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 8 of 13.
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Liberal government misled Canadians when it made the promise that interprovincial trade barriers would actually be eliminated in Canada by 2025. The CBC reported in January that interprovincial trade is still like a 9% tariff on the Canadian economy, accounting for $210 billion of lost goods. I will ask the question again. Can the Prime Minister provide a specific date, not just when alcohol will be free to trade but when all services and goods will be free to trade in Canada among provinces to build our country up?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister 's promising to eliminate all federal barriers to interprovincial trade by Canada Day 2025, that promise has proven to be an illusion. In many cases, it is still easier for British Columbian distilleries to sell their products to Washington state than to Nova Scotia. Can the Prime Minister provide a specific date when it will be easier for British Columbian distillers to sell in Canada versus in the United States?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to acknowledge today that by including the removal of the religious defence clause, his actions have actually sown more fear and division in Canadian society. This was a bill on which there was broad consensus when it was first brought forward. With the inclusion of the removal of the religious defence clause, he has diminished public support for the position he is taking. Will he acknowledge that this amendment will cause more division and fear among religious communities, especially in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, which is one of the most faith-based ridings in all of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, petitioners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford are concerned about Bill C-9 , which would amend the Criminal Code to address hate propaganda and hate crimes. The Liberals are proposing an amendment to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code that protects good faith expressions of beliefs based on religious texts. Therefore, the petitioners and permanent residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to reject any amendment to Bill C-9 that would remove the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, to protect Canada's constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression and ensure that legislation does not criminalize good faith, religious discourse or teaching.”
“Mr. Speaker, petitioners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford are concerned about the recreational fishery, specifically related to coho and chinook. They are imploring the Minister of Fisheries to listen to both Conservatives and Liberals, scrap her policy proposal and maintain recreational access for all British Columbians.”
“Only with strong leadership can we protect Canadians, prioritize jobs for our youth and secure a sustainable future for our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have created an immigration crisis that is straining housing, health care and jobs. As of January, non-permanent residents outnumbered unemployed Canadians, and the Liberals are expanding immigration streams that push our young people further away from employment. Six million Canadians cannot find a family doctor, but taxpayers are now spending $1 billion per year to cover the health care costs of refugee claimants, and the government has no clear plan for the nearly three million temporary residents whose permits are expiring this year. Canadians deserve a competent immigration minister. The immigration minister 's own caucus is not confident in her ability to handle these out-of-control problems. It is time for decisive action.”
“Petitioners note that it would be devastating to our tourism economy and the millions of dollars that flow into conservation efforts. Constituents are calling on the Minister of Fisheries to leave current salmon allocation policies alone and uphold the cultural rights and traditions of all British Columbians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford who are deeply concerned about proposed changes to the salmon allocation policy, which would decimate recreational fishing opportunities for coho and chinook in British Columbia. Recreational fishers fully recognize conservation and first nations' constitutionally protected food, social, ceremonial and commercial fisheries. For generations, salmon have been managed by the government as a common property resource held in trust for the benefit of all Canadians. Changing this common property principle risks turning a shared public resource into an exclusive privilege that would reduce access for many Canadians and undermine confidence in fisheries management.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always amusing listening to the speeches by the member for St. Catharines . In 2015, in the Niagara Region, the average cost of a home was about $270,000. Today, it is about $600,000. The same experts that the member referenced, and I will acknowledge they are experts and do a lot of great work in our community, also endorsed the plan in 2015 that was supposed to make housing affordable across Canada. The reality is that after 10 years of Liberal government, every viable metric on housing has only gotten worse. Why should we give the Liberals any more confidence to address this crisis, which has hurt hundreds of thousands of young people and destroyed what their concept of Canada was because of the Liberals' bad policies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford who are deeply concerned about the proposed expansion of medical assistance in dying to individuals whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness. My constituents fear that expanding MAID in this way risks normalizing suicide as a response to mental illness. They believe instead that Canada should prioritize and strengthen mental health supports for those who are suffering. They therefore call on the government to support Bill C-218 and halt the expansion of MAID to those with a mental illness.”
“Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. Why would the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure think it responsible to develop a new government agency, with the use of taxpayer dollars, without set targets and timelines to outline to Canadians how many homes would actually be built?”
“Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in response to the member for Winnipeg North is that it is time for the Liberals to stop playing politics with the lives and security of Canadians. I will offer him the opportunity to clarify his earlier statements on Bill C-16 and how he misled Canadians with his false statements on what is included in that legislation. I will take no lessons from the member. Again, the Liberals need to work constructively with Conservatives, to vote for bills and laws and support motions that are going to put the safety and security of Canadians first. We have not seen that from the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, when our institutions work as they should, people feel safer, victims know where to turn, investigations can move forward, and communities can stand strong in the face of intimidation and violence. Unfortunately, due to the changes Liberals have made over the last 10 years, that is not the case in Canada right now. We know what we need to do. The motion before us today is a step in the right direction. We want the Liberal government to work collaboratively with us and to stop putting its politics ahead of public safety in Canada. We need better from the government. It is not doing a good enough job to protect Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have already had the debate in this chamber between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 in good faith. The Liberals' attempt to bring up another issue that was not related to their election platform in the amendments they made in Bill C-9 disrupted a lot of good work that we could have done collaboratively on behalf of Canadians. Instead, when it was right before Christmas, in December, the Liberals chose not to work with us and to put a wrench in the notion of what freedom of religion means in Canada, when we could have been debating these issues in more detail. What police also need and what they have been calling for are additional resources and for the Liberals to make sure there are no judicial vacancies.”
“This motion reflects exactly what Conservatives have promised Canadians: to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, bar non-citizens facing serious criminal proceedings from making refugee claims, end leniency that allows criminals to avoid deportation, and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so repeat extortionists stay in jail. These measures are fair, lawful and absolutely necessary. They would protect victims, newcomers and communities alike, and they would restore a sense of justice in our country. The issue before us is not complicated. It comes down to a simple question: Will Parliament stand with victims or with the loopholes that protect criminals? The choice before the House is clear.”
“Allowing extortionists to hide behind asylum claims undermines public confidence and endangers communities, including immigrant communities, who are often targeted first. Conservatives believe deeply in protecting genuine refugees, those fleeing persecution and violence, but when violent criminals can claim refugee status to delay deportation, something has to change. That is why last November, Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that would have updated the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to bar asylum claims from being made by those who had been convicted of serious crimes in Canada. The Liberals rejected it, and nothing has changed.”
“(1550) Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison sentences for serious firearm-related crimes, including extortion involving a weapon. Bill C-75 entrenched a principle of restraint in bail decisions that too often results in repeat violent offenders being released back into the community while awaiting trial. It is not every day that every single premier in the country stands against an action by a standing government. They did on that law. They did it because what the government did was so egregious that every premier, New Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, agreed that the government had failed badly and eroded any sense of justice in this nation. In British Columbia, police have raised new concerns about transnational crime networks, some involving individuals with no legal right to remain in Canada.”
“Today, police in British Columbia report that they are overwhelmed, arresting the same offenders again and again. Communities are left to deal with the fallout. Business owners are left to fend for themselves. Victims are left asking whether the justice system in fact works for them. This is the direct result of Liberal catch-and-release laws, weak sentencing and revolving-door bail policies that are enabling repeat offenders to return to the streets, placing families, workers and businesses at risk. Our motion today also addresses the government's refusal to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , laws that have weakened consequences for serious and repeat offenders. We mention those laws again because their consequences will even touch on the legislation in this chamber and the impact of what the Liberals say it is going to do.”
“Less than a month ago, police investigated an extortion-related shooting that damaged a local business and nearby vehicles. This was part of a series that included 34 reported threats, 21 victims and seven shots-fired calls in just 19 days. Law-abiding Canadians must be able to trust that crime will be met with firm and proportionate consequences. Instead, serious crime is too often met with delay, leniency and the absence of real consequences. More than a year ago, I sponsored legislation in the House through Bill C-381 , the protection against extortion act. This legislation would have delivered real jail time for serious offences, stronger penalties for organized crime involvement and a clear denunciation of extortion as a violent and coercive crime. The government, the Liberals, voted against it.”
“In places like Abbotsford, threatening extortion letters have unsettled entire neighbourhoods and placed growing strain on local police. These are the lived realities of Canadians who seek nothing more than to work, raise their families and live in peace. Since the Liberals took office nearly 10 years ago, violent crime has increased by 54% and extortion is up 330%. This is not a marginal increase. This is a systemic failure. Again, the member for St. Catharines talked about decreasing crime. Well, guess what. The cities of Surrey and Abbotsford in British Columbia, just in the last year, have had to create many special task forces to deal with the problem at hand here today. The reason is that the Liberal government failed to act, full stop.”
“Across British Columbia, and across Canada, that responsibility is being tested with increasing urgency. Recent data and public warnings point to a troubling rise in organized extortion and related criminal activity, while the response required to confront this threat has too often been delayed. For too long, policies that weaken consequences for serious crime and blur the integrity of our immigration system have eroded public confidence in safety and justice. After nearly a decade, Canadians are asking a fundamental question: Why do criminals feel more confident, while communities feel more vulnerable? From small business owners and construction workers to truck drivers and young families, ordinary Canadians are facing intimidation that disrupts their livelihoods and undermines stability.”
“They allotted one of our supply days early on because they would rather push forward their new agenda, to say we are delaying things in the House of Commons, before the Prime Minister likely calls a spring election. That is what is taking place today. The government controls the House calendar. We heard the rhetoric from the member for St. Catharines , with his anger and confusion, but we are only here today because the Liberals did not want to talk about their own bills, full stop. I rise in support of what we are talking about today. The safety of our communities is the first duty of a free and just society. Unfortunately, the Liberals forgot that for 10 years. The foremost responsibility of any government is to protect law-abiding citizens.”
“Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Richmond East—Steveston , who spoke earlier, I would just like to clarify some comments on Bill C-16 that I heard in the House. Bill C-16 would not change the offence of extortion itself and would not create any new mandatory minimum sentences for extortion. It would add extortion as an explicit aggravating factor. It would not redefine extortion. It would not increase the maximum penalty for extortion. It would not add a new mandatory minimum for extortion, and it would not create any new stand-alone offences for extortion either. I just wanted to clarify those points for the House of Commons before I began. The reason we are here today with another opposition day motion is that the Liberals told us we needed to have one today.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously the member for St. Catharines is very disturbed. Maybe he needs a cup of coffee. I am surprised the Liberals let him speak today. Normally, it is only the member for Winnipeg North . I feel bad for him. In respect— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of hot air in the chamber this afternoon. We have not heard the member for St. Catharines lose his mind for quite some time. I am actually quite disturbed by what I heard and how much anger and confusion he seems to have as an individual member. I can see why the Liberals have not let him speak for quite a while. That was just an egregious example of what a member of Parliament should not be doing—”
“This is why our Conservative motion demands that the government close loopholes exploited by serious offenders, repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , end repeat offender cycles and ensure that violent criminals cannot use the system to delay or avoid removal from Canada. We also refuse to let the Liberals play politics with the safety and security of Canadians any longer.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing a surge in violent extortion that is shaking communities across the country. Families and small business owners in my own community are living with a level of fear they have never known before. Extortion has risen by 330% since the Liberals were elected. In British Columbia it has climbed more than 480%. In B.C., 14 accused extortionists have paused removal by claiming refugee status, exposing the blatant abuse of our asylum system. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their home, on their streets and in their place of work. We owe it to them to strengthen protections and to ensure that violent offenders face meaningful consequences.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the residents of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford regarding the gun confiscation program, which will cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. They feel it unfairly targets law-abiding, responsible and licensed gun owners, while doing nothing to address public safety and rising crime rates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the cost to compensate firearms owners alone will exceed $750 million. Even the public safety minister has serious doubts as to the effectiveness of the program, as do police jurisdictions across Canada. The petitioning residents call upon the Government of Canada to immediately rescind the program and prioritize public safety with real change such as bail reform.”
“Mr. Speaker, I oppose the establishment of another officer of Parliament because it would degrade the work we should be doing as members of Parliament and would not take concrete action to hold the minister accountable for their responsibilities to sign treaties. There is no consequence for not signing treaties in this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I were standing here today and the Minister of Indigenous Services was before Parliament saying that they had signed multiple treaties that were going to empower young indigenous Canadians to start businesses, have access to their resources and have better certainty for home ownership. However, we are not there, and we have not seen any of that in the last decade. That is unfortunate. I do not believe in establishing another officer of Parliament because it will lead to more red tape. Again, in the last 10 years, there have been no treaties signed. Why not? Where has the minister been? The minister has not done their job.”
“Mr. Speaker, what lies behind my opposition to this is that we, as individual members of Parliament, have so much more power than I think almost any of us even attempt to exercise. If this bill is successful, all the powers outlined in Bill C-10 for the actions of the commissioner, the officer of Parliament, would be for what we as members of Parliament already can do. If we care about seeing treaties operationalize, and in the context of British Columbia this is so important right now, first and foremost we have to devote ourselves as MPS to holding the minister accountable. We can do that through the tools we have already. It is up to us, the elected people. We should not dismiss our responsibilities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will note, as I did in my speech, that there are many reports from the Auditor General outlining the issues we have had with implementing treaty rights for indigenous peoples of Canada. They have never been followed through on. The argument I was making throughout my speech is that we do not actually enforce the mandate of the executive of the Crown to fulfill treaty obligations. I do not believe another officer of Parliament would lead us to better objectives.”
“The honour of the Crown is not measured by the number of commissioners we appoint; it is measured by promises kept. Modern treaties deserve execution, not another report. For these reasons, I will vote against this bill.”
“Those are important aspirations, but they are realized only when governments do what they have promised, on time and in full, not when we create a new office to monitor yet another delay. Modern treaties do deliver certainty for indigenous governments, neighbouring communities, investors and private property owners who need predictable rules. This is reconciliation by results, grounded in the rule of law. Conservatives, of course, support modern treaties and indigenous communities seeking to move beyond the paternalistic Indian Act. We will oppose Bill C-10 because it confuses monitoring for delivery. Conservatives will insist on ministerial responsibility, acting on audits and the respect of a practical approach, one that leads to real results.”
“By making an officer of Parliament central to executive treaty functions, we would be subtly shifting accountability away from ministers and towards an umpire whose principal tool would be a report. That is not how we deliver reconciliation. Canadians are facing real affordability pressures. The answers cannot be to grow administrative overhead while frontline outcomes stall. Dollars should flow to delivery, not duplication. If we need transparency, we can use existing parliamentary tools such as committee mandates, Order Paper questions, supply votes, public accounts and Auditor General follow-ups, so performance and spending are scrutinized where they belong. The preamble to Bill C-10 invokes UNDRIP, modern treaties as living documents and the honour of the Crown.”
“The commissioner's appointment and tenure mandate is framed around assessing consistency with Crown honour and broad objectives, discretion over reviews and audits, reports tabled by Speakers and referred to committees, annual and special reports, parliamentary reviews within 10 years, independent reviews every five to seven years and consequential amendments adding the office to key statutes. All of this is oversight machinery, but there are no enforcement levers to compel execution of obligations already within our laws. We are proliferating process instead of guaranteeing performance. We are not fixing diffusion over responsibility across departments; we are adding a new layer above it.”
“He notes that we need to call out the current government for not living up to its obligations to treaty bands that negotiated in good faith and sets out two practical Conservative solutions. Number one is that the government needs to do its job to respect and implement treaties. Number two is that, if a treaty band has an issue with government, it should go to MPs to help its representatives amplify its voice. It should come to Ottawa to hold us accountable for what we are here to do. These principles align with a ministerial responsibility model. They empower the parties to solve overlaps, require the minister to remove federal roadblocks, and ensure Parliament has the performance lens to see whether the minister has, in fact, delivered. Members can consider the bill's architecture.”
“When the Auditor General flags failures, the minister should table an action plan, perhaps in 60 days, and committees should hold accountability hearings until commitments are met. There should be consequences for non-performance, tying senior official performance pay to treaty milestones and, where chronic delays persist, changing leadership. Accountability must be felt inside departments, not outsourced to a new office. (1555) My colleague from the Haisla Nation emphasized that overlap issues among first nations should be worked out between the affected nations and not left to the courts or government to impose solutions. This is real partnership that respects indigenous leadership to resolve boundaries through negotiation rather than litigation.”
“We should mandate clarity and require the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to embed modern treaty implementation milestones in departmental mandates and Treasury Board frameworks, so obligations would not be optional, but operational. We should have routine reporting to Parliament. The minister could proactively report to Parliament during Routine Proceedings, tabling quarterly treaty implementation statements, including what has been met, what has been delayed and how each delay would be fixed, with specific dates and supporting documents. This is how Parliament is supposed to exercise its core function of scrutinizing performance and spending in public. We can act on audits.”
“It would require coordination with the Auditor General to avoid duplication and provide access to information and immunity provisions, yet nowhere does the bill compel ministers or departments to act when they fail to meet treaty obligations. It would be monitoring without muscle. For years, the Auditor General has produced reports detailing implementation delays and fragmented responsibilities. The problem has never been insufficient reporting. The problem has been a lack of ministerial responsibility and follow-through. Adding a new office and more reports would not build a single home, deliver clean water or move one project to completion. Accountability requires consequences, not another commissioner. If we want real progress, we must return to fundamental ministerial responsibility.”
“They are transparent, publicly accountable instruments that reconcile aboriginal rights and title with Crown title and give certainty to all parties. They are accessible. Nothing is redacted and they acknowledge one country, one set of laws and management plans designed to benefit everyone. My colleague, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , has noted that modern treaties provide the most transparent and accountable form of reconciliation. Nobody is put at a disadvantage and the final agreements can be accessed and read by anyone. The member from the Haisla Nation would know better than most people in this chamber. The bill would hand the commissioner discretion to set priorities, conduct reviews and performance audits, issue findings and recommendations, and table final reports in Parliament.”
“Our core functions in the House are to debate, scrutinize and approve spending, as well as to hold the executive to account. Creating an officer of Parliament to hover over executive treaty work veers away from our legislative remit and blurs lines of responsibility. The bill's machinery of appointment, mandate, review, audit and tabling would recast a fundamentally executive obligation as a parliamentary oversight project, which is a category error. Parliament should enforce accountability through votes, questions, committee scrutiny and the public accounts process, not by inventing new officers to monitor what ministers should already execute. The honour of the Crown is upheld by action, not by multiplying overseers. Modern treaties are not obscure documents.”
“Mr. Speaker, in reference to the debate that just took place, I do not believe the Liberal government has passed very many treaties in the last decade. It is almost as though the Liberals are slapping themselves on the wrist for not doing their job. Today, I rise to oppose Bill C-10 , an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The stated aim of the bill is better accountability in modern treaty implementation. It sounds attractive, but what this bill would really do is create another officer of Parliament and another office, expanding oversight without enforcement, duplication without delivery and bureaucracy without results. At the heart of this debate is a constitutional first principle. Signing and enacting treaties is the duty of the Crown, of the executive, and not of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, what can Parliament not do that is contained in Bill C-10 ? My concern with the bill is that it is simply an admonishment that Parliament has not been doing its job holding the executive accountable already. What is to stop the existing standing committee from issuing a report or conducting an audit? Parliament already has these powers. Why do we need another officer of Parliament to do the job of parliamentarians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford who are seeking certainty for funding for the salmon enhancement program beyond the current budget end of March 31. The salmon enhancement program is a great educational tool in the province of B.C. that teaches biology and the salmon cycle to many youth. This program is administered by the Pacific Streamkeepers Federation to provide training to volunteers who protect the aquatic health, habitat status and stock assessments within their communities. They therefore call upon the Government of Canada to reconsider how the $544 million of cuts to DFO are administered, so as not to affect program spending specifically.”
“Mr. Speaker, small businesses are paying the price for the Prime Minister 's economic inaction. In January, 52,000 private sector jobs were lost and $39 billion in investment fled to the United States. Canadian businesses are delaying expansion and workers are losing their livelihoods. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but growth is flat and not a single anti-development or major regulation has been removed by this government. When will the Prime Minister empower the private sector to build at a scale necessary to protect Canada's economy in the face of American threats?”
“(1140) By supporting this bill, we stand with the entrepreneurs who keep our communities vibrant, who employ our neighbours and who trust their government will treat them fairly. Bill C-230 tells them that when it comes to tax obligations and debt forgiveness, transparency applies to everyone, especially when the sums involved are large. For these reasons, I urge all members of this House to consider supporting Bill C-230 to provide a degree of accountability and confidence in our taxation system.”
“When that same small business owner gets a call from a CRA agent because they are short by a couple of hundred dollars on their last submission in their CRA online account, it sticks with them. Transparency would restore a sense of confidence in Canada. This bill would also strengthen fiscal discipline. Public disclosure encourages careful decision-making, ensures that debt forgiven is properly documented and allows Parliament and Canadians to better understand how public funds are managed. Sunlight, as the saying goes, is the best disinfectant. Bill C-230 would not raise taxes. It would not create new penalties. It would simply affirm a basic principle that small businesses already live by every day: Accountability matters.”
“It would apply only to large entities and only above a significant monetary threshold. It would not expose personal information, nor would it interfere with legitimate tax administration. The bill would also include targeted, consequential amendments to existing tax and excise statutes to ensure that confidential information may be disclosed solely for the purpose of maintaining the registry. In other words, the disclosure is limited, lawful and purposeful. For small businesses, fairness is not about preferential treatment. It is about knowing that everyone plays by the same rules. When a local retailer struggles to meet remittance deadlines while reading headlines about massive corporate writeoffs, confidence in the system erodes.”