Jeff Kibble
Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
The complete record
Every one of 241 lines we hold for Jeff Kibble, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1155) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1340) What we have before us now is a tale of two approaches.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“Mr. Speaker, residents across British Columbia already face enough pressure from the high cost of living and continued economic uncertainty without wondering whether their homes are truly theirs. The Cowichan Tribes' decision now calls into question all private property rights while damaging reconciliation efforts across Canada. Closed-door deals without transparency are not in the spirit of truth and reconciliation. The Liberals must do better. They must provide unity and economic stability. Will the Liberals assure Canadians that all future agreements will put private property rights first while protecting meaningful reconciliation?”
“Mr. Speaker, Pacific salmon are a public resource owned by all Canadians, not something for the Liberal government to eliminate behind closed doors. For generations, salmon have been managed as a common property resource for the collective benefit of all Canadians, yet the Liberal government is now considering removing that principle from the salmon allocation policy. The Minister of Fisheries refuses to commit to protecting B.C.'s vital recreational fishing industry. With only five days left to make a decision, I ask the minister to confirm that Canadians will retain their meaningful public right to fish, or will the Liberals once again turn their backs on coastal communities, recreational fishers and our way of life?”
“By supporting this bill, we can show Canadians that we are prepared to stand with victims' families and loved ones while respecting the memory of those they have lost.”
“Lastly, which I think is the most important part, I am asking all members to support my bill on behalf of the families I have heard from about the stresses, pressures and devastating impact of ongoing parole hearings and being revictimized by these most heinous criminals. Therefore, I challenge members from across the House to join me and give broad support to Bill C-235 by voting yes tomorrow and sending it before the justice committee. More importantly, I challenge them to show Canadians that we have listened. This bill is about justice for victims. It is about sparing loved ones from the parole hearing process that forces them to relive the worst moment of their lives over and over.”
“We also heard suggestions to ensure that judges provide clear and exceptional grounds to accompany such sentences. Once again, I am willing to re-examine and strengthen any judicial requirements to justify sentences. I would like to conclude our second reading of this bill with a few points. Firstly, I would like to remind all members of the House that this bill, previously passed through to committee, received broad, cross-party support and was set to return to the House before Parliament was prorogued in 2021. Secondly, I am open in committee to exploring and making necessary amendments, if required, to strengthen the bill, some of which I have addressed here today.”
“These are criminals whom we know have no chance of ever being rehabilitated, but that does not stop the families, of course, from feeling obligated to submit victim impact statements and attend parole hearings, as it is the only way they can give a voice to those who can no longer speak, their family members, the victims silenced forever who can no longer speak for themselves. Through debate, we have heard some minor suggestions for improvements discussed, including a more robust appeal mechanism, which is something we could examine in committee and indeed work with legislative counsel to potentially draft as an amendment. Another suggestion was to ensure that the bill would not be retroactive. However, I can confirm that new sentencing legislation is never retroactive.”
“Disturbingly, it is well documented that criminals get off on recounting the heinous detail of their crimes solely for the purpose of revictimizing families. Parole hearings are sometimes as little as 15 years after sentencing, based on time served and early parole factors. Presently in these cases, only the murder portion goes to sentencing, knowing that the other crimes will not affect the current maximum parole ineligibility of 25 years, leaving the victim, family and loved ones without justice for the abduction and sexual assault portions of these horrendous crimes. Another important part worth noting is that criminals in these most heinous crimes will likely never receive parole. I was unable to find any such cases.”
“The most important factor that I would like to focus on today and that I would like all members of the House to consider is that this bill is about both justice for victims and compassion for their families and loved ones. By giving judges the option of parole ineligibility of up to 40 years, this bill would be, as we have heard, charter-compliant and would spare the families and loved ones of victims from the retraumatization of unnecessary parole hearings, potentially, every two years. I have personally sat with families as they recount the horrific process that comes with victim impact statements and the lengthy parole hearing process. The notifications that lead up to the hearings themselves are devastating.”
“This is an act that would focus on justice for victims and compassion for families of victims of the most heinous of crimes, where a victim is abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in the same incident, very similar to that of Kimberly Proctor from Langford on Vancouver Island, a community I represent. Kimberly was horrifyingly abducted, raped and murdered in 2010. I give my deepest respect to her family, whom I know are watching today. I would like to also express my sincere appreciation to all of my colleagues who have sponsored and spoken to my private member's bill, including the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations and my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for initiating this private member's bill over 10 years ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to stand here and represent the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island, and I continue to listen to and bring their voices forward here to Ottawa as their member of Parliament. One of the biggest issues I hear about is the impact of crime on our community from people who are just trying to focus on the high cost of living and on raising their families in a safe community. People regularly talk to me about justice for victims as well as compassion and support for those impacted by crime. One way I am able to address this is through my private member's bill, Bill C-235 , an act respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons.”
“Mr. Speaker, the recreational fishing industry is facing a review of the salmon allocation policy that could destroy the industry and strip away Canada's historic principle of common property resource access. The recreational fishing industry supports over 9,000 jobs, generates $600 million in direct income and contributes over $1.2 billion in GDP in British Columbia. Will the minister commit to protecting historical access to common property resources for recreational fishing, or will the Liberals let yet another vital industry, coastal communities and a way of life on Vancouver Island die?”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, we do need to partner with municipalities, but part of that is getting out of the way and removing the extra layers of bureaucracy. I have spoken to builders and groups across south Vancouver Island, and they have said that they have had stuff cancelled and that they cannot afford to do these things, so they need help. As far as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities goes, they are signalling approval, but when they start looking at the realities I have pointed out, such as the cancelled projects and the promises of 500,000 homes that simply are not being built, the reality will quickly sink in that this plan is not working and we need to get out of the way and let our builders build.”
“Canadians know the reality of the crisis they face, so I challenge my colleagues opposite to look at the reality of the last year of promises and slogans and compare it to the results, compare it to the reality. We have collapsing housing starts. Prices remain unaffordable. Despite lowering, they remain unaffordable to those who have lost jobs, are having their wages cut and are struggling just to pay for everyday costs. The supply levels are plummeting. Conservatives have put forward a plan to unleash our trades, our investors, our workers and our resources so we can build homes quickly. Build Canada Homes will not remove those barriers. It only creates a massive new one. It does not solve the issue of delays. Therefore, it does not solve the issue of costs. Sometimes, the best thing a government can do is simply to get out of the way.”
“These are all the things that destroyed the housing economy in Vancouver when the minister was the mayor there. I spoke about insanity before. Here it is again. More of the bureaucracy, rules and regulations that caused costs to skyrocket in Vancouver when he was the mayor are now imposed on all of Canada under his leadership, and it has been a year. The minister knows his grand plan is not working. His big announcements and promises of building at speeds never seen before, catalyzing the housing industry and 500,000 homes per year have gotten us nowhere. Instead of taking responsibility and focusing on positive solutions, the minister has decided to lay blame elsewhere. This is why my Conservative colleagues have put forward a plan, and I have reiterated it in my speech today.”