Brad Vis
Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today is on nicotine pouches. This petition is being presented on behalf of small businesses, including convenience stores.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today. The first is petition e-7198, which has 5,746 signatures. It calls upon the Minister of Fisheries to not remove the recreational access to chinook and coho salmon in the allotment of salmon allocation.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I asked a Liberal member a very simple question: Could he confirm or deny the rumours in British Columbia that, under the new security partnership between Canada and China and the government's desire to sell federal airport assets, Chinese companies would be able to buy those assets?”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is with regard to the elimination of the federal apprenticeship incentive. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the apprenticeship incentive grant for Red Seal trades, index it to inflation, link it to the successful completion of technical training…”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 contains proposed new provisions under the Privacy Act and the Canada Transportation Act to assess the full value of our publicly owned airports. Rumours in British Columbia dictate that part of the new security agreement with China would allow Chinese companies to buy airports in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Mel Zajac, a remarkable British Columbian whose compassion and generosity left an enduring imprint. Mel's life was marked by a profound tragedy that ultimately inspired a legacy of extraordinary philanthropy. In July 1986, he lost his son Mel Jr.”
The complete record
Every one of 622 lines we hold for Brad Vis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“The act would end catch-and-release policies that too often put dangerous individuals back on the streets. It would create a major offences category that includes crimes such as firearms offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. Families are being devastated, businesses are being terrorized and communities are being destabilized. I will ask again, will the Liberals stand with Canada, the Canadian consensus, and admit that their soft-on-crime policies under Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have destabilized our communities? Can they admit their faults and work with Conservatives to reverse that legislation and restore hope, justice and equality, especially for women, who are most impacted by their soft-on-crime policies?”
“As of mid-September, the Surrey Police Service is actively investigating 44 extortion cases, 27 including shootings, targeted at residents and businesses. It has gotten so bad that Mayor Brenda Locke has gone as far as announcing a $250,000 reward fund for information leading to convictions. I believe it is the largest in Canadian history. Violent crime is up 55%. Firearms-related crimes have increased 130%. Extortion, one of the most destabilizing crimes a community can face, has spiked 333%. Canadians deserve better, and Conservatives have a plan that will restore and strengthen mandatory jail time for extortionists to face real consequences. My colleague from Ontario is introducing the jail not bail act to take stronger action against violent, repeat offenders.”
“Madam Speaker, before Parliament rose for the summer, I shared the heartbreaking story of the Lehmann family from my riding in Mission. They lost $300,000 to extortion. Their lives were completely destabilized, yet the criminal never spent a single day in jail, only nine months of house arrest and probation, while the Lehmanns lost their retirement income. Since I raised that question, more devastating stories have come to light. Just today, another suspect was arrested in a Brampton extortion and shooting case. Earlier this summer, gunshots were fired at homes in Brampton neighbourhoods, targeting residents in what authorities say was part of a broader extortion scheme. In Surrey, extortion has reached alarming levels.”
“Madam Speaker, as it relates to money laundering, I have been up in the House talking about the Peter German report and about the implications it has had for British Columbia probably more than any other member. What I find so ironic today is that the Liberals, for the very first time in my six years in this chamber, are actually speaking about protecting Canadians for a change. Under their watch, we have seen a rise in crime and violence against women and—”
“Madam Speaker, I recently met with the chief of police of Abbotsford, and he mentioned nothing about cash transactions. In fact, in my conversations with the police forces in the Fraser Valley and in the greater Vancouver region, they were mostly concerned about bail. They want to see bail reform right now. That is what they want to see.”
“Madam Speaker, in many cases, Quebec makes a strong case about protecting its jurisdictions under the Constitution. In fact, sometimes I believe British Columbia could learn a bit from Quebec and assert its provincial authority as well.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not believe I need to correct any facts about the consequences of how the bill is written and the implications I sought to draw attention to. In our caucus, we have a former Crown prosecutor, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , who spent his career combatting sexual exploitation. There are many other things we could do in the justice system, which the Liberals have had 10 years to address, related to evidence and discovery that many lawyers and Crown counsel across Canada have been asking for. I would encourage the Liberal justice minister and other members of the Liberal caucus to look at existing things they could do right now, according to the Jordan's principle as well, to speed up access to justice in this country, especially as it relates to the protection of minors.”
“This legislation needs careful scrutiny, so if this bill passes, I would encourage the minister to critically review whether the privacy and data collection aspect is even necessary for its core objectives of protecting our border. Coming from a border town, I know we want strong infrastructure at our border. We want to see more CBSA officers enforcing existing laws. We want to see the equipment and the military presence where necessary to keep Canadians safe, but this legislation goes well above and beyond the Canadian consensus about what we need to do to keep people safe today.”
“The Liberals think giving the government the ability to open our mail on very spurious grounds would serve Canada's interests. I would argue that we can find a middle ground. We can apply technology. We could speed up the use of warrants when necessary so that law enforcement would indeed have access to drugs, such as fentanyl, that are mailed in the Canada Post system. In closing, this bill is litigation in action. I just cannot imagine the number of court cases that are going to come from this legislation if we do not address these major privacy concerns, if we do not get the definitions correct and if the government is not very clear about the safeguards and the application of the things that they are proposing, which would go well beyond everything they promised in the election in a way that Canadians are not even aware of.”
“We have privacy in Canada for a reason. This bill would undermine it. Part 11 is about cash transaction restrictions. Constituents in my community have raised concerns about the provisions related to cash transactions. I know in many cases, in British Columbia especially, at casinos and at car dealerships, cash transactions have been abused, but there may be a better way to treat cash moving forward than what is outlined in this bill. We have to think about the context of religious organizations that collect large amounts of cash at a weekly service, such as at a gurdwara or at a Christian church. We have to look at charities and auctions and the application the bill would have on those aspects of our society. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not quickly touch upon the Canada Post Corporation Act amendments.”
“Under this portion of part 16, the bill introduces exceptions so that the usual requirement for knowledge or consent no longer applies when collection or use falls under the above provisions, namely the terrorism financing act. It would also remove the obligation for individuals to access their own information if it was obtained under these rules. Essentially, this would allow for banks and financial institutions to use Canadians' financial information without consent when the government supplies it. I think again about the implications this would have with the Canada Revenue Agency, financial institutions and the privacy of individuals and what this could do to the makeup of families' information that they want to keep private from other family members, not for criminal purposes, but maybe for business-related purposes.”
“It would create a new part 1.2 of this law, allowing reporting entities, such as banks, credit unions and money services businesses, to collect and use personal information without an individual's knowledge or consent if the data is provided by the government or law enforcement for purposes related to anti-money laundering, terrorist financing or sanctions evasion. (1810) I will note in this request that we do need to improve this bill. Without some of the safeguards that Conservatives and even Liberal members were trying to establish for Bill C-27 , it would open the door to future abuse and misuse by law enforcement agencies if these definitions and concepts of privacy and data are not modernized in Canada. I note the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act's proposed sections 7 and 9.”
“These companies would be forced to build and maintain technical back doors at the request of law enforcement, allow law enforcement to test direct access to their systems and keep all such requests secret from the public. Members should think about the implications of that. The government could tell a telco, an Internet company, that it is going to do things in private with people's personal data, and it does not have to inform the public. This has massive implications that need to be examined carefully. Part 16 of the act would rewrite Canada's privacy and financial rules. It touches upon the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, under its sections 11.7(1) to 11.7(3).”
“The standard for doing this in the legislation is very low: police would only need to have a “reasonable suspicion”. The Supreme Court has already said that is not enough when it comes to people's online account information. That may go against two very important recent Supreme Court decisions. In R v. Spencer, the Supreme Court ruled that Canadians have a right to privacy in their Internet account details and police need a warrant to access that information. In R v. Bykovets, in 2024, the court made it clear that even things like IP addresses are private and also need a warrant to access. Part 14 would let police bypass these privacy protections. Part 15 of the act, the supporting authorized access to information act, would create a new category of electronic service providers and designate certain core providers.”
“In my opinion, the Liberals have taken this opportunity to develop a secretive, sweeping surveillance regime into a bill that was supposed to be about border and crime issues in response to the tariff challenges we face from the United States. With that context in mind, let me turn to the specific parts of Bill C-2 that warrant, in my opinion, further study on privacy concerns and are of greatest concern to my constituents and experts alike who have written my office. Let us look at part 14, an amendment to the Criminal Code. Part 14 would create a new law that would let police make “information demands”. This means police officers could ask Internet or phone companies whether someone is a subscriber, even without a warrant.”
“This is particularly important to me because in the last Parliament, I had the privilege of working on the industry committee on Bill C-27 , which attempted to update Canada's privacy laws. In that process, we sought to enshrine a fundamental right to privacy in legislation. We sought to establish world-leading protections and safeguards for children. We sought to define and limit the socially and commercially acceptable use of personal data. We sought to strike a fine balance between commercial interests and the right of personal data to be protected under the ownership of its user. I cannot help but think of the relationship to Bill C-2 and the sweeping powers it seeks to provide government that we sought to protect in the last Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-2 is being promoted as a crime and border security bill, but it includes sweeping measures that touch on Canadians' private lives. In a data-driven world, it is of utmost importance that governments, citizens and companies have the fundamental right to privacy protected. The issue with Bill C-2 is that it touches on so many details without enough language or safeguards in place to properly study each component in a way that serves the best interests of Canadians or the implications of the new language contained in this omnibus piece of legislation. While there are many parts of the bill that could be critiqued, I will focus on the privacy side.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey Newton for outlining some of the key provisions in Bill C-2 . One aspect of the bill he did not touch upon is access to online data, the impact this would have on privacy regulations in Canada and the fundamental right that our party believes all Canadians have access to, which is a fundamental right to privacy. I believe this bill would undermine that fundamental right. Does the member opposite agree that this bill would go too far in giving powers to authorities in respect to access to information?”
“Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, total sexual assaults have risen 74.83%, 90% of which are against women. Why has the Liberal Party enacted policies that have done so much to hurt and damage women? Do the Liberals not respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right of women to live free of the fear of being hurt in our society?”
“Madam Speaker, in the last Parliament, there was considerable debate on the fundamental right to privacy. The legislation never did see the end of the day, and the New Democratic Party did work with the Conservatives to push forward our concerns about the usage of data and about the provisions being put forward by the Liberal government under the former prime minister. Will the member agree with the Conservatives that some of the provisions in the legislation would constitute government overreach without the proper constraints put in place to protect a Canadian's fundamental right to privacy?”
“Mr. Speaker, today, I rise on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford to table a petition regarding nicotine pouches. The Government of Canada has banned the sale of nicotine pouches from convenience stores, from gas stations and online, and it will allow pharmacies to sell the product only behind the counter. Small businesses, including convenience stores, have a proven track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products, including nicotine pouches. The petitioners are asking for the government to repeal this overburdensome regulation and to keep the process and sale of these products as they were before.”
“Mr. Speaker, to be very brief, I am concerned about two-tiered citizenship being created as a result of the bill. I hope that, if it moves forward to committee stage, the minister can come clean and outline, and listen to the positive feedback Conservatives have been providing in the House today to strengthen the provisions in response to the Ontario courts.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on Bill C-3 . It is maybe the second day of debate we have had on the bill in the 21 days of Parliament in 2025. I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to listen to the words of the Prime Minister this morning when he spoke about all of the great women elected to the Liberal Party of Canada. Unfortunately, they do not get the opportunity to speak, because the member speaks multiple times during the day and other members of the Liberal caucus are not afforded the same opportunity to represent their constituents.”
“There is close to zero enforcement of our immigration policies in the Fraser Valley where we see a high proportion of Canada's immigrants first land.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing, which is that I have dealt with lost Canadians and the struggles they faced. I am glad that the bill includes the provisions from Bill S-245 , which is very important. I want to see those people made whole, and I want to see that passed. However, in general, there is a lot of pressure on my staff to deal with people in very precarious situations. It is the temporary foreign worker who has not had a proper work visa for the last couple of months who is now working under the table and is at risk of being trafficked. There is a lot of abuse in the temporary foreign worker program, and they come to MPs looking for help. They cannot get that help from government agencies.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I am raising. It would bring into legitimacy the ability of Canadians to uphold the integrity of the existing laws. The Elections Canada Act also provides the right for every Canadian to vote. I do not believe there would be the necessary provisions under the Canada Elections Act to prevent this from happening, and that is why I raise that point.”
“Chandra was ousted from the Liberal Party after he ran for Liberal leadership. The Prime Minister is now the member for Nepean. What would stop Mr. Chandra from organizing all of these new Canadians in India to vote against the Prime Minister in Nepean? Citizens living abroad get to choose whatever riding they like to vote in under the Canada Elections Act. The minister needs to come clean about how citizenship and elections would be impacted by this legislation.”
“No, our job is to approve and disapprove the spending of Parliament, to be representatives and to pass legislation. The work we do is symptomatic of the failure of Canada's bureaucracy to uphold and fulfill its duties to Canadians. With the passage of this legislation, the minister needs to be clear on what administrative burden the government will be putting on the overworked public servants at IRCC and the inability of management to fix the long-standing issues we see in the country. Finally, as I am running out of time, the last point I would like to raise is on voting. If we extend citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are the descendants of people born in Canada, their grandchildren, how will that impact elections? Let us think about Nepean. Mr.”
“We do not have those answers, and the minister needs to come clean about how she would respond to those situations. We only need to look to Hong Kong and the conflicts we have seen there with the erosion of democracy. How would Canada respond to the citizens of Hong Kong in an emergency or in any other major conflict that could possibly erupt in Asia? IRCC is very slow. IRCC does not do a very good job. In fact, it places an administrative burden on every single member in the House. I have to employ a full-time staff member to make up for the inability of a government department to do its job and properly process legitimate applications to reside in Canada on a daily basis. When we take an oath as a member of Parliament, it is not to be a satellite office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.”
“Indeed, former prime minister Harper brought in stricter generational limits to citizenship in response to the outcry from Canadians who wondered why the Government of Canada had to send the Royal Canadian Navy to rescue hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were living in Lebanon without any real ties to our country anymore but who still held Canadian citizenship. The government did the right thing, something I support, and went and protected those people. By extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands more people, the minister needs to come clean about what obligations the Government of Canada would have to those people and how it would respond to a humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands of Canadians might be living.”
“Right now, for example, there are over 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong. There are probably over a million Canadians living in the United States. There are between 40,000 and 50,000 Canadians living in Lebanon. There are probably over 20,000 Canadians living in Pakistan. If the government were to implement conscription, how would it apply to Canadians living abroad? Would they be required, like the children born here, to bear arms for Canada, or would they be exempt? We have seen the second aspect of obligations related to this legislation bear out in previous natural disasters and conflicts around the world, namely in Lebanon.”
“Why is the government lowering the bar by counting non-consecutive days under the substantial connection clause when other countries in the G7, for example, require far stricter rules for family ties? I want the minister to outline how Bill C-3 will impact Canada's security. Under the current rules for IRCC, all immigrants, all those on work visas, all refugees go through some type of security check. By extending citizenship to the grandchildren of Canadians, I believe the minister should outline how Canada's public safety will be impacted. (1735) The second thing I would like to discuss as it relates to extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands of people around the world is how it would impact the responsibilities of Canadians to serve in the Canadian military during a war. What impact would this have on conscription?”
“However, with respect to the substantive part of this legislation, namely the substantial connection clause outlined by the Ontario justice as a recommendation, I have very many concerns, mainly around the integrity of Canadian citizenship. What does it mean to be a Canadian in the 21st century? What are the duties of citizenship? What duties does the Government of Canada have toward its citizens? All of these questions should be debated today in the House of Commons and in subsequent days because this legislation will impact how we move forward and how we see citizenship. I hope the minister , if this bill passes second reading, will answer those questions for all Canadians. How is it fair to the immigrants who spent years building a life here? What prevents another wave of Canadians of convenience who only show up for benefits?”
“Maybe this legislation or this question before us today should have gone to the Supreme Court, but the government decided we were better to leave it in the hands of a provincial court and not have the superior court of our country, the Supreme Court of Canada, make a decision on what constitutes being a Canadian. I will note that there are some provisions in this legislation that were originally in Bill S-245 , namely the extension of citizenship to restore citizenship to lost Canadians who were affected between 1977 and 1981. There are also provisions for children adopted by Canadians to ensure that their citizenship held the same quality as Canadians born on Canadian soil. I will note that I support those two provisions. They are good provisions and I want to see them passed.”
“In fact, the Liberal platform, on page one and two, talked about being at war, “economic war”, with the United States, yet on our first day back, we are debating a bill and a major policy provision within that legislation that will fundamentally change what it means to be Canadian. This was not in the platform. It was not in the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the summer or really any time since he was appointed and subsequently elected to the top office in our country. For people listening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, the reason we have this legislation before us today is that in 2023, Justice Akbarali of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the 2009 provisions to the Citizenship Act were unconstitutional. The Trudeau government had the opportunity to appeal to subsequent courts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my wonderful constituents in Canada's number one riding, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. It was a great summer, and I appreciate all the feedback I received from them. I am motivated to serve on their behalf and to fight for the things that were discussed during the election, namely addressing the affordability crisis, the cost of living challenges that young families are facing, rising crime and a ballooning deficit that may be out of control. We do not know because we have not seen a budget tabled. The government had all summer to work on all of those priorities.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of petitioners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford who are opposed to the drug policies in federal institutions. Correctional officers in particular are calling for an end to the prison needle exchange program and corresponding programs that give free illegal drugs and paraphernalia to convicted felons in Canadian federal institutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are alarmed about the increase in repeat violent offenders being released on bail. . The petitioners have witnessed a sharp increase in car theft, gang violence and drug-related deaths. Violent crime has increased by 50%; violent gun crime has surged by 116%, and in 2022, 256 Canadians were tragically killed by people out on bail thanks to Liberal catch-and-release policies under Bill C-75 . Police officers are increasingly powerless to protect the public. The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Justice to urgently reform Canada's bail laws and restore safety on our streets.”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is obviously illegal, but it was the minister and the Liberal government that removed the mandatory sentences for these dangerous crimes. The sad reality is that the Lehmanns will probably never get their money back, and not only were they traumatized by this crime, but they were also forced to remove the $300,000 from their business account, and now that money is subject to tax with the CRA. When will the Liberals get serious, change the laws that protect Canadians, and put the Lehmanns, not the criminal, first?”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is up 357%. Let us take, for example, the Lehmanns in Mission. Last year, they lost $300,000 to this heinous crime. While their lives were completely destabilized, the criminal never served a day in jail but got nine months of house arrest, and probation. The Liberals rejected our common-sense extortion bill in the last Parliament, which would have reinstated mandatory minimums. Why will they not stand with Canadians and reverse their disastrous policies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kapiskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk on his first speech in the House of Commons. He mentioned that he had worked in the forestry sector. What measures could we take to support the forestry sector in Canada through Bill C-5 or other initiatives here in the House of Commons?”
“Madam Speaker, in the Fraser Canyon and Fraser Valley region, we are seeing a huge number of first nations entrepreneurs who want to build projects on their traditional lands. They want to bring economic prosperity to their people, and they are pushing ahead faster than the Government of Canada is able to move with more projects. First nations want to see barriers eliminated for that work. They want to see federal departments get out of the way, with their overburdensome red tape, to allow them to not only build and to take economic risks, but also, ultimately, put forward and support projects that are going to bring economic prosperity to a region of the country that has been ignored by many consecutive governments.”
“Madam Speaker, there were multiple questions and points made by the member, and I congratulate him on his entry into the House of Commons. I will note that I am supporting this bill because I believe there is an urgency. I just believe that the Prime Minister's Office is going too far and is lacking transparency in its approach to the second part of the bill before us today. If the member would like to speak further about fisheries-related issues, I would be pleased to do so, as I represent a large portion of the Fraser River and some of the most important salmon stocks in all of Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, with respect to the question from the member for Winnipeg North, there would have been a federal licensing body. Let us turn to page 2 of the Liberal platform, which states, “Unleash free trade in Canada by Canada Day by tabling legislation to eliminate all federal barriers”. We are not getting that. The platform continues, “Achieve mutual recognition of credentials with provinces and territories so Canadians can work wherever they want.” We are not achieving that. It was right in the Liberals' platform on page 2. The Liberals did not fulfill that promise.”
“I thank again the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for putting their trust in me. It is a true honour. I look forward to studying this bill in more detail.”
“In some cases, sure, that would be okay, but we do not know what the Prime Minister intends, what his criteria are going to be and how he is going to be transparent with all of Canada about what projects he is picking and choosing. I do not want to live in a country where one man gets to pick winners and losers. I want a country where every project proponent sees a pathway to a yes or no answer with a reasonable amount of investment dollars put forward. That is not too much to ask. Other countries with our resources already have similar processes. We used to have it in Canada. We are asking for that to be returned. As we are in the period of time to debate this bill only today in the House of Commons because of a closure motion, I will have to keep my remarks short.”
“It seems to them that the Prime Minister is seeking to usurp their constitutionally given rights to be consulted and to in work with the government for economic reconciliation. The bill could have clarified those points, not in the preamble, but in the body of the text, to give first nations the authority and respect they deserve on major projects going forward. That was not included in the bill. On major projects, this bill would create a new industry for consultants. Unlike Bill C-69 , which has effectively shut down all major resource projects in Canada, this new bill, and I am voting for it, so I am not completely against it, but I am outlining the criticisms, would allow proponents to go directly to the Prime Minister 's office without checks and balances.”
“Bill C-5 does not solve any of these issues, even though every politician in the House of Commons knows it was something raised at the doorstep every day during the election. With my limited time here today, I will just quickly touch upon part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act, which gives the federal government power to designate and fast-track so-called national interest projects. Earlier this morning, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley outlined some of the major flaws with this aspect of the bill, and it largely related to the duty to consult. British Columbia has a higher proportion of first nations than any other province in the country. First nations in British Columbia want to see major projects built. They want to partner with the federal government, but they see parts of this legislation as a poison pill.”
“There is broad consensus in Canada that we need credential recognition, that we need to allow the foreign-trained nurses and doctors who we permitted into Canada under our immigration point systems to do exactly what they intended to do when they got to Canada. An hon. member: How would you do that? Brad Vis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has not. Frankly, in his riding, the Filipinos are very upset with him because he made that promise, and he cannot deliver on it. Conservatives proposed a blue seal program that would allow health care workers to transfer their skills easily across provinces and the establishment of a national competency body, similar to the Red Seal programs for trade.”
“I look forward to the Parliamentary Budget Officer giving a clear breakdown on what the economic positives or negatives of this bill will have on Canada's economy. Another massive and glaring omission in Bill C-5 is its failure to address another key thing Canadians wanted this election, and that was credential recognition for health care workers. In my province, we are facing a health care crisis. In fact, I receive more calls about hospital closures than almost any other subject in my constituency office. I have had constituents die because the health care centre in one town is too far away from the hospital where they could have received the medical treatment that used to be available in their community.”