense? The important stuff is missing.”

“I'm piling on this guy. I agree the bill is bad and sneaks in too much power for the government. I want to change the subject to something else the government did that I don't like. I think the new guy in charge of military money should have been checked for conflicts since he's friends with the Prime Minister and worked with Chinese companies before. I want to make this about the government trusting liberal insiders and not protecting us from China.”

Statements by Members

Canadian Armed Forces

2026-04-27

“I want to protect a fix a different party added to my bill. I think this fix helps survivors and I think the other party will hurt them. I think it will be very bad if the other party changes this bill. I want to say the other party will hurt a lot of people if they change this bill. I want everyone to know I care about victims.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have signalled their intent to remove collaborative amendments to Bill C‑11 dealing with military sexual assault, amendments that survivors asked for and experts supported overwhelmingly. The Liberals are about to single-handedly undo decades of progress in military conduct. They would make things worse than we can imagine. At the heart of the debate is something very simple: giving survivors the choice between the civilian and the military justice systems. If the government removes these amendments, survivors would have access only to the civilian justice system. The consequences would be immediate and unavoidable. There would be institutional trauma and revictimization among survivors who trusted us to listen. Going forward, a majority of military sexual assault cases would go unaddressed or untried. Civilian police forces would be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb, and worse, the majority of cases would not meet the threshold for prosecution by civilian authorities. The Liberals would be opening the door to predators, abandoning survivors of military sexual assault and deceiving Canadians into believing they care about victims. It is shameful.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Environment

2026-04-24

“The government should clean up these dumps. I want the Liberals to take responsibility and do it now. I think they're all talk.”

Government Orders

2026-04-23

“I won't engage with your definitions. Liberals would ignore most cases, cover up, and declare success anyway.”

“Same as handout”

“The majority of sexual assault cases will go unreported and nothing will be done. That's embarrassing. The government needs to do something about this!”

“I am speaking for military sexual trauma survivors who want choice in their justice system. The other party's bill takes away that choice. We should pass my amendments to keep that choice. If not, many abuse cases will go unreported and unactioned. This is not reform. This is burying the problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart, but I also rise with a profound sense of duty, a duty shaped by nearly three decades in uniform, by the survivors who trusted me with their stories and by the communities I represent. I rise not for partisanship, not for theatre, but for the people who have carried burdens far heavier than any of us in this chamber will ever know. I dedicate my words today to the many active members and veterans I have met across Vancouver Island and across Canada. I have spoken with them in legion halls, on bases, in community centres and sometimes in the quiet corners where people finally feel safe enough to share what they have carried for too long. Most importantly, I dedicate my words to the survivors of military sexual trauma who came to committee. Before I go any further, I would like to speak to them directly. They were not obligated to share what they shared. They did not owe us their stories, their pain and their truth, yet they came anyway, carrying memories no one should ever have to carry, because they believed that if Parliament finally listened, something might change for the better. They trusted us with the hardest part of their lives, and that trust is something I will not take lightly. It is not something any of us should take lightly. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked not for privilege, not for special treatment, just the basic human right to choose the justice system where they feel safest, can be heard and can be understood. They asked overwhelmingly, consistently and with courage, and I will not stand by while that courage is dismissed. I also rise today on behalf of all Canadians who expect their institutions to protect the vulnerable, not retraumatize them. I also rise on behalf of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, where I live and which I have the privilege of representing in the House. It is a region with a proud and deep connection to our Canadian Armed Forces. Our communities include many veterans, many serving members and many families whose lives are directly shaped by the culture and conduct of the military. My riding is home to countless individuals who serve or have served at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, one of the largest military installations in the country. It is a base where my wife and I both proudly served, a base that shaped our lives, our understanding of service and our understanding of the sacrifices that military families make every single day. When I speak about this bill, I do not speak in the abstract. I speak for the people I represent and the communities I know. I speak for those who have worn the uniform and those who still do. I speak for survivors across Vancouver Island and across Canada, survivors who trusted us in Parliament to listen. I served nearly three decades in uniform. I was trained as a presiding officer, and I believed I understood the culture of the Canadian Forces, but nothing prepared me for what I learned after meeting my wife, who is also a survivor of military sexual trauma. Through her, I saw parts of our institution that too many never see, or refuse to see. I saw the cost of silence. I saw the cost of inaction. Since I first joined the navy in the 1980s, the culture around sexual misconduct has changed. Yes, there have been positive improvements, but there is still much more to do. If Bill C-11 proceeds without the amendments survivors asked for, without the choices they pleaded for, then not only will we undo decades of progress, but we will reverse them. We will make things worse than we can imagine. At the very heart of the debate is something very simple: choice, the choice for survivors to access either the civilian or the military justice system. It is a choice that already exists, though too few know about it. What we have before us now is a tale of two approaches. On our side of the committee, we have the testimony of survivors, victims, military police, police and legal experts, those who have lived this reality. Their message was overwhelmingly consistent and deeply human. It was, “Do not take away our choice." On the Liberal side is a plan that ignores the evidence, cherry-picks a few quotes and uses one report while ignoring many others and the voices of so many. It dismisses the voices of survivors and disrespects those who came forward at great personal cost. If the government removes these amendments, the consequences will be immediate and unavoidable. There will be institutional trauma and revictimization. There will be anger, despair and a profound sense of betrayal among the survivors who trusted all of us to listen and do right by them. Minor cases will go unaddressed. Major cases will go untried. Civilian police forces, already stretched thin, already under-resourced, will be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb. They will take on only the most serious of sexual assault cases. As for the mid-level and lesser cases, they are outside civilian jurisdiction or capability. There is no plan in Bill C-11 to address those cases. There is nothing. This is a complete failure for future victims but will be seen as a free pass to predators. Members can let that sink in. The government will point to low numbers in the military system and claim success. They are already doing it in the House today. However, only a few major cases will go forward, and the rest will be unreported and unactioned. This is not accountability, and it is not reform. Simply put, this is not justice. This is burying the problem, handing it off and burying the people who trusted us to fix it. I must also address the role of the press. The mainstream media, funded by 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars, has primarily focused on attacking the opposition party and has not covered the survivors' testimony, the amendments we achieved together and the consequences of removing those amendments. Today I challenge the press, directly, to tell this story, interview the survivors, report what they said and explain what is at stake. That is its job. Canadians deserve to know the truth, not the Liberal talking points. Removing choices removes protections. The Liberals have been relying solely on the Arbour report, by someone who refused to testify in committee, and yet have failed to mention the Fish and Deschamps reports, which both speak to the benefits of choice for victims. I want to speak quickly on something I witnessed in committee, something that has stayed with me. As survivors shared their stories, as they spoke about trauma they endured and offered solutions rooted in courage, I looked across the table to members of the party opposite, and I saw a colleague begin to tear up. I saw his humanity. I saw someone who understood deeply the weight of what survivors are telling us. I say this to every member in the House, especially those with family who serve in the military, maybe their sons or daughters: They must hold on to that humanity. They must not let partisanship smother what was felt in that moment. They must not let party discipline override what they know in their hearts to be right. Survivors did not come to us as partisans. They came to us as human beings. They asked all of us to do right by them. Emotions must now be matched with action. Compassion must now be matched with courage. We must listen to the overwhelming evidence of survivors and experts, consider all reports and give survivors the freedom of choice.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗