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

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

“The other party keeps relying on only one old report. I want the member to explain why they are ignoring all the other evidence.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the party opposite has the same person ask the same question. They are dogmatically hanging on the Arbour report, whether it be in the House or in committee or in debate, while overwhelmingly ignoring the plethora of evidence and reports. Maybe the member could speak briefly about why they are ignoring this so much and hanging on one dated report.

“The government ignored experts and victims by changing this military justice bill without committee approval. Civilian courts cannot handle most military sexual misconduct cases. I want to know the government's plan to prosecute these crimes.”
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?

“Most military sexual misconduct cases cannot be handled by civilian courts, and those courts do not have room for them anyway. I am asking my colleague if this change will just make military culture worse and let abusers get away with it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the significant majority of military sexual misconduct cases will not meet the civilian threshold of the civilian justice system. Of the few cases that do meet that threshold for the civilian justice system, witnesses for the system have testified that it only has the capacity to deal with just a fraction of the cases. Perhaps my colleague could speak to whether this is just going to make the culture in the military worse and be a free pass for predators.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

“The Liberals fail on national defense and this space bill has the same problems. It lacks detail and does not protect us from foreign threats. It gives power to one minister without proper oversight from Parliament.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have claimed success with military recruiting, when in fact they have managed to meet only their own artificially low thresholds, and the Liberals have claimed success with 2% of GDP spent with NATO, when they know full well that the spending fails to meet NATO’s criteria. The bill is short on detail and devoid of security considerations. It has not addressed potential hostile state interference. My question for my colleague is this: Does he agree that this parking-lot planned spaceport is a closed-door plan reporting to a single minister and not responsible to Parliament and Canadians, or is it another Liberal illusion?

“The government's plan to launch a rocket by 2028 is unrealistic. This space bill is also missing rules on national defence. It does not protect Canadian technology or stop foreign countries from interfering. How can the government support this bill when it has no security checks?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, 2% GDP, NATO spending compliant, successful recruiting and now a 2028 rocket launch are all Liberal illusions. It is a ridiculous promise unless they are referring to a model rocket. I have heard enough hot air to launch a rocket. My question is specific to the components of this legislation. What parts would allow parliamentary review for security screening to protect from foreign interference, hostile state use and the theft of Canadian IP? There is none of that in there. This is all critical. Also, there are components that are missing from the legislation around defence. Could member speak to that?

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“I want my colleague to speak more about how this bill fails to protect Canadian ideas and assets from the Chinese government, and how it helps friends of the government.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his visionary intervention, where he focused on the crux of the issue, which is poor legislation and accountability. Yesterday at the defence committee, I questioned the new CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, previously of Goldman Sachs, who is a banker buddy of the Prime Minister. He stated that he has not been screened for national security conflicts of interest with his former high net worth clients who are connected to Chinese state-owned businesses. I would like my colleague to expand on the parallels in this bill regarding both Liberal insiders and a failure to protect Canadian assets and IP from the intervention of the Chinese Communist Party.

Statements by Members ·

Canadian Armed Forces

“The government wants to take away changes to this bill that help survivors of military sexual assault. Survivors and experts want victims to have a choice between civilian and military courts. If the government removes that choice, civilian police will not be able to handle all the cases, and many cases will never go to trial.”
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.

Oral Questions ·

The Environment

“There are more than a dozen illegal garbage dumps in the Cowichan Valley, including on First Nations land and near the river. I asked the government weeks ago to find the people responsible and clean up these dumps, but they have not answered or done anything.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there are over 12 illegal garbage dumps in the Cowichan Valley, many on Cowichan tribes’ land. Some are so large they will take years to remediate. Others are polluting the salmon-bearing Cowichan River. For decades, authorities at all levels have turned a blind eye to this environmental disaster and ongoing illegal dumping. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Indigenous Services weeks ago demanding that the Liberals identify authorities at all levels, hold them responsible for this travesty and take action immediately. There was no response from the minister, no action and no cleanup. The Liberals claim to be stewards of our land. Is this just another Liberal illusion?

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

In response to a question from Cheryl Gallant

“Moving military cases to civilian courts will fail. Civilian courts will only handle the most serious cases, and the rest will be ignored.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the legal definitions of the various levels. It was delved into in-depth and, as distasteful as it may sound, unfortunately, it is the legal reality that we have to have those levels. Only the most serious cases, if there is capacity for them in the civilian system, would be dealt with. The rest would be buried, would not be actioned and would disappear. That is failure, yet burying the truth would be touted as the Liberals’ great success.

In response to a question from James Bezan

“This bill will harm victims of sexual assault and leave most cases unsolved. We should pass our changes to the bill instead, so victims have a choice.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 30 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

    Clarity 31 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the amazing work he has done over the many years. Simply put, yes, it will retraumatize them. I started receiving numerous phone calls last night. They came flooding in. It will retraumatize victims now and in the future. Simply put, the amendments that we have put forward would make this work. The victims want the choice, and we are supporting them based on fact, emotion and support. Clearly, a bill that would not address the majority of sexual assault cases and let them go unresolved would be a partisan decision that no sane human would vote for.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I oppose this bill. It will leave most sexual assault cases in the military unreported and unsolved, and it fails victims who want a choice.”
  • 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, again, the Arbour report did not look at what is in Bill C-11, which simply would leave the majority of sexual assault cases undealt with, unreported and unactioned. It is not even in Bill C-11. Therefore, regardless of what the Arbour report says or all of the other reports, the majority of victims and reports support choice. Bill C-11 and the Liberal Party would fail our military in the future. As I directly pointed out, the majority of cases would go unresolved, unreported and unactioned, and that is an embarrassing failure.

“I want this bill amended. Victims of military sexual trauma should be allowed to choose between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. Forcing all cases into civilian courts will overwhelm regular police and leave many victims without justice.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 26 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, 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.

“Civilian police cannot handle lower-level sexual assaults because they do not have the time or the legal power. This bill does not fix that. What is your plan to deal with these assaults so attackers are held accountable?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite may feel that those definitions are distasteful, there are legal definitions and requirements for levels of sexual assault, and frankly put, the civilian police authorities will not deal with mid and lower levels. They do not have the capacity. It is outside the jurisdiction. Does the member opposite feel that predators will have a free pass because they know mid- and lower-level sexual assaults will never be dealt with? They are not within the plan of Bill C-11. This has never been addressed. What is your solution to have mid- and lower-level sexual assaults addressed?

“Things have changed since the Arbour report. Military members now have better support, like independent legal help. Why does the government only talk about that report instead of other reviews that support giving victims a choice?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful and heartfelt words. We may hear the party opposite continually refer to the Arbour report, yet much has changed since then, such as the mandatory duty to report and access to the SMSRC. Military members at that time did not have access to victim liaison services or independent legal support. I was wondering if my colleague could explain why the party opposite continues to refer to the report of Justice Arbour’s, who did not testify at committee, and has failed to refer to the Deschamps and Fish reports, which supported that choice for military sexual trauma.

“Civilian police told our committee they do not have the resources to handle every major sexual assault case in their areas. Can my colleague talk about what will happen to the cases police cannot handle?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there. We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with?