Brad Vis

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“I want to know if this bill lets the minister look at private company data. We need clear limits on that power to protect businesses.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a good question. For the powers mentioned in Bill S-3, I want to know if the minister can access the electronic data or even other data used by the telecommunications sector. I want to ensure that this power is properly circumscribed to protect the private and commercial interests of the company in question.”

“Parts of this bill need a closer look. I will send my written feedback to the minister so we can make sure more oil flows through my riding to support the economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I have already outlined areas in sections 17 and 19 and in the mandatory review clause during questions and comments, and I believe they need further scrutiny. I have yet to write such amendments, but I would be pleased to provide commentary in writing to the relevant minister to ensure that more oil flows through Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford to support the Canadian economy in the best way possible.”

• Vague
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Clarity 18 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want this bill to go to committee so we can clarify key parts of it. Parliament needs to focus on practical work that helps the economy run properly, especially as the government builds a new pipeline along the Trans Mountain route.”

“Madam Speaker, I have yet to review the Hansard from the Senate on Bill S-3. I will acknowledge that. However, from my preliminary reading of this legislation, it is very clear that a couple of key portions of it can be properly clarified in Parliament for the well-being of Canada, especially as the government pursues a new pipeline along the existing route of the Trans Mountain pipeline. That will touch upon other pieces of the legislation, like the Fisheries Act, for example, which requires legislative reviews in Parliament that I do not necessarily believe have all taken place according to their scheduled reviews. Let this bill be a wake-up call for Parliament that sometimes we need to get down to the messy but important business of making sure that our country functions in a way that is responsible for all Canadians, and that sometimes we need to leave politics completely outside of it but do our very best to make sure the economy is humming and our weights and measures are all aligned so people can make money and live a better life.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We cannot trust the government to review this bill in ten years. They already missed deadlines to review other laws, including environmental laws. Parliament has the resources to do these reviews, but the government does not keep its promises to do them.”

“Madam Speaker, the legislation that comes to my mind is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government has missed many deadlines to review legislation that actually overlaps with the bill before us here today. A responsible Parliament and a responsible House leader will not negate the promises made to Canadians about the proper conduct of legislation. We have ample resources in the House to conduct such reviews, including the capacity to create subcommittees for every standing committee. The government has so far not upheld that legislative responsibility and the promises it made to Canadians on many of the 13 laws the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound mentioned. That is something we can take away from the debate, about the actual applicability of a 10-year review if the government is not going to follow it.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want this bill to pass. But the committee studying it should clearly define the new powers it gives to officials. Businesses need to know exactly how these new rules will work.”

“Madam Speaker, I do agree. I want the bill passed. I believe that, at the committee stage, it would be useful for Parliament to clarify the powers of the president as outlined in clause 17 and clause 19, the purview of those powers, to make sure there is clarity for the Canadian economy in the conduct of the proposed new preventative measures and the risk-based approach applied in Bill S-3.”

“I support this bill, but I want committee to check it carefully. It updates our inspection rules so inspectors can use digital tools and prevent problems before they happen. However, it gives the minister new powers, and we must make sure there are strict limits on how those powers are used.”

“Madam Speaker, these transactions seem routine, but they are built upon a foundation of public confidence that when we do business, buy fuel or transport goods, or when oil is shipped through my riding, for example, the systems underpinning our economy are accurate, fair and trustworthy. The purpose of Bill S-3, therefore, is not simply to protect those standards. It is also to modernize them and how the government is enforcing them. I think the enforcement part really deserves a lot of attention during the upcoming debate. In my view, from my preliminary reading of the legislation, the most significant parts of the bill are found in sections 17 and 19, because they recognize a reality that many Canadians have been pointing out for years: government institutions cannot continue operating with 20th-century tools in a 21st-century economy. Section 17 is perhaps the clearest example of this modernization effort. Today, businesses increasingly operate through digital platforms. Records are stored electronically, transactions move through complex telecommunication systems, and data is generated and transferred in real time, yet many of the regulatory frameworks that operate under our current laws were designed in an era when inspectors relied on paper records and on-site reviews. Section 17 would modernize our way of doing business, the way of regulating the flow of goods in Canada, and would acknowledge that the world has changed. It would equip inspectors with the ability to access electronic records, review information contained within computer systems, reproduce digital documents and make use of telecommunication technologies in the conduct of their responsibilities. In practical terms, it would mean that regulators could follow information where it actually exists in today’s economy, rather than simply relying exclusively on paper records and physical inspections, which is, frankly, way too common in our economy. It would give the power to inspectors to access and review information in a digital environment where modern commerce increasingly occurs. This may sound like just a technical change, but it reflects an important principle: Effective oversight requires modern tools. I believe that Canadians understand that principle even more instinctively than government does today. In fact, one of the most consistent criticisms I hear, living in and representing a community on the border with the United States, at the border crossing in my riding, is that our institutions are not modernizing quickly enough. No agency illustrates this concern more clearly than Canada Border Services Agency. Canadians routinely hear concerns about long processing times, increasing trade volumes, evolving criminal networks and the growing sophistication of cross-border threats. Where I live, we hear many concerns about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at our points of entry. There are concerns with its capacity to examine things such as spent fowl, chicken from birds that were used for hatching eggs, coming into Canada, and whether it is compliant with existing trade frameworks and regulations. Canadians are concerned that we are not doing a good enough job monitoring the flow of goods in an effective way that upholds our trade agreements and Canadian businesses. This concern is not merely whether government has enough personnel or capacity. It is whether government has applied the right tools to ensure equity, equal terms, in the way we do business. Canadians expect the agencies responsible for protecting our borders to operate in the digital world. They expect those agencies to use modern technology, modern data analysis and modern inspection techniques. They expect government to identify risks efficiently rather than relying on the outdated processes that, I believe, Bill S-3 is, in good faith, trying to amend. I should be clear that Bill S-3 would not amend legislation governing CBSA. However, section 17 and other parts of the bill reflect exactly the kind of modernization mindset that Canadians increasingly want to see throughout government. When Parliament recognizes that inspection agencies need access to electronic information, digital records, measuring equipment or telecommunications in order to do their job effectively, it is acknowledging a broader truth that modernization is no longer optional. This does touch close to home for my constituents. The transfer station for the Trans Mountain pipeline is on Sumas Mountain, just a few kilometres from where I grew up. At that transfer station, 37% of all oil shipped through the Trans Mountain pipeline goes under Highway 1 and across Sumas Prairie to northern Washington state, where it is processed and refined. The Enbridge natural gas pipeline was approved by the Liberal government. It has a transfer station at the Huntingdon border crossing area as well. My constituents expect government to make sure that they have the most modern and efficient ways of regulating the flow of those goods, not only to protect but also to monitor and to know what we are actually doing in our economy. Government oversight has to evolve alongside the economy it regulates. That same modernization philosophy, I will note, can be seen in section 19. Historically, regulators often operated in a reactive manner. A violation occurred, and the government would respond. Section 19 would move us toward a preventative model by giving regulators tools to require corrective and preventative measures before non-compliance becomes entrenched or there is an accident with the Trans Mountain pipeline, just as an example. In other words, the focus would shift from reacting to violations and toward preventing violations. That may seem like a subtle distinction, but would represent a significant change in our regulatory approach here in Canada. I will note that Canadians businesses consistently want this regulatory change, so whether we are discussing consumer protection, public safety, transportation or border security, my constituents want to know that the government has the ability to identify risks and to respond proactively. In the same region where the Trans Mountain pipeline crosses Sumas Prairie, there are pumps that regulate water flow. It was those same pumps and our diking system that failed in 2021 and exposed the Enbridge pipeline and the Trans Mountain pipeline to risk. Those pump stations were not up to date and were not working effectively. This legislation might improve our overall effectiveness at doing those tasks. Going back to discussion about the border, when Canadians express frustration about border management, they are frequently expressing frustration with a system they perceive as reactive rather than proactive. They want government to anticipate emerging threats, whether it is food safety or illegal drugs going north and south on the border. They want systems that identify risk before they reach our communities. They want agencies that leverage technology and intelligence to stay ahead of evolving challenges. The preventative approach, the risk-based approach, reflected in section 19, mirrors those broader expectations and recognizes that effective regulation is not simply about enforcement after the fact; it is about building systems that reduce harm. Whether Canadians are filling up their vehicles, reviewing their utility bills, purchasing goods at a store or expecting government agencies to protect our borders, they want to know that systems are serving a purpose, that the members of the House are taking care of business in the most real way possible to make sure that people can move goods and do so effectively. In conclusion, as the bill is scrutinized in Parliament, I hope my fellow legislators will review with a fine-tooth comb the sections that would expand power to, as the bill refers to, the president, who is in fact the industry minister, with new inspection powers, especially with respect to the data and technology components that would be added to the legislation. It is important to ensure that there would in fact be proper checks and balances put upon the use of those powers, and that the use of those powers would be extremely limited to the flow of goods in question that are subject to these existing laws and regulations under the Weights and Measures Act and other applicable bills. For these reasons, I do believe, with a tiny bit of apprehension about ministerial power, that Bill S-3 is a step in the right direction. I look forward to a wholesome debate, a technical debate, that would improve the way we conduct commerce in Canada.”

“I support this bill. It updates our measurement laws. This helps make sure people get what they pay for, like getting the right amount of gas at the pump, accurate power bills, and the right weight of food at the grocery store.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today generally in support of Bill S-3, legislation that modernizes Canada’s measurement laws through amendments to the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, as well as the weights and measures regulations and the electricity and gas inspection regulations. When legislation like this comes before Parliament, it is quite appreciated. Legislation like this will help modernize the Canadian economy. I will note, however, based on what I have heard in Debates so far, it was actually the government representative in the Senate who tabled the legislation. In fact, the Liberal government has a tradition of taking bills like this, bills that are highly technical in nature, like some of the red tape reduction acts in the previous Parliament, to do some of the foundational work that governments are actually responsible for. I am not criticizing that approach, but it is the tradition of the Liberal government to do that. Why is this bill, which at first glance a Canadian would see through a very narrow and highly technical lens, actually important? If I were to talk to my constituents about this bill, I would outline the little metal placard at every gas station in Canada that allows them to understand that, when they fill up their truck in Mission and expect to pay for 50 litres of gasoline, they are actually getting 50 litres. When a family in Abbotsford receives their monthly electricity or natural gas bill, they expect the metre to accurately measure what they have, in fact, consumed. When someone purchases a kilogram of apples or, as the member previously mentioned, deli meats at the grocery store, they trust that the scale is, in fact, giving an accurate reading.”

“Small businesses create jobs. The small business tax deduction limit has stayed at $500,000 for 17 years while prices have gone up. I want the government to raise this limit to $700,000 so business owners can keep more money to grow.”

“Madam Speaker, during Small Business Week, we celebrate Canadians who take risks and create jobs, especially during these turbulent times. One of the most important tax measures available to small businesses, the $500,000 small deduction limit, has been left unchanged for 17 years, while inflation continues to soar. Will the Liberals agree with the Conservatives and raise the threshold to $700,000, so entrepreneurs can keep more of what they earn to invest and grow their business?”

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“I support free trade. Foreign companies investing responsibly in Canada is good for our country. We should encourage investment with rules that make sure it helps Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point about the role of foreign capital in the Canadian economy. I believe in free trade, and I believe that if companies invest responsibly in Canada, that is a good thing for Canada. Others might disagree with me, but I ultimately believe that, as a free market society, we need to encourage investment in a regulated environment that makes sure that it is a win-win deal for Canada.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Canada should use its own steel and workers to build the next phase of the gas project. We have the skills and technology to do it here. We should not send this work to China.”

“Mr. Speaker, on the very first point, 15 years ago, Canada did not have the capacity to build naval warships, but it built that capacity. I believe we have the most educated workforce in the world. We have all the talent right here and the technology to do what is required to build LNG phase two with Canadian steel. The government talks about diversifying, pivoting and innovating. This is the chance to innovate. This is the chance to stand up for Canadian workers and, by extension, stand up for our country at a critical juncture. It is not going to be easy, but exporting that work to China is not the answer. The government needs to do better on that front, and I believe Canada can.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government says it wants to support Canadian workers, but it is buying steel from China for a major gas project and having our ferries built there too. Its programs to help our businesses deal with foreign tariffs are moving too slowly. I want ministers to update this House on those programs, change our tax rules to help local investment, and commit to using Canadian steel on Canadian projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the good people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I had some remarks prepared, but I have to respond to the previous member, who talked about diversification, pivoting and innovating. Many of these terms are referenced in the briefing members of Parliament received from Pacific Economic Development Canada last month. It talked about the regional tariff response initiative, the strategic response fund and the need for Canadian businesses, with support from the government, to diversify, pivot and innovate. We are not seeing that action, though. Let me give members an example. Just a week or two ago, the Prime Minister went to British Columbia and talked about expanding the LNG terminal in northern B.C. It is a major investment. We learned that the Liberals will be using Chinese steel to build it. The Government of Canada said this is a major investment for our country and it is going to help us be better and more economically competitive. In response to the U.S. tariffs, the government set up all of these new funds I just mentioned, the regional tariff response initiative, the strategic response fund and the Canada diversification fund, and it was all to help Canadian businesses buy Canadian. There are specific funds for steel and aluminum to help them innovate, pivot to new businesses and do business in Canada, yet on the biggest announcement the government has made since the last election 18 months ago, the government is buying China. This is the same government that is in cahoots with socialist extremist Premier David Eby and thought it was in the interests of British Columbia and Canada to build our ferries in China. BC Ferries is a cornerstone of our national transportation infrastructure network, and the ferries will be built in China. We have shipyards in Canada. I would much rather have them built in north Vancouver or at the Davie shipyard in Quebec, but no. The government chose China. On the one hand, the Government of Canada is spending billions of dollars to supposedly support the forestry sector and the steel and aluminum sectors, but when it has a big, beautiful, massive project right in front of it, it goes to China. I believe that if the government wanted to help steel and aluminum companies pivot, like it said it did in the information members of Parliament received, and it wanted to help them innovate, it should have said it knows it does not have the capacity right now, but in the strategic interests of Canada, it will help those companies innovate and meet the demands of Canada’s energy infrastructure. It had that opportunity, but it did not pivot. It cowered in the face of adversity at the expense of Canadian workers. I want Canadian workers building LNG to the fullest possible capacity, but the Liberals decided to stick with their old processes, which do not uplift Canadian workers and do not stand up for Canada. I said in this House earlier this week that the government needs to work with the Conservatives to stand up for Canada and bring in the structural reforms to our economy that will make us stronger in the long term. In fact, the government’s tariff response initiative talks about that very point. We need to stand up for Canada and we need to help Canadian businesses do more work here, yet the government is not willing to do that. Earlier today, I met with members of the community of Kingston who talked about capital gains rollovers on major investments in Canada. There is another major policy change that the government could be making in our taxation system to help Canadian businesses invest right here in Canada. Again, I encourage the member of Parliament for Kingston to hear the pleas of businesses in his own riding that are saying we need to bring in a structural taxation reform to do things better. Now, let us go back to the steel and aluminum tariff program. Make no mistake, Canadian businesses are suffering. I met with probably over 100 businesses over the last four months when Parliament was not sitting, and they are scared. I am not saying everything the Government of Canada is doing is not working, but what was most alarming is that Naina Sloan, President of PacifiCan, acknowledged to members of Parliament that the government is not meeting its own timelines. There were announcements made in August on the tariff response initiative, many of those applications were made nine months earlier and the government has been slow in its response. We want Canada to be more affordable, and the government and the ministers responsible need to work with Canadians to stand up for Canada, give us better responses, and demand better operational processes to ensure that programs are working effectively, because right now they are not. My encouragement to the Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry is to come forward and give this House an update, today, on how the tariff response initiative is going. The president of PacifiCan said that they are not meeting their own standards. It takes a lot of courage for a senior public servant to admit that, but she made those remarks because she is a true leader. She knows that we need to stand by our businesses right now. However, she is not getting that oversight from the minister responsible, and that is not okay. I am aware of companies in the Fraser Valley that, because the government has not reached a deal with the United States, are still looking at moving their operations because they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. These are long-standing employers in aerospace and advanced manufacturing that are hit on both sides, by the American tariffs, the unjustified American tax increases through those tariffs and Canada’s tariff responses. Some of these companies, although they have major global impact, are not very large. They kind of fall in the middle. They do not feel the government has been quick enough to help them and to work alongside them. Again, I would encourage the Government of Canada to work with those medium-sized enterprises that make up such an important part of our economy and to hear from them about how those tariffs are impacting them. In conclusion, affordability is getting much worse. It is getting really bad, and no other statistic outlines that better than our birthrate stats. In 2015, Canada’s fertility rate dropped from 1.6 to 1.26. In B.C., it has dropped to 1.04. People are not having kids in Canada anymore because it is too expensive. So many young families come to me to relay the lack of child care, the broken promises of the government and the cost of housing in British Columbia, and they say it just does not work. Kids costs a lot of money. People want to have more children, but our economy is not set up in a way that allows for that. Just before I finish up, I will be splitting my time with a member from Oshawa. My encouragement to the government today is to come clean about the tariff response initiative, to come clean about the true cost of living crisis that we are facing, to come clean about the deals it is doing with China at the expense of Canadian workers and businesses, and to pivot, just like the government documents say, to provide resiliency for Canadian companies and to provide new opportunities for steel and aluminum manufacturers to build LNG Canada phase two. We can do it. I believe in our economy. I believe that the government wants to do the right thing, but it needs to step up, grow up and do what is required to use Canadian steel on a Canadian project.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 96 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “in cahoots with socialist extremist Premier David Eby”.

  See full analysis →

“The government spent billions on a loan program for women starting businesses, but it gave out almost no loans. Why does the government care more about making big announcements than actually helping business owners?”

“Mr. Speaker, the women’s entrepreneurship loan fund was supposed to help women entrepreneurs access capital. After a three-year ATIP process, I found that one federally funded administrator received only 27 applications despite a federal target of 1,200, and another issued only 23 loans despite a target of 815. With over $7 billion in the program, Canadians should get better results. Why is the government measuring success by dollars spent and announcements made versus real results for our entrepreneurs who really need the support of the government?”