2025 Federal Election candidate interviews — Brad Vis (Conservatives)

For the 2025 federal election, we asked each of Canada’s major parties* to connect us to a local candidate to talk about their policies and offer their perspective on issues of relevance to voters in the Fraser Valley’s five ridings between Langley and Hope.

We spoke to Brad Vis (Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford), John Aldag (Liberal, Langley Township—Fraser Heights), Teri Westerby (NDP, Chilliwack—Hope), and Melissa Snazell (Green, Abbotsford—South Langley).

We asked each candidate questions pertaining to their party’s specific policies and approach to voters. Each candidate was also asked: whether Canadians should boycott American products, their response to calls for federal funding to protect Sumas Prairie, how they reconciled their positions on resource development with the desire to respect First Nations’ traditional territory, and why they personally are running for office.

The Fraser Valley has one riding (Abbotsford—South Langley) in which the presence of a strong independent candidate creates a unique voting dynamic. We have invited every candidate from the riding for an interview. Watch for those later this week.

Below, you can watch our interview with Conservative candidate Brad Vis—or read the transcript.

You can find our interviews with candidates from the other major parties here:

John Aldag (Liberals) | Melissa Snazell (Greens) | Teri Westerby (NDP)

*In inviting a candidate from the Green Party but not others, we took our lead from the commission overseeing Canada’s federal debates, which defined a major party as one that held at least one seat in Parliament and was running candidates in 90% of ridings. After we had invited candidates, the commission rescinded its debate invitation to the Greens. We decided to proceed with our interview.

Check out our election hubs for more information on the candidates, the parties, and how to cast a ballot on Monday, April 28: Chilliwack & the Eastern Fraser Valley | Abbotsford & Mission | Langley

All interview transcripts have been lightly edited for clarity and concision. If you notice an error, email us.

Brad Vis (Conservative Party of Canada) | Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford

FVC: I've asked everybody else this—you're a little more straightforward—but tell me why you're running in this election.

Vis: First off, I'm running in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. It's an extension of my old riding—I was the MP for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, and I am running in this election to bring some much needed change in the Abbotsford, Mission, Harrison Hot Springs area. The cost of living has skyrocketed. We've seen an increase in crime and general affordability issues after 10 years of this Liberal government, and I really believe it's time for a new government to bring some much needed change and to focus on the economy.

Housing

FVC: So your party has made housing affordability a large part of your platform. How do you see your promises turning into reality? We've seen it with the BC NDP, and you've promised too: to overrule municipalities that block housing. Is your party willing to be the bad guys and say, ‘Okay, you actually need to be able to allow this apartment building to be built next to a single family house?’

Vis: Well, I wouldn't say that we would be—we don't have the constitutional jurisdiction to force Abbotsford or Mission or Harrison to do something that the provincial government could do. But what we can do is tie infrastructure dollars to developments. And Pierre Poilievre has stated many times that we would tie infrastructure dollars to the number of new homes built.

But in addition to that, he's been listening to the municipalities, and across the Fraser Valley, and I would say across Canada, we've seen a massive increase in development cost charges, just in the last year. So Pierre has said that, for municipalities that would reduce development cost charges on the end user, he would reimburse municipalities for up to 50% of those costs, or up to $50,000 per unit. That's a big savings for a new home buyer. And I think it's a good policy that listens to municipalities and the financial crunches that they've said they’re under. I really think this policy can make a difference.

I'll add on the federal side, much of the money that is allocated by the federal government for housing goes through the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Pierre has stated repeatedly that sometimes CMHC is very, very slow. Well, actually, not just Pierre. The whole country said that CMHC is very, very slow at getting money out for affordable housing units below market rate, rental units. We can work with CMHC to improve their response time to developers and to communities. And at the federal level, we can do a better job as well, and our Conservative party is committed to doing that.

FVC: So if cities cut those development cost charges, the feds will reimburse for half. Who's paying the other half?

Vis: Well is it still be the developer would cover anything additional on top of the $50,000 that a future Conservative federal government would cover, so those development cost charges now are borne by the developer. That wouldn't change other than through this program,

FVC: I thought you said up to 50%.

Vis: 50% or max of $50,000.

FVC: Because obviously the cities rely on those development cost charges pay for infrastructure that supports those houses.

Vis: So the idea, instead of the municipal governments charging developers these massive increases—we've seen them double in Abbotsford and Mission recently. So instead of the municipality charging those to the developers, if they reduced it for the developer, the federal government would pay a portion of what the city would need, according to their framework, up to $50,000.

FVC: I was going to get to this later, but where's the federal government get that money?

Vis: Well, the federal government already has billions of dollars allocated for housing, so it would come from existing envelopes. But in general, we have to look very closely. On a broader subject, beyond housing, a fair question: where's the money going to come from? That is the perennial question.

But I do believe that housing is a priority, and there will be continued funding for housing from the federal government, because we have a housing crisis and the federal government has a role to play. So the Conservative Party believes that we need to look very closely at how Ottawa is spending money and focus on priorities like housing, but making sure that there are results. We haven't seen results in the last 10 years like we should have. Despite close to $100 billion, I believe, has been allocated in the last 10 years. We can do a better job.

Foreign aid

FVC: When you talk about spending money better, one of the things that your party has suggested doing is cutting foreign aid. I spoke to Andy Harrington, who runs the Canadian Food Grains Bank, and he said that cuts to foreign aid are self damaging, because foreign aid, he is saying, has trickle down impacts that are positive, improves relationships, improves trade, and just keeps people alive. Why is your party suggesting a cut foreign aid by such a dramatic amount?

Vis: We would take money from foreign aid and put it into the Canadian military, because the Canadian military it needs new investments. We need naval vessels. We need destroyers that can go into Canada's Arctic. Our submarines are at the end of their life. We've committed to building a base in Iqaluit because the threats that Canada is facing, let's face it, we need to take those more seriously than we have in the past. And I believe that there is a broad consensus in Canada right now that the Canadian military, our men and women in armed forces, need a bit more attention.

FVC: Is it fair to do that on the back of foreign aid?

Vis: I think Canada has a lot of tough decisions to make about our program spending overall, and that's going to be a big responsibility of the next federal government is making those hard choices and making sure that Canada's security is a priority, and that making sure that we get those balances right. Those are tough decisions that a cabinet table is going to have to make. But in general, there needs to be more focus on the Canadian military.

Sumas Prairie and the Nooksack River

FVC: To move on kind of to the disaster prevention side of things: the federal government denied Abbotsford’s request for something like $1.6 to $2 billion in funding to address the threat of the Nooksack River. Would your government commit to actually providing that funding?

Vis: I'm committed to getting that funding for Abbotsford as a local MP, that is the top responsibility for anyone representing Abbotsford, to advocate for those specific funds. The problem is that those those commitments were made by Prime Minister Trudeau and various ministers who all visited Abbotsford and made specific commitments.

My responsibility, if I'm re elected, is to hold any federal government to those commitments. I am constantly reminding people in Ottawa that in Abbotsford, we have Highway 1, which is a major arterial route. And I don't have the exact statistics, but a huge portion of all goods that go out through the port in Vancouver cross through Abbotsford. We also have the southern rail line to United States and a border crossing, which is where we see billions of dollars in trade every single year.

We need to protect this area for the good of the country. I think it's a national issue, and it's no different than, say, the Port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have to protect this key trade corridor, and we have to protect this area because BC depends on it for our food security as well. So this is there's no specific commitment made by the Conservative Party, but as the local MP, I am going to hold any government accountable on this key issue.

And I'll say one thing here that you're probably not aware of, but a senior member of the Kearney government that I have a lot of respect for, who's been good to work with, said to a member of the BC caucus in December that they made those promises and they let us down full stop. We have not received the requisite money to build back in a way that accounts for climate change or the significant trade impacts and economic impacts that another flood would have in this area. We have to get this fixed.

FVC: I'm hearing you say, yes, you would like to see that. But the issue goes back to the same thing as military spending and foreign aid: there's only so much money to begin with. And when you start to look at the dollars that we're talking about to to protect Sumas Prairie or protect other places, there's a lot of money there and there's a lot of demands there. Do you actually expect your government to be able to fund those things? Why should people be be confident that, as with other governments in the past, the focus won't be on the shiny thing that's right now?

Vis: I need to make a strong case, as the local Member of Parliament, that this is important for food security and the overall economy of British Columbia. I need to work with everyone in the province—sort of like when I talked to you five or six years ago, and I said I'm going to work with everyone on Highway 1. I need to make the strongest case imaginable in Ottawa that this project absolutely needs funding. I need to continue working with Transport Canada, with Infrastructure Canada, to make sure that this project is top of mind, and the City of Abbotsford needs to be in Ottawa alongside their Member of Parliament fighting for these things. It's going to take a full a full affront to to make sure that we're heard and that we're not ignored moving forward.

I've been doing a very good job of that my whole time as an MP. I have faced some of the biggest disasters in Canada, and, as we talked about before we started, I had some great results in other portions of my riding. I've even had great results from dollar figure amount in seeing some of the key work on the Coquihalla and Highway 1 fixed right away. But we have to do a better job. And like I said, the number one job of an MP needs to be to protect this corridor, and that's going to be my focus.

I can't predict the future. All I can do is what's in my control and that that, and that is to make sure that this is top of mind for the officials, the deputy ministers going up into cabinet, that they don't ignore the significance of the Fraser Valley for Canada's trade and BC’s food production.

Disaster resiliency

FVC: You alluded to Lytton there. Given what you've seen there and what you've learned, what should the next government do to provide better support to communities that are rebuilding?

Vis: I think there needs to be some audits. First off, I know the provincial governments doing an audit. I’m not sure if it's been released yet or not, but I think at the federal level, we need to do an audit. Ottawa has a lot of expertise in disaster management, but we never really saw that on the ground.

Let me give you an example. Pacific Economic Development had $70 million in various funding envelopes, but the people writing the policies for this community, specifically for this community, had no idea what it takes for a rural resident of British Columbia to fill in an application, or even a regional or local government to meet some of the very strict and demanding criteria set by the Treasury Board in Ottawa. So I believe, learning from this experience, Ottawa needs to be more flexible. That's why audit is important, because it can look at how the programs were established to help people in recovery, and make sure that there's improvements and we can still have accountability, but there's more flexibility on the part of what the government's expecting of people.

They were asking like small business owners, for example—I remember there was a café right in downtown Lytton—for their previous business statements. Well, those were on a computer that were burned. They didn't have them, so then they can't complete an application, and the people writing the grants never thought of that, and that really held people back. And I also believe when there's a disaster, the federal government needs to think of core services. We're still in a fight for a grocery store out there. The government has made it very difficult: they should look at low-interest loans. These businesses, again, they lost all their records. We know we need a grocery store in town. What can the federal government do in terms of a low-interest loan to get this project going? It's an essential service.

So I think any future disaster: low interest loans, understanding the nature of what's taking place for essential services. We're talking pharmacies and grocery stores and banks specifically, those three.

Should Canadians boycott American products?

FVC: Moving on to the conversation around the relationship with the United States. Do you think Canadians should boycott American products?

Vis: I don't think we should boycott American products. I think we should do our best to shop local, but I don't believe Canadians are ready to give up their iPhones and Netflix. Canadians spend a lot of money on American culture in almost every single household. I don't think they they're willing to give that up, nor do I think they should. Let's not forget that the American administration is different than the people of America.

Two weeks ago, I was door knocking in around Clayburn Road, and I ran into a constituent who's very concerned about the Trump tariffs and their impact in Washington State, and how it would impact all those Canadians that have places in Birch Bay, or they go to Bellingham for their shopping. And they said they went down there, but they have a daughter living in Lynden, a dual-citizen daughter, and they said that so many Americans were upset about what the Trump administration was doing— Republicans and Democrats alike—because he never ran on this policy. He ran on a policy of affordability.

And I believe that we're better off when we trade, and that free trade actually leads to better results in the end. So we need to get back to free trade relationship with America as quickly as possible. Like the tariffs are wreaking havoc, especially where we live, and we we have to respond. We have to have retaliatory tariffs. We have to stand up. But I believe in the end that the good friendship between Canadians and Americans will last longer than the Trump administration.

‘Woke ideology’

FVC: Your leader has spoken about ‘woke ideology,’ and said that he wants to end ‘woke influence’ in federal support for university research. But there hasn't been much actual definitions of what he's talking about. What is ‘woke ideology’ in that?

Vis: Let me give one specific example from Employment and Social Development Canada. So both the Liberals and the Conservatives have said they would reintroduce trades grants. The federal government ran a program whereby they had a hiring incentive. If you were white, they would give you $5,000, but if you were a member of the LGBTQ community, or you are a visible minority, they would give you $10,000 to hire a trades person. I believe that under the law of Canada, we're all equal, all equal with taxpayers. We should all be equal under government programs, and we should focus on merit being number one.

[Editor’s note: Vis is referencing the Apprenticeship Service Program, which invited companies to hire first-year Red Seal apprentices in construction or manufacturing in 2021. According to the Western Investor, about half of BC’s apprentices under the program were of an ‘equity deserving group.’]

FVC: The same rhetoric, though, has been used in the United States—which is one reason why it's drawn attention here—to ban studies on climate change. It's been used to target programs aimed at improving representation universities. We have a university in the Fraser Valley that is trying to increase programs, increase supports and increase how many Indigenous students go to it. Where does the line stop, in focusing this on certain programs, but not others?

Vis: You started the question in reference to United States: let's just be very clear, the federal Conservatives in Canada are not the Republicans in the United States. We are two separate countries, two different political entities, and the Conservative Party has long been a big tent party in another country, and we do our very best to represent all different viewpoints and all different ways of life within our movement.

The policies or comments that our leader has made on universities have largely focused on an area that's been rejected by the Liberal government, and that's funding related to research, and research and development and commercialization, in conjunction with intellectual property. Across the party spectrum, we know that our intellectual property laws are out of date … [We have a] role in making sure that Canada at the forefront of the AI revolution, we're going through, and that any money invested by the federal government is going to pay off through a renewed focus on competition and commercialization policy. That will be a win-win for Canadian researchers, university students, and the broader Canadian economy.

FVC: But when you're talking about incentives for essentially hiring people, there are incentives that our universities use to increase representation. There's incentives other organizations use to try ensure that their staff is representative of the people they're serving,. The specific thing you referenced is not so divorced from very basic stuff that has been in existence for decades in some places.

Vis: I'll go back to my previous point. The Conservative Party believes in merit, that if you're a Canadian citizen, you're going to have an equal chance to apply for whatever job in the public service, and you're going to be based on what you can bring to the table, the skill sets you have, and how you can perform that function. That is the focus of the Conservative Party, equality under the law, equal opportunity.

Economic development and reconciliation

FVC: Your party leader and the leader the Liberals have both suggested we need to streamline approvals for large economic development projects. How do you do that, in line with commitments to First Nations and Indigenous communities to respect their traditional territories? Will the government actually listen to concerns that are mentioned? How do you approach that?

Vis: Pierre recognizes this very important aspect of resource development, and that is partnership and consultation with our First Nations. And that's more relevant in British Columbia than any other part of Canada.

We had Manny Jules from the Kamloops First Nation develop a policy on equity sharing, so that when a First Nation does participate in resource development, or they're entitled to funding in their traditional territory, that they would be able to strike deals with companies. Indigenous Services Canada would be left out of the equation, and those First Nations would be receiving funding directly. So our approach was to incorporate an Indigenous perspective from day one. I'm not saying it's going to be perfect, but that's a huge step forward, and we're the only party that went to a First Nations leader in BC—who's done more on First Nations financial accountability than really anyone in Canada—and say, ‘How can we move forward and take positive steps to ensure that First Nations are at the table, their voices are heard, and our constitutional responsibilities on both sides are respected?”

I really stand by that approach. I think it's the right one, and we're going to hopefully see some great results, because the largest employer of First Nations in Canada is mining, oil, and gas. I want to see the First Nations major project coalition of finance, First Nation-led projects in natural resources. This is a win-win for everyone.

And going back to your earlier comments about President Trump and the real threat he's put on Canada's economy, we have to move forward with a robust natural resource plan, because it's the best way to protect Canadian sovereignty. Think back in when we were in Grade 10, you had to learn about John A Macdonald running on a campaign promise to build a railway from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. I think in the 21st century, we need to be thinking about LNG terminals on BC’s coasts, and critical mineral mines in our province and literally across Canada, especially in the Ring of Fire up by Hudson Bay, to to make the money that we need to diversify our economy.

Canada has an advantage, but we haven't taken advantage of that advantage, and I know the only way forward is working with First Nations. It's not going to be perfect, but I think overall, in Canada, our mindsets have changed, and we see in the Conservative Party, economic reconciliation through natural resources as a way to build people up and make sure that First Nations are rich and prosperous and are autonomous in ways that they could never imagine even 20 years ago.

Access to information

FVC: Would a Conservative government improve Canada's access to information system that's deteriorated over the recent decades, including times in which both parties were in power?

Vis: Yes. We have to. It is unbelievably hard, even for me. You have no idea how much I rely on ATIPs to get information, because it's impossible to to get it any other way, and it's slow. I'm talking like six months to a year for some of my my personal requests.

Not only that, we've made commitments to improve accountability on conflicts of interest, given that we don't even know where the Prime Minister filed his taxes last year, and as the Globe and Mail has outlined, Mark Carney's quick appointment by the Governor General to the office of Prime Minister, and then the snap election, gave him a window to go into the campaign without fulfilling all of the obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act that every elected Member of Parliament is required to do. But he's not an elected Member of Parliament. So that put us in a in an interesting situation.

We've been fighting a very big fight, on access to information. In fact, Parliament was shut down—well, I wouldn't say shut down. Parliament was seized with a question of privilege from September to December, when Speaker [Greg] Fergus ruled that the government was not producing the documents that they were required to under the Parliament's ability to access information on sustainable development technology. One of the reasons Mark Carney couldn't even bring Parliament back, was because he knew that if he did, he would again be after prorogation. He would be subject to the same orders that the speaker made before: that is, he would have to bring before Parliament the papers that showed that the Liberal government clearly benefited their friends and insiders with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for environmental initiatives that should have never been funded, solely because the conflict of interest laws in Canada weren't being upheld. Our position was that those documents should go to the RCMP. They didn't agree with us. They shut down Parliament. We went to a snap election. We have to do better as a country.

[Editor’s note: CBC has an analysis of the situation from October of last year, when the RCMP received some documents from the government that did not include evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This story from iPolitics looks at the procedure behind the parliamentary privilege.]

FVC: So we're going to go on. Every party so that seems to say they want to improve access to information until they get into government. We'll be here in 40 years, and we will revisit this and see where we are on that.

Vis: The Auditor General and other major forces have said it has never been so bad, and everything the Liberal government was completely contrary to Access to Information. It is a disaster. Democracy Watch called out Canada for the negative steps the Liberals have taken to reduce access to information, and as a Member of Parliament, I have been able to do less on flood mitigation because they wouldn't give me the information I needed to serve in our community and to bring the decisions of government to light as they should be.

The interview concluded.

You can find our interviews with Fraser Valley candidates from other major parties here:

John Aldag (Liberals) | Melissa Snazell (Greens) | Teri Westerby (NDP)