MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jeff Kibble

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–
88 / 100 over 67 statements
Signal 77 / 100
Relevance 89 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Loses points more than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.3.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.6 Wording that hides who did something, or who will.3.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.1 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 Averaged over the 67 of 75 statements graded so far.

Statements 75

Statements by Members ·

Community Service

“I want to honour Bob Saunders and his wife Norma. They have spent 70 years giving back to Vancouver Island by supporting arts, sports, health care, and veterans.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honour a man who has spent a lifetime proving that success means nothing unless one shares it. Bob Saunders has been called a perennial booster of good things, a title that is well earned. From founding Saunders Subaru to supporting arts, youth, sports, health care, veterans and education across Vancouver Island, Bob has never stopped giving back. I can speak to this personally. As a former Wounded Warriors Canada team runner, I have seen first-hand what Bob’s generosity means to those who carried the weight of service long after coming home, not just in dollars, but in dignity, hope and healing. Bob believes that paying it forward and civic-minded people who lead by example inspire the next generation of community leaders. He has lived every word of that and he has inspired me. Recently, I had the honour of joining Bob and his beloved Norma at a Victoria Shamrocks season opener, celebrating 70 years of marriage and 70 years of making our island better. On behalf of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and those across Vancouver Island, I thank Bob, Norma and the entire Saunders family. Their legacy is written in the lives that they have changed.

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

“The government is spending $50 billion on new military equipment, but it has no national defence strategy. Our allies are criticizing us for this. Without a real plan, this spending will fail.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is from Halifax, where I served many years in the navy. This is $50 billion for the “most ambitious defence rebuild in a generation”, ships, submarines, fighter jets, the Defence Investment Agency and the defence investment strategy. It all sounds impressive. Here is the reality. The Liberals have left Canada with no national security strategy or national defence strategy. Experts, and even worse, our allies are calling us out. Indeed, the Liberals’ own “Our North, Strong and Free” plan, which is not a strategy, calls for Canada to have a national security strategy every four years, yet we have none. Does the member for Halifax agree that they are putting the cart before the horse and that, without a national security strategy, the DIA and the DIS are doomed to fail?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Crime, debt, and the cost of living are getting worse under this government. Canadians do not believe their promises anymore because life is not getting better. I want to know when the government will face this fact.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, behind every announcement from the government is a problem getting worse, whether it is crime, debt or the cost of ordinary life. Canadians have stopped taking Liberal promises on faith because they are now measuring them against their own reality. They fall short every time. When will the government and the member address that they cannot announce their way out of results—

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada is in a recession under this Prime Minister. Workers tell me they cannot afford food, and the government's grocery rebate leaves out people working full time. I want the Prime Minister to take this seriously and help Canadians afford to eat.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and in the past few days, we have learned much more about how dire the state of our economy is under his watch. On Saturday night, in a Lake Cowichan pub, workers told me their biggest worry was affording groceries, but the Liberals’ recycled grocery stunt cuts off at only $59,000 for a couple, meaning that full-time workers are shut out. The Prime Minister laughed at suffering Canadians in this House last week. Will he stop laughing and start caring so that Canadians can afford to eat?

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The previous Conservative government ran good military programs without wasting money. The current government uses misleading numbers, and our military has become weaker under them.”
  • 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 was looking at nothing but the facts, and I hear the frustration in the member opposite’s voice. Clearly, reality is colliding with illusion, and his frustration is building. Let me be clear. With the investments of 1% under the Harper government, they still managed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, because they had solid, well-founded programs that did not waste money. Right now, we are seeing creative accounting and self-reporting. When the Stockholm Institute reports on actual numbers, we see it is more Liberal illusion, just like their announcements. It is all illusion, and our military is no stronger. In fact, it is weaker under this government’s illusion and failure. I am bringing reality.

In response to a question from Burton Bailey

“The Prime Minister is misleading Canadians about a new military deal. The company itself says Canada has not signed a contract or placed an order yet.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 86 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The Prime Minister of Oz made this great announcement”.

    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, indeed, there was much fanfare and much excitement from industry as this amazing deal was supposedly announced. This is more illusion, as I alluded to throughout my speech. The Prime Minister of Oz made this great announcement. Let me hold back the curtain and show the reality, right from Saab’s press release. On its web page, Saab stated, “Canada has announced that they will enter into detailed discussions and formal negotiations with Saab [to be potentially] the preferred supplier of Canada’s future.... Saab has not signed a contract nor received an order.” That is the reality. Across the way is the illusion, and Canadians are seeing through it.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government says we spend 2% of our economy on national defense, but that is not true. They counted the Coast Guard, which NATO rules do not allow. An independent research group found that Canada only spends 1.6%.”
  • 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, the member opposite’s question was ill-informed. The 2% NATO spending that the government constantly boasts about is truly an illusion. Money was shuffled. The Coast Guard, which is not operationally deployable, was accounted for, and that is not within the NATO regulations. In fact, I would like to draw the member opposite’s attention to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the gold and global standard for identifying government and NATO spending, which said that the discrepancy was 0.4%. In other words, Canada has only actually spent, by this gold standard assessment, 1.6%. This is another Liberal illusion, and Canadians need to see that reality. Of note, I will add that Canada was the only country mentioned with such a large discrepancy in our alleged 2% spending. It is shameful.

“I oppose this part of the bill. The government wants to create a new defence agency and buy military equipment, but it does not have a real national security plan. We should not spend this money until we actually define Canada's military needs and threats.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 93 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Prime Minister is more focused on building his own defence industry oligarchy”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to conclude my remarks. I was speaking about not having a national security strategy for Canada to back up the government’s Defence Investment Agency and defence industrial strategy. None of this will work without this key foundation. A procurement architecture cannot be designed for a mission that has never been defined or for threats that have not been assessed. We cannot build an agency to deliver capability to our armed forces when we have not decided what capability Canada actually needs. The Minister of National Defence admitted to me in testimony at committee that no consideration of threat assessments, pre-kinetic warfare, grey zone warfare, cognitive operations or PSYOPS is in the defence investment strategy. How could there be? That would require a foundational national security strategy, a strategy the government does not have. Simply put, the government has put the cart before the horse, and Canadians in uniform will pay the price. Indeed, all of Canada will pay the price. This is the exact opposite of creating a self-reliant and sovereign country. The fancy speeches, the hollow announcements and the promises are all illusions. The reality is that it seems as if the Prime Minister is more focused on building his own defence industry oligarchy. As Conservatives, we have always stood proudly with the women and men who serve in uniform. We ask them to do dangerous things. We ask them to stand between Canadians and harm. We send them to protect our sovereignty, to serve our allies and to represent our country at its best. The very least we owe them is the right equipment, honestly procured without corruption, without patronage and without a $1-billion slush fund that answers to no one. Vancouver Island is home to both CFB Comox and CFB Esquimalt. The families there are watching, the veterans there are watching and the serving members are watching. They are all starting to see behind the curtain of illusion, and the illusion is starting to crumble. We will oppose division 16 of this bill, not because we oppose defence investment, but because we refuse to accept the illusion of it in place of reality. Canada deserves better. Our armed forces deserve better. The people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who live alongside—

Statements by Members ·

The Economy

“Canada is now in a recession, and it is the only G7 country in one. Canada's debt is over $1.4 trillion. I blame the Prime Minister and his government's taxes, spending, and laws against development for this.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians learned what many families on Vancouver Island already feel. Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession. The Liberal government’s tax hikes, antidevelopment laws and reckless spending have doubled Trudeau’s deficit, with Canada now owing over $1.4 trillion. There has been negative economic growth in the last quarter in 2025 and again in the first quarter of 2026. The Prime Minister claims that Canada has the best economy in the G7. Reality tells a different story. Every other G7 nation is facing the same tariffs and global headwinds, yet not one of them is in a recession. Only Canada is in a recession. Workers, families and small business owners on Vancouver Island are paying the price for Liberal economic failure and mismanagement. They deserve a government that grows our economy, removes barriers to development and stops loading future generations with debt. This recession was a choice and Canadians did not make it. The Liberal Prime Minister did.

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“This bill changes how we buy military equipment, but it should not be hidden inside a budget bill. It creates a new defence agency run by someone with no military experience and possible conflicts of interest. The bill gives a minister up to $1 billion to spend without oversight and does not fix our broken military equipment.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 98 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “perhaps we should refer to the position as the “Prime Minister of Oz””.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing my speech to bracket the all-important question and member statement periods. I will be splitting my time today with the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry. I am pleased to rise to share my analysis of this important piece of legislation. I want to be clear from the outset that not all of this bill is without merit, but there are provisions within it that deserve serious scrutiny, serious debate and serious answers from the government. As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I have a particular and direct interest in division 16 of this bill, the establishment of the Defence Investment Agency act and the amendments to the Defence Production Act, which would be renamed the defence and national security production and procurement act. It sounds complicated. Although buried as a peripheral issue within a budget bill, in reality this is a fundamental restructuring of how Canada processes and invests in its own defence, which deserves far more scrutiny than an omnibus budget process will ever allow. I want to be direct about something. I served nearly three decades in the Royal Canadian Navy. I served at CFB Esquimalt, one of the largest military installations in this country and the beating heart of our naval presence on the Pacific. It is a base that Vancouver Island depends on and has given more to this country than most Canadians will ever know. When I stand in the House and speak about defence procurement, I do not speak from a briefing note; I speak with 30 years of experience and of knowing exactly what happens when governments get procurement wrong. The government has this part of this bill catastrophically wrong. Bill C-31 is 330 pages long. It touches on everything. That is the first problem. Changes of this magnitude, such as giving a minister up to $1 billion in spending authority with no meaningful oversight, deserve their own bills, their own debates and to be studied in defence committee, not buried inside a budget omnibus bill that only gets sent to finance committee. When we bury such a key strategic plan, we hide it, and when it is hidden, Canadians cannot hold the government accountable. This is not an accident but yet another Liberal illusion. It is as if the Liberals have turned Parliament Hill into Emerald City on the Hill. They constructed a gleaming facade, the rhetoric sounds good, industry gets excited, and people are tricked into believing the illusion, while the Liberals ask Canadians to pay no attention to the wizard behind the curtain. Instead of the Prime Minister of Canada, perhaps we should refer to the position as the “Prime Minister of Oz”. My job is to pull back that curtain to reveal the reality and shatter the illusion. Let me speak to what the Defence Investment Agency actually is and what it is not. The Prime Minister has hired a CEO, a successful investment banker with no defence experience or procurement background who used to work alongside the Prime Minister at Goldman Sachs. He is now head of the new Defence Investment Agency. It goes further than that. In testimony in committee, this CEO admitted that in his former role as a top-level investment banker, he worked with high-value companies directly connected with the communist government in China. This is a serious security risk. On a file this sensitive, it is a detail we cannot brush aside. He also worked with high-value companies that have direct connections to the defence industry. This presents a very real potential for conflict of interest. This is not a risk Canada should be taking on one of the most consequential files this country faces, but here we are. The CEO of the DIA reports to a junior secretary of state, who reports to another minister, who reports to the Prime Minister, not at a cabinet table. There is no direct line of accountability or single point of authority. It is a rather confusing chain that only adds to more bureaucracy, red tape and delays and more boards, advisory committees, consultants and patronage. This is not procurement reform but the illusion of procurement reform. The Canadian Armed Forces cannot afford the difference, nor can Canada. Let me share some numbers with the House, because the numbers tell the story the government will not. Only 59% of our maritime fleet is serviceable and ready for operations, and that figure only holds because the government retired the entire Kingston class coastal fleet to make the math work. Of our 12 major warships, the navy, through no fault of its own, can barely keep three fully crewed, operational and ready to deploy. Only 51% of land vehicles are ready for troops to use. They are worn out and undermaintained. Over $2 billion a year was cut from defence budgets between 2021 and 2025. As for our aerospace fleet, only 42% of our aircraft are ready to fly. Our CF-18s are nearly aged out, and we still do not have a signed contract for the F-35s because the government spent years playing political games with the air force. I will leave the government’s failure to keep our beloved Snowbirds flying for another debate. The brave men and women who serve at CFB Esquimalt, who serve across the country, deserve better than 42%. They deserve better than 51%. They deserve more than only three operational frigates. They deserve a government that signs contracts, shows stability and has a realistic strategy to build upon, not the illusion of reannouncements and press releases and fancy-sounding new layers of bureaucracy. It has been more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, four years since we heard the language of putting Canada on a war footing. In four years, the only increases in the production of munitions, artillery shells and rockets in this country have come through contracts with the American military, not for Canada but for America. The government never signed the contracts for our own requirements. We can announce an agency. We can name a CEO. We can create a board. However, until we put ink to paper and actually buy the equipment our forces need, we have done nothing. Division 16 of the bill does not fix this. It locks in the inefficiencies. It entrenches the old bureaucracy. It gives the minister the power to exclude companies from competition without ever explaining why. It creates the ability to sole-source contracts without accountability. It grants authorities to procure shares in corporations and to replace directors and officers, language that sounds an awful lot like nationalization. We have been down this road before. It is called the Emergencies Act. This reeks of the same unaccountable overreach. In clause 310, there is more sole-sourcing. In clause 322, there is a competitive process riddled with exceptions so wide that almost anything can be exempted. In clause 312, there is ministerial power to replace corporate leadership at will. There is no transparency, no explanation and no accountability. Here is the foundational problem that makes all of this worse. Canada has no national security strategy, a strategy that should be the key foundation upon which the defence investment strategy and the Defence Investment Agency should be built. Without a national security strategy, none of this works. We cannot design a procurement architecture for a mission we have never defined—

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The Prime Minister's handling of Indigenous land deals has made homeowners and businesses on Vancouver Island worry about their property. I want him to support our motion to protect property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, families on Vancouver Island worked hard, played by the rules and bought their homes in good faith. They deserve certainty about their property and their futures, yet under the Prime Minister’s watch, the mishandling of the Cowichan case and the closed-door Musqueam agreement have shaken that certainty. Industry, businesses and homeowners are anxious. Communities are divided. Meaningful reconciliation has been set back by division. Leadership means bringing people together. The Prime Minister has failed that test. Will he finally show any leadership and support our Conservative motion to protect property rights, restore confidence and unite rather than divide the people he is supposed to serve?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The Liberals will not answer my question about an argument they failed to make in court. They are misleading Canadians about it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today Liberals repeatedly failed to answer my question on extinguishment and their failure to use that argument in the B.C. appeals court and, therefore, legally not being able to use it in the Supreme Court. They mislead Canadians, give a false impression and say every “viable argument” because they know they cannot say every argument. Is this just another Liberal illusion?

“The government's lawyers missed their chance in the B.C. court to argue that Indigenous land title was wiped out. They cannot use that argument in the Supreme Court now. I want to know what arguments they will use instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling frustration from across my riding. We keep hearing the words “all viable arguments”, but we are not hearing all arguments. Will the Liberals acknowledge what the Supreme Court knows, which was established in the B.C. appeals court, which is that the federal government lawyers will not be able to use the main argument, the extinguishment of land title argument, because they failed to do it in the B.C. appeals court? What arguments will they use in the Supreme Court?

“The government says it will defend private property in court. But it is not letting its own lawyers use every legal argument. How does the government plan to protect private property if its lawyers cannot make their full case?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 70 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he knows full well”.

    See full analysis
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?

In response to a question from Taleeb Noormohamed

“The government made the Musqueam deal in secret. Even the Premier of British Columbia did not know about it until it was signed. That is not transparent, and the government is failing Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in my comments, I said “secretly negotiated”. The Musqueam agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. Even the Premier of British Columbia claimed he did not know about it until the actual signing. That is secrecy, not transparency, and it is how the government is failing our country. As far as the comments are concerned, I have not heard those comments and I am not in a position to comment on them.

In response to a question from Bob Zimmer

“People in my riding and across British Columbia worry about their property values and getting mortgages because of Indigenous land claims. The province had to back some mortgages, and property assessments now include warnings. These worries are causing more racism, anger, and hard economic times.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 94 of 100

    Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
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.

In response to a question from Anthony Housefather

“The Prime Minister is not telling the truth. He restricted his own lawyers and waited until the last possible minute to file with the Supreme Court. We want the government to be honest.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, speaking of disinformation, the member opposite claims that the Prime Minister has defended this, but he continually fails to disclose that he has already tied the hands of the government lawyers with the extinguishment article. He speaks of it being filed immediately when, in fact, the Supreme Court filing was done on the last day, at the very last minute. That is more misinformation. Conservatives are calling for real truth, real reconciliation and real honesty.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“A recent court ruling on Indigenous land rights in British Columbia has put private property rights at risk. People in my riding are worried about losing their homes, and the local economy is hurting. I want the Prime Minister to act now to protect private property owners, release a plan within 30 days, and create a committee to study this issue.”
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.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“Can my colleague explain the dangers of making secret deals instead of using an open, legal treaty process?”
Official Hansard

Mr Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s excellent intervention. You mentioned secret agreements. Could you tell me the risks and explore some of the risks of secret agreements done behind closed doors and their effect on transparency, as opposed to a treaty process that is established through the courts and that is open and transparent?

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“Secret government deals on Indigenous land claims are hurting property values and dividing British Columbians. The Prime Minister has stopped government lawyers from defending private property in court. I want him to explain his plan to protect private property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan land decision and the Liberal-Musqueam agreements signed secretly and outside the treaty process have resulted in economic uncertainty, falling property values and unsettling division among British Columbians, especially on Vancouver Island. We need truth and reconciliation. The Prime Minister is failing to deliver either. He is clearly unaware that by handcuffing the government lawyers in the B.C. appeals court, he has now legally handcuffed them in the Supreme Court. When will the Prime Minister explain his plan to protect private property rights now that the government lawyers cannot use the private property argument in court?