Debates of Feb. 12th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Automotive Strategy

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I said that because the Liberal record already shows what failure looks like. The Liberals gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Stellantis to build a manufacturing plant here. They claimed they were going to get it back. They claimed there was a promise of jobs. What did Stellantis do? It took the money and ran down to the United States to build jobs and cars in the United States.

What is so different here? How will this rebate actually produce jobs and improve the economy in Canada? It is all going to benefit the United States.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that EVs are the future.

There are currently no EV assembly plants in Quebec. However, subsidies for purchasing EVs are effective because they fast-track the electrification of transportation and make EVs more affordable.

What does the Conservative Party have against more affordable EVs?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against affordable electric vehicles. I have nothing against affordable gas and diesel vehicles. I have nothing against them.

My opposition has to do with how the rebate is essentially going to fix a dying economy in the United States, Ford and General Motors, while at the same time it will benefit Tesla, an American company that will benefit from more carbon credits.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I am standing in the House of Commons since the tragic event that happened on Tuesday, February 10. On behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe, our thoughts and prayers go to the community of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia.

I would also like to ask a question of my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Despite the Liberal government's commitment of $52 billion to an EV supply chain, most vehicles made and sold in Canada remain gas powered, so that policy would reward countries that already dominate EV production.

Could my colleague please expand on this concern, which could affect many Canadians?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about, and what I try to talk about, is a made-in-Canada approach for Canadians. We have asked questions of the Canadian government about funding initiatives in Skeena—Bulkley Valley that would produce jobs and revenues for Canadians. We are talking about Telkwa Coal, which needs infrastructure. Terrace's industrial lands need infrastructure help. We are talking about the Stewart port, which needs infrastructure dollars. We have had no answers.

We have the answers for a made-in-Canada approach. We do not need an approach that helps a dying electric vehicle industry in the United States. That is what this rebate is going to do. It is going to rescue the electric vehicle industry in the United States.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not seem to recognize the integrated automobile industry between Canada and the United States. Many of the parts come from Canada or will be manufactured in Canada. They will go to the United States to be put into electric vehicles, and then, yes, some of them will come back to Canada.

Does he recognize the integration of the automobile industry in Canada?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do recognize that integration, but it is not only in the auto industry. We are intricately connected in all sorts of trade. That is why the CUSMA negotiations are so important, but the diversification we are talking about does not mean we should spend 2.3 billion of Canadian tax dollars to help a dying industry in the United States.

Why are we not investing that into the industry in Canada to bring back the jobs that were lost just this past year under the Liberal government?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Simcoe North, and it is always an honour to rise in the chamber to speak about issues that matter to Canadians.

Before we get into the opposition day motion, the supply day motion, it is important to discuss, with respect to electric vehicles, how we came to be here today.

For years, the Liberal government was chasing an electric vehicle mandate such that, by 2035, 100% of the vehicles sold in this country needed to be electric. For years, the Liberals were wedded to this ideological view that the government should force people to drive certain kinds of vehicles. That was against all the advice from industry. Officials at Environment and Climate Change Canada even raised the prospect that the electric vehicle mandate would drive up the prices of used cars, in turn hurting low-income Canadians, and would harm individuals in rural and northern communities because of a lack of access to infrastructure.

Since the EV mandate was proposed, Conservatives constantly and consistently demanded that the EV mandate be abolished. I suppose one might say or think that Conservatives should now be very happy because that EV mandate has been abolished. I suppose one might think that we should be applauding the government for listening to Conservatives, for listening to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who do not want to be told what kind of vehicle to drive. The challenge the government has is that it has now replaced the electric vehicle mandate with an electric vehicle rebate scheme, which it is now reintroducing, that will subsidize the purchase by Canadians of electric vehicles that are not produced in Canada.

In this moment, we do not just have massive deficits. We have deficits double the size of what even former prime minister Justin Trudeau projected. In a time when we have these massive deficits, the government is bringing forward an unfunded program. It needs to borrow additional money to fund this new rebate scheme, where Canadian tax dollars will be going outside of the country to purchase vehicles not built in Canada.

There is another way. It includes the Conservative proposal to take the GST off Canadian-assembled vehicles to reward production that stays in Canada. The automotive sector is on its knees. It is 50% smaller today than it was when the Liberals first took office in 2015. We have seen automotive production continue to be sucked south of the border. President Donald Trump has made it his explicit objective to take Canadian auto sector jobs because, in his words, Americans “don't need” Canadian-made automobiles; they want American-made automobiles.

Of the $2.3 billion set aside for this rebate program, the lion's share of that amount will go to Canadians to purchase vehicles not assembled in Canada. Even worse, a large amount, millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of dollars, will go to American automakers that are assembling vehicles in the United States and sending them to Canada. It is bewildering. It is stupefying. It makes no sense why we would take Canadian tax dollars and send them out of the country. It makes even less sense that we would take those tax dollars and send them to American companies. Why would we reward President Trump for his behaviour?

This is all too common a pattern of behaviour for the government. It introduces bad laws and bad regulation against reasonable advice, only to turn around and reverse itself and then expect that it will be applauded, that it deserves a medal. However, we do not have to think very hard about those examples. It took the Liberals years to realize they made a mistake with the carbon tax. In fact, they went on for years saying that the carbon tax put more money in Canadians' pockets. Then, when they cancelled the carbon tax, they said they were doing it to make life more affordable. No one can make this up.

They also seem to believe that the way forward is to assemble vehicles in Canada for export to markets other than the United States. That is just pure fantasy. There is no planet where it makes sense to build cars in Canada to send to Europe, China or to other countries, other than the United States. This is also evidenced by them linking the tailpipe emissions standards and aligning them with Europe. Those regulations make no sense. We should be aligning on a continental fuel-efficient standard so that vehicles can be assembled in Mexico, the United States or Canada to be sold in those markets. It is just not realistic.

Not only will we be diverging on our standards but safety standards for vehicles in Europe are incredibly different from those in Canada and the United States. That means that vehicles need to be assembled in a different way. It is just not a practical solution. We absolutely need to maintain an integrated market in North America for vehicles. We need to make a deal with the United States that would see a de-escalation of this trade war, especially as it relates to automobiles being produced in Canada. These jobs are not just a job for one individual. These jobs support families. These jobs support communities. These jobs are supported by thousands of other jobs throughout the rest of the supply chain in the conventional vehicle market.

I know the government likes to claim that there are electric vehicle parts produced in Canada for the integrated EV market in the U.S. and that some of the parts in these vehicles will be made in Canada and eventually shipped back in a finished vehicle, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the thousands of parts in the conventional internal combustion engine vehicles that are currently made today and that need to go to the U.S. It is absolutely imperative that we do not decouple and believe there is some fantasyland where Canadians are going to start making vehicles for shipping elsewhere around the world. China is already building plants in eastern Europe. Car manufacturers are building plants in Europe to service that market to reduce transportation costs. We need to be realistic that the most likely scenario to save our auto sector is to ensure market access for Canadian autos, and we should be rewarding Canadians for purchasing Canadian-made products.

In my last 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you a happy Valentine's Day. I would like to wish my wife a happy Valentine's Day, as well as my two children, my friends at sunny ways and my close friends, including Tom Barlow.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The Chair takes no position on any such matters, but happy Valentine's Day and happy Family Day too.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague claims to defend Canadians' choice to drive whatever car they want, so why is he against a strategy that makes EVs more affordable, protects Canadian jobs and gives consumers the freedom to pick their own car?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence to suggest that the rebate will protect Canadian jobs, because that rebate is going to go primarily to automakers who do not produce vehicles in Canada. What is even worse is that the rebate is actually higher in the upfront years, the next one or two years, and tapers off. By the time Canadian automakers might actually be producing electric vehicles, that rebate is going to be even less. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that this rebate will protect Canadian jobs. We should take the GST off Canadian-made vehicles. That is a direct way to support Canadian auto workers and their families.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his joyful words. I have a question for him.

Why are the Conservatives getting all worked up about EV subsidies, saying that this encourages foreign auto manufacturers, but they are perfectly fine with giving about $10 billion in subsidies every year to the oil industry, 60% of which is owned by Americans?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that was the member's first question of me, and I am pleased to serve in this chamber with him.

I am not sure I would agree with the premise that there is $10 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector. I do believe that in a resource-constrained and fiscally constrained environment, we need to question every single dollar that is spent, and why we would subsidize the purchase of vehicles that are not made in Canada. With respect to the oil and gas sector, we need to make sure that we have more pipelines in this country to get our resources to market, and we need to work with the provinces to make that happen. That would produce more jobs for Canadians here at home.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the regulatory harmony that existed between Canada and the United States, which led to the growth of the North American auto sector. With this shift in the EV mandate, the government has moved over to a rebate system.

With the regulatory environmental standards that the Liberals are now putting in place, would the member not agree that this will do more harm to the Canadian auto sector and not help it?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have an integrated auto market in North America. Part of that means we need to make sure our regulatory environment is harmonized. If we are going to decouple the regulations and align our tailpipe emissions with the European Union, we will not be able to send our vehicles into the U.S.

I have a newsflash for the government: It will not be economical for us to ship vehicles from Canada to Europe when there is overcapacity of supply there and additional manufacturing being built to supply that market to reduce transportation costs. China is already building plants in eastern Europe. We will not be able to do it. The most likely destination for our vehicles is the United States. Of what we produce, 80% is exported, and 90% of that number goes to the United States. That is the most likely purchaser for our vehicles.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 5:51 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-19, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved that Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.

I would like to begin by thanking Senator Marty Deacon for her dedication in crafting the bill, alongside her colleagues in the Senate, who unanimously voted to send the bill forward to us in the House. Senator Deacon is a Canadian who has coached and led teams from the grassroots to the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games and the Pan American Games. She, like many members of the House, has witnessed first-hand what the power of sport and the opportunity of sport can be.

Sports betting is legal in Canada, yet constituents in Waterloo, as well as constituents across multiple provinces and territories, have shared concerns regarding the abundance of advertisements, which now often overshadow the sport itself.

I have witnessed the joy of young people being given very basic equipment and facilities that allow them to learn and lead through sport. This is what sport should be. However, we are hearing directly from Canadians that the lines are being blurred. This is a problem we all bear some responsibility for. I include myself in this, as I voted in the 43rd Parliament for Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting.

Members will recall that, in 2021, Parliament passed Bill C-218, which amended the Criminal Code by removing the long-standing prohibition on betting on the outcomes of “a race...or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest.” It removed one line from the Criminal Code that referred to single sports betting. This, in effect, permitted provinces to allow for single sports betting in their own jurisdiction.

It is interesting that the ads we see that permeate every phone and television screen across the country are all from Ontario, the one province, for now, where private companies are allowed to operate and advertise. To date, every other province or territory allows for single sports betting only through its own lottery corporation, yet I and my colleagues have heard from our constituents from coast to coast to coast that they are growing tired of and increasingly concerned by seeing advertisements pushing sports betting. Sending the bill to committee for a thorough and thoughtful study would go a long way in trying to make this right.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, for seconding the bill. I also appreciate that Bill S-211 has been joint-seconded by many colleagues spanning three political parties and seven provinces and one territory. I and many colleagues are eager to respond to the growing concerns of constituents and to determine the correct framework forward.

I will just give a reminder that less than five years ago, to gamble meant leaving one's home and going, most likely, to a casino. I will elaborate on this a little bit later.

Many other countries, such as the U.K., Australia and Germany, have implemented similar policies to some degree. Italy has banned ads outright. Admittedly, for all these jurisdictions it remains a work in progress, but the takeaway is that other jurisdictions are at least doing something about it. Why are they? It is because they legalized sports betting well before we did, and they are reckoning with the outcomes. We have the benefit of foresight here. We can see where this is heading, and we cannot stand by and let our country and its citizens steer straight toward that iceberg by doing nothing.

Gambling is not a benign form of entertainment for everyone. For a significant number of Canadians, gambling is addictive, with consequences that extend well beyond the individual to families, workplaces and communities. Problem gambling is associated with financial distress, mental health challenges, relationship breakdowns, and, in severe cases, self-harm.

Sports betting is a unique and distinct form of gambling. Its abuse is deeply intertwined with users' love of sports: an activity that is rooted in community, identity and shared passion but that masks the true nature of the harm.

Sports bettors often develop a perceived personal connection to the athletes and teams they wager on. This familiarity can create a false sense of expertise and control, leading individuals to believe they can outsmart the game and heightening their risk of larger financial losses and addiction at higher rates.

Sports betting is widely perceived as socially acceptable, even celebratory. It is framed as a way for fans to connect over their shared love of sports, making its abuse more persuasive than in traditional forms of gambling. As a result, the social acceptance, encouragement and normalization of sports betting significantly downplay its serious risks and set it apart from how other forms of traditional gambling are understood.

The digital era has expanded access to sports gambling-related harm in an unprecedented manner. Whereas individuals once had to physically travel to a casino or other betting venue, today this access follows users around, with virtual betting sites existing in the user's pocket. The sort of addiction we have with our phones and social media, which we have all been guilty of at one time or another, applies directly to gambling habits as well.

An article that was shared with me, from the American Institute for Boys and Men, states:

Beyond easier access, much of the increase in online gambling is due to the fact that gambling companies have engineered their games to be ever more difficult to resist. They feature the same behavioral nudges and dopamine delivery mechanisms as social media platforms. These are not your grandparents’ slot machines.

Every part of a gambling app is designed to be fun, easy to use and hard to quit. After a cursory age-verification process...bettors can deposit money as easily as buying anything else online. The apps have their own version of the endless scroll, with a constantly updating menu of things to bet on.

...“Imagine being a gambling addict and always having a slot machine in your pocket except you also need that slot machine to stay in touch with friends [and] family, to get jobs and contact co-workers, for banking, for navigation.”

The list goes on.

Online expansion of sports gambling promotion has made access to abuse easier, while the consequences feel less severe.

Public safety is a top priority for the Government of Canada. The health and safety of Canadians is, at minimum, a shared responsibility. Canada has long recognized that addictive products require a different regulatory approach. Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and vaping products are all legal but are not treated as ordinary consumer goods. Their advertising is restricted, and their promotion and regulation are grounded in a public framework that prioritizes harm reduction, particularly for young, vulnerable people. These harms have all been treated with a national coordinated approach that has been shown to be effective.

June 29, 2026, will mark the fifth anniversary of legalizing sports betting in Canada. Enough time has now passed since the expansion for its impacts to become increasingly visible. A recent report released this past November by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that 9.1% of Canadians are classified as experiencing problem gambling. The people most affected by problem gambling harms were those who engaged primarily in online gambling, specifically young men aged 18 to 29.

The mental health harms associated with problem gambling are profound. People experiencing problem gambling were four times more likely to report anxiety and depression, four times more likely to have thought about suicide, and seven times more likely to have made a suicide plan in the past year. These findings make clear that gambling-related harm is not limited to financial loss but also constitutes a serious and growing public concern.

It is vital to recognize that national gambling statistics include only people above the age of 18. This is because research is limited to individuals who are legally permitted to gamble. Therefore, current national data does not reflect minors engaging in online sports betting, but we know that these youth exist, through the abundant sharing of stories and lived experiences that I and many colleagues are encountering.

Through consultations with the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine, my team met with clinicians and pediatricians who work directly with impacted youth. These frontline professionals reported a growing number of children and adolescents presenting with harms related to online sports gambling. These clinicians reported treating children as young as 13 years old for severe problem gambling related to online betting.

In these cases, the consequences extended beyond the individual child, placing significant emotional and financial strain on families and creating serious disruptions within the home. Pediatrician and youth mental health advocate Dr. Shawn Kelly shared that his own seven-year-old child asked about sports betting terminology after being exposed to gambling advertisements during a televised sports event in their own home. As a result, sports programming is no longer permitted in their household.

These are only a few of the accounts heard from constituents spanning the country that make clear that youth exposure to online gambling is not hypothetical; it is already producing real and harmful impacts, underscoring the urgent need for stronger protections regarding persuasive media advertisements.

When gambling-related harms occur, families are often left to carry the burden. Parents and siblings must cope with the emotional strain, financial stress and breakdowns in trust that can follow a loved one's gambling addiction.

What is especially painful for many families is the way this issue has begun to intrude on one of the few remaining shared family activities, which is watching sports together. For too many households, sports have shifted from a source of connection and joy to a source of anxiety and blatant annoyance.

The volume of betting advertisements has been so abrasive during sports games that in 2024, on average, betting ads occupied up to 21% of advertisements during broadcast games in Canada. Its proliferation across all marketing forums is overshadowing the purpose of the game itself, which is to build community around cheering a team on.

On that note, I must say, in the Olympics, go team Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

That is right.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the intent in 2021, when Parliament legalized single-game sports betting in Canada. This was achieved with the objective of bringing gambling activity out of the illegal market and into safe, regulated frameworks. The legislation granted provinces and territories authority to regulate their own sports betting markets to promote responsible gambling practices, but since its legalization, provincial and territorial approaches have been fragmented, creating gaps across Canada.

While most provinces have stuck to a public, regulated model with government oversight of the industry, Ontario, for example, has opened its market and allows private gambling companies to operate and advertise in the province. What begins as persuasive advertisements through the province can quickly and easily turn into engagements in illegal, unproductive or offshore activity.

It should bother every jurisdiction that has not loosened its market that its own populations are being encouraged to place bets with companies that legally they cannot bet with. If they have held back on privatizing because of a more cautious approach, then why should their populations be bombarded with ads from one province that has decided to open the floodgates? This is at least one thing a national framework would undoubtedly address.

As it is, protections for gambling ads nationally will only be at the level of the lowest common denominator. The Internet, or even traditional cable, cares little for provincial or territorial boundaries, and all Canadians deserve the same degree of protections from gambling promotion and its associated harms.

Problem gambling is federally recognized as a public health concern and warrants the same seriousness of treatment as other harms in Canada. Like tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and vaping, gambling risks are not distributed evenly across the population. Aggressive marketing can exacerbate harm among the most vulnerable to addiction. When betting odds, celebrity endorsements and winning inducements are broadcast repeatedly during sporting events or on social media platforms watched by millions of Canadians, including an abundance of children, we are no longer talking about neutral information; we are talking about normalization and encouragement of risky behaviour that is more easily accessible than ever before.

Even in Ontario, where celebrities and athletes were recently banned from promotions, there are some workarounds. These individuals can appear in what purport to be public service ads put out by companies that encourage a person to “bet within your limits”. This is almost worse, because it still affiliates an athlete with a brand, but it also tells people that as long as they know their limits, gambling is a safe and healthy practice.

Bill S-211 recognizes this reality. Bill S-211 acknowledges a legitimate public concern in protecting Canadians who are most vulnerable to the proliferation of advertisement in recent years. It calls for a unified approach across Canada to close the gaps in advertising abuse to protect youth and those most vulnerable to persuasive marketing and addiction.

I hope all members will recognize the merits of having committee study this bill and that all members will engage in this discussion so that we can do our best to keep Canadians safe.

While I am on my feet, I know this week has been tough, especially because we have lost young Canadians. We owe it to these young people to make sure their future is bright and frameworks are in place that work for them. I want the communities that have been impacted to know that the people of Waterloo are with them in our thoughts and prayers, and we will continue to stand by them.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have learned in researching this bill is that a lot of these gambling sites will even offer money in order to get people to come back to the app. If someone has not used their app for a while, it will say, “Here is $10 to go gambling.”

I am wondering if this bill will address that as well.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very honest. What we are bringing forward with this Senate public bill that is now in the House is that we need to talk about this issue. We need to make sure the framework works, and that is a concern that I have also heard. What has concerned me even more is that the first time somebody is gambling online, they are being given an amount of money, so it is not going to cost them anything, but the online site will pay for it. It just reminds me of how drugs went through communities as well, so if this framework needs to address that, it is important. We need to look at jurisdiction. The committee would be able to bring in the experts to make sure that we get it right.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to take up a bill from the Senate in the House, especially when there are imperfections.

I would like to note my colleague's desire to start a public debate about an issue that affects people's health and that has significant financial implications. Obviously, this encroaches on the provincial jurisdictions and that of Quebec. I would like her to tell us about that.

Her research led her to Quebec's sports betting model. I would appreciate if she could tell the House more about that.