Debates of Feb. 12th, 2026

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the question and the opportunity to have this discussion.

I think some provinces have a model that works very well, but others have some issues. I think we need to look at whether this falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories or whether it falls within the federal government's jurisdiction and whether it has a responsibility.

That is why I think we need to send this bill to committee, where we can hear from witnesses and experts and have a discussion to ensure that the federal government is doing the work it needs to do while respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I met with the Canadian Gaming Association or the advertisers in question here late last year. Their position is that the provinces already have enough regulation and that there are enough controls already to protect Canadians. What is her response to this position from the industry?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, acknowledging that there is a diversity of opinions, there are a lot of organizations that have been contacting me and Senator Marty Deacon. As well, I know the member chairs the heritage committee.

We just legalized sports betting in Canada five years ago. We are starting to see some of the concerns and impacts coming from it. My concern is that the federal government did legalize sports betting in Canada, and we have a responsibility for the health and safety of Canadians, just like the provinces and the territories do. I commend the regulations, but we are recognizing that there are different models and that certain provinces have, I would say, imposed onto the space of other provinces. Usually, when it comes to interprovincial matters, the federal government needs to play a role, so I would just like to have the conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent description of this bill. It is not really talking about jurisdictions or provinces per se, but I want the member to talk about jurisdiction in terms of international borders, especially the United States. Some of the platforms the member talked about actually originate in the United States and are being advertised on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Has the government actually considered that, or is it going to wait for the bill to go to committee?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a bill could only be amended or broadened at committee, so that is where the work would be done. What I am presenting through this bill is the value and importance of having a discussion around a potential framework. I did refer to unprotected and offshore sites, so that is where the federal government probably does have some responsibilities.

We know that the intention was to give provinces and territories jurisdiction, but we are recognizing that people are getting advertising across the country, and it might be starting from one place and not in their own backyard. We ask whether that is a responsibility of the federal government, and if it is, let us do something about it. Let us make sure we have a response before more harms are caused.

Royal Assent

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

February 12, 2026

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 12th day of February, 2026, at 5:07 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Committee Travel

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

1. That, in relation to its study of Canada and the forthcoming CUSMA review, six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America; and Detroit metropolitan area, Michigan, United States of America, in the winter/spring of 2026, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

2. That, in relation to its study of Canada's Arctic strategy, six members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America, in the winter/spring of 2026, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

3. That, in relation to its study of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) modernization, six members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; Inuvik, Northwest Territories; and Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, in the summer of 2026, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. I want to thank the member for Waterloo for bringing this forward.

When the average Canadian sits down to enjoy a sports broadcast, they are inundated with a barrage of endless advertisements for sports betting sites and online casinos. For example, in Ontario, a viewer can literally not go a minute without being exposed to three gambling references during a sports broadcast.

In 2024, the CBC's Marketplace did a report with the University of Bristol. They found that over multiple NHL and NBA games, on average, 20% to 21% of the viewing time was spent being exposed to gambling advertisements. That is a massive volume of advertising.

While online gambling is legal, we know there is the potential, as with many other addictive activities, to destroy relationships, livelihoods and families. That is why I believe it is important that sports betting advertising be treated similarly to alcohol, tobacco and cannabis advertising.

We have seen the impact of the increase in sports betting advertising in Ontario. Ontario's growth in active player accounts on gambling sites has exploded over the last five years. In just two years, it went from 490,000 accounts at the beginning of 2023 to over 1.3 million by the end of 2024. The advertisements in question are clearly working to build a player market. That is obvious because of the massive increase in exposure to these online gambling practices.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction recommends that players not spend more than 1% of their pre-tax household income. In Ontario, that is about $89 a month. However, the average player in Ontario spends $283, three times the recommended amount that experts consider to be safe.

What harms are these players now being exposed to? The studies conducted by this organization, to build the guidelines around this, said that an individual who spends more than 1% of their household income is 4.3 times more likely to experience financial harm, 4.7 times more likely to experience relational harm, 3.9 times more likely to experience emotional harm and 4.4 times more likely to experience health problems related to their gambling than a low-stakes or non-gambler. These are significant risks, and the harm is relentless and unregulated.

The exposure to online gaming advertisements has caused a 265% increase in those exposed to these harms. These harms are not limited to the individual gambler either. The data on relational harm shows that high gambling causes risk to children, spouses, parents, co-workers, employers and people in a 360° relation to the gambler.

Many sports betting sites also use questionable tactics to keep gamblers coming back, like offering them free money or free credit. One Canadian man who started sports betting when he turned 18 said, “Imagine someone going for sobriety being given a free drink.... It should be illegal to give money to gamblers.”

I want to highlight a particular segment of the population that seems most at risk of experiencing the harms of online gambling and sports betting. The American Institute for Boys and Men has found that the negative financial impacts of sports betting are more pronounced for young men, especially in low-income areas.

A recent Maclean's investigation on the harms of the explosion of online gambling references Dr. Nigel Turner, a scientist at the Toronto Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where he specializes in gambling research. Dr. Turner has analyzed calls to the Ontario problem gambling helpline, and he found that when iGaming Ontario launched in 2022, calls to that helpline jumped by 30%, and they have risen every year. He notes that the demographics of callers have changed to include younger and younger people, especially young men.

On Tuesday, my colleague from York—Durham was reflecting on becoming a new father and emphasized that “Strong and healthy families are built on strong, committed and masculine fathers.” He also said, “Our kids need strong fathers and families, our communities need strong fathers and families, and our country needs strong fathers and families. I will be a champion for that.”

This is a great focus and an inspiration for young men. However, many young men are now finding themselves trapped in the addiction of gambling, of sports betting. This is destroying their relationships, families and communities. Research has shown that hazardous gambling is correlated with increased rates of anxiety and depression. Young men who engage in it are more likely to slide into a full-blown gambling addiction, and boys who frequently gamble miss classes, perform worse in school, drink more alcohol and participate in other risky behaviours at higher rates, often to cope with gambling-related stresses. These anti-social patterns compound, and the gambling sucks up their time and mental energy, which might otherwise go to developing relationships, hobbies and personal growth.

Dr. Turner warns us that we are also seeing an increase in sports betting advertising that includes celebrities. He says that this is telling young men, a population vulnerable to gambling, that it is a great thing to do and shows them someone they admire. Canada is better when we champion young men, calling on them to be builders and contributors, and to take responsibility. That is why I think this bill is a good step, and I am happy to support it.

Bill S-211 would require the minister of Canadian heritage to develop a national framework on sports betting advertising. It would also mandate the CRTC to review the regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidences of harm resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising. The CRTC already regulates advertisements to children, as well as alcohol ads, tobacco ads and marijuana ads, but I would suggest that sports betting ads be part of this as well. Bill S-211 would align gambling policy with how we treat these other activities.

In preparing for this speech, I had a chance to read the Cardus memo on the former bill, Bill S-269, as well as the report on the harms of single sport betting in Ontario. Cardus supports Bill S-211 and had recommendations to further strengthen the bill. For example, Cardus recommends to “Strengthen subsection 3(2)(a) with a view to a complete ban on sports betting advertising, instead of simply restricting its usage.” This would have a great impact on those who are vulnerable to gambling addiction, particularly on minors and boys. Alternatively, they suggest at minimum moving toward a ban on “advertising for sports betting during sports broadcasts” or requiring “the national framework to identify measures to ban advertising for in-game bets.”

Operators would remain legal and regulated, but they would no longer be permitted to aggressively market an addictive product to the general public during sports events. I would also note that the Canadian Medical Association calls for sports betting ads to be restricted during sports broadcasts. The family physician Shannon Charlebois, who is a medical editor at the Canadian Medical Association Journal, stated:

I have seen people's lives fall apart at all ages, from all walks of life, whether it's an accountant with a career behind him, or a kid who's just looking to maximize his college fund who then had lost it all within a matter of a few weeks.

She notes that, while online sports betting sites say they are only for people who are 19 and older, youth are being inundated with these advertisements that equate enjoying sports with betting.

As well, Cardus recommends adding to subsection 3(2)(b) a requirement that the measures include ways that Crown corporations could contribute financially to solving the problem of gambling addiction, to ensure that they put money into prevention and treatment, with the contributions being linked to their marketing expenses.

Research shows that there is a clear causal relationship between advertisement and increased gambling activities, so if gambling companies are going to engage and be responsible partners in advertising, they should also be part of the solution. We need to put young men, families and Canadians ahead of corporate profits.

Finally, Cardus recommends adding “a new clause under subsection 3(2) to identify measures to improve the efficacy of gambling prevention messaging.” It talked a bit about the “Know your limits, play within it” piece and how it was not necessarily effective. I think that would be a helpful suggestion. I also recommend that the committee, when it is studying this bill, talk to Dr. Nigel Turner from the University of Toronto.

For those reasons and more, I will be supporting the bill, and I urge all members to support it. With my final words, I would like to say that this is exactly the way legislation has to work in this country. We legalized sports betting a number of years back. Now we are reassessing whether that is working. I look forward to that conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my support, as many other members have done, for the communities affected by the events of this week, specifically Tumbler Ridge and Kitigan Zibi.

Bill S-211 provides for the development of a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising by establishing national standards. No one will be surprised to hear me say once again that Canada is jumping headfirst into areas of jurisdiction that belong exclusively to Quebec and to the other Canadian provinces. As with many other national strategies, we in the Bloc Québécois are not at all happy about them.

I would like to remind the House of one thing: The Bloc Québécois recognizes that sports betting advertising and its effects on vulnerable groups are harmful. We also recognize that pathological gambling is a public problem that requires public authorities to address the issue in a consistent manner and to invest the necessary funds, because people are suffering because of it.

As I mentioned, each province is responsible for taking action and implementing measures to restrict sports betting advertising, as well as lottery and gaming advertising. We recognize that, for many young people and minors, sports betting advertising, which is primarily online and can feature spokespersons like athletes and celebrities who are worshipped by young people, is a problem that needs to be addressed.

However, again, it is not the federal government's responsibility. I would remind the House of the federal-provincial agreement on gaming signed in 1985. Amendments to the Criminal Code changed gaming in Canada by consolidating power in the provinces. As a result, the federal government ceded all jurisdiction over gaming to the provinces. Quebec and the provinces are the ones operating, administering and regulating legalized gambling.

It should be noted that in 2021, this Parliament passed the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, which amended the Criminal Code to make it lawful for the government of a province, or a person or entity licensed by the lieutenant governor in council of that province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in the province that involves betting on a race, other than a horse-race, or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest. I think it is clear that regulating sports betting is the responsibility of the provinces.

The way sports betting, racing, and gaming are managed today is different because each province has chosen to adapt its regulations to its own context and interpretations, and that is perfectly fine. Quebec and each of the provinces and territories have different ways of seeing things and different vulnerabilities. Any regulatory or legislative changes that aim to achieve this are welcome, because they give provinces the power to act as they see fit and the agility to act quickly.

That is what happened on the ground. The Ontario government, for example, opted for an open market. It created iGaming Ontario to regulate online gaming and issue operating licences to private companies. Quebec, on the other hand, went a different way. Through its Mise‑o‑jeu program, Loto‑Québec decided to take charge of online sports betting itself. This is a societal choice that is up to each province. Do I agree with the Ontario model? The answer is no, not especially. However, I respect that government's choice.

Quebec decided to retain control of legalized gambling through its Mise‑o‑jeu program. In 2016, acting within its public protection jurisdiction, Quebec passed a law banning unlicensed online gaming sites by requiring Internet service providers to implement systems for blocking access to them. The Superior Court struck down that Quebec law because, in its view, it infringed on an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, namely telecommunications, as well as on the Canadian Criminal Code.

What does the bill we are debating do? It does not attempt to regulate the Criminal Code of Canada or federal broadcasting legislation. However, that is where the problem lies, as illustrated by the court's ruling. That is why Quebec cannot ban unapproved online gambling sites from operating within its territory. That is why there has been an increase in the number of platforms and ads. We are not opposed to studying a bill that would address this issue, but we have reservations about the desire to establish a national framework to regulate advertising. In our view, this is another perfect example of Ottawa encroaching on a jurisdiction that is not its own.

The Act respecting the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux, which created Quebec's gaming board, contains a very interesting provision: section 23. Subsection 6 states that the board is responsible for “monitoring advertising and educational programs relating to alcoholic beverages and to activities governed by the Act respecting racing and the Act respecting lotteries and amusement machines”.

Quebec's regulations are very clear on sports betting and advertising. According to the law, a gaming and gambling company must not promote activities to minors under any circumstances. Its advertisements must portray games of chance and gambling in a responsible manner without encouraging excessive gambling. In fact, there are a lot of ads during sporting events, and that is fine. Advertising for games of chance and gambling also must not be misleading or inaccurate. For example, advertisements that promise easy winnings and give the impression that the player is certain to win are prohibited. Another very important rule is the ban on this type of advertising in traditional media during programs that are likely to be watched by minors or an impressionable young audience.

Quebec already regulates online gambling advertising. What the federal government wants to do here is tell us what to do and how to do it, once again, as though we were incapable of doing so and as though every province did not have that ability. I just demonstrated that we do. I presume the concern expressed by some members stems first and foremost from their concerns about their own provinces. This bill comes to us from the Senate, but I would advise the member sponsoring the bill to go to Ontario and advocate for a change in the rules in her province. Just because we do not have a uniform approach does not mean that a loophole exists. Not all problems can be approached in the same way in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and, I would even say, at the local level. The approaches have to be different. That is why we are talking about decentralization. That is why remote regions are asking for the tools they need to develop economically. A one-size-fits-all approach never works.

Since we are talking about sports betting, I will use sports examples to illustrate my point. Each Canadian team in the NHL has opted for a different development model. The Maple Leafs have chosen to overpay their four best players. The Oilers have decided to invest a little bit everywhere, except in a goalie. The Jets invested heavily in a goalie, but less elsewhere. The Canucks and Flames decided to rebuild. The Montreal Canadiens decided to rebuild around young players: Caufield, Suzuki, Hutson, Demidov. Each team chose a model that suits them. Each team will try to win the Stanley Cup. A team using any of the three models could make the playoffs and try to win the Stanley Cup, except perhaps the Maple Leafs. I am still a realist, after all.

Because they each have their own way of doing things, Montreal and Edmonton could make it to the Stanley Cup final and achieve the same result. At this point, it is all a matter of chance. Some of them may have other goals for the time being because they have not reached the same place yet. That is what Quebec is asking for: Let us manage our affairs as we see fit in order to achieve the goals we want to achieve.

Even if Bill S‑211 was truly intended to address public health issues, changes would have to be made to restrict the provinces from issuing private contractor licences, for example. That could reduce competition from online sports betting sites, which are all fighting for a vulnerable clientele. Where are the amendments to the excise tax, for example? Where are the funds earmarked for health and social services to help Quebec and the other provinces offer better services to those affected?

No, all that this bill proposes to do is introduce a national framework. We know how much it costs to manage a national framework program. Take the child care system, for example: It cost $50 million just to send a cheque to Quebec. How much will taxpayers spend on drafting a Canada-wide strategy? How much more will they spend to cover the different stakeholders' travel and accommodation expenses? This bill is another example of Ottawa spending money so that it can interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In closing, I nevertheless wish to underscore the importance of this evening's discussion.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill S-211 today, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting, for many of the reasons we have heard already this evening.

I am not someone who spends a lot of time watching professional sports, I will admit, but they are often on my TV when I am home with my family, and even I have noticed that sports betting ads are ubiquitous. It has become a topic of conversation in our house that people are not just watching sports anymore; they are participating with their money. They can bet on the next play of the football game they are watching or how many points a professional baseball player might make. Every few minutes, there is an ad encouraging Canadians to gamble, because watching sports seems to no longer be enough of an experience in itself.

Our sports, sports figures and teams are part of our national identity. Sports have long brought Canadians together, and now Canadians have to navigate endless gambling advertisements in order to watch a game or a competition. For many people, this presents a risky temptation.

Back in the early 2000s, when I was a journalist, I got to know a prominent Hamilton man who lost his career due to a gambling addiction. We spoke at length about this, and he introduced me to some of the men he had met at Gamblers Anonymous. All of them were people who had important careers until they lost everything due to their gambling addictions, including a lawyer who was supposed to be appointed to the Superior Court bench the same day that police were raiding his offices to find evidence that he had stolen money from clients to fuel his gambling addiction.

We did a whole long TV series about this, and these people told me how difficult it was to resist when they were routinely bombarded by advertising that compelled them to keep spending money at casinos and other gambling venues. Remember, this was back in the early 2000s. It was before the tsunami of social media and the avalanche of betting sites we have available online today.

Today the world is different. We know this. It is not just adults in the prime of their careers who are falling into destitution and despair due to addictive behaviours. Elderly people, vulnerable people and people susceptible to mental and physical harms are all being bombarded with the same sports advertising. Today children are glued to their devices. They are watching sports and, inevitably, are fed a constant stream of sports betting advertising. Gambling has become normalized as a part of sports. This is what our children are learning as they grow up.

I chair the permanent Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We recently completed a study on the impacts of social media on young people, and we heard that many online applications used by children encourage addictive behaviour. The gamification of everything means that our kids are becoming addicted to their favourite vice earlier and earlier in life. They are learning how to become addicts.

We heard this testimony from several witnesses. For example, Maude Bonenfant, the Canada Research Chair in Gaming, Technologies and Society and a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, told us that platforms use games of chance and money. They use gambling as a strategy to keep users engaged as long as possible, and the line between video games and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred, so video games are becoming more like gambling. There is more betting within video games, and the algorithms are increasingly sophisticated, with the aim of keeping kids immersed in online content through gambling.

Michael Cooper from Mental Health Research Canada told us that one addictive behaviour can be a catalyst for another addictive behaviour. For example, people who spend more than six hours online are more than twice as likely to be at high risk for alcohol and cannabis abuse and a host of other addictions. The same is true for gambling. This normalizing of gambling in everyday life can mean, according to Cooper, that our ability to regulate ourselves in the face of temptation is broken.

Today, we are inundated with enticements to gamble, particularly in sports. Bill S-211 is a first step in preserving the integrity of the sports culture in Canada, but it is also about preserving the mental health of Canadians.

Our colleague from Waterloo and other members have spoken about the former Bill C-218, the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act. This was something Parliament brought and became law in 2021, because before that, all we had was black-market bookies with ties to criminal organizations.

The bill was an attempt to put the industry under the purview of the provinces so that it had greater oversight. However, today, only Ontario in Canada authorizes third party gambling operators, as we have heard several times tonight, and sports betting operators have taken full advantage. They have purchased oodles of ad space on regional and national broadcasts, particularly on sports channels during sporting events. Some estimates say that we are subjected to three gambling ads every minute while we are watching sports on TV. We now see sports betting ads even when we are watching live. They appear on athletes' jerseys and on the boards around the ice rinks.

In Canada today, we have more than 19 million active online gamblers. This is one of our fastest-growing industries. Canada rates eighth in the world for the most money spent on gambling, about $4 billion every year.

Also, as I impressed upon this chamber earlier, children, teens and vulnerable people are also watching these games. They are talking about the experience the next day with their friends and their community. Do we really want them to think of gambling as a normal part of taking in a sporting activity, or even that a person has not really experienced a game if they have not put some money down on an outcome or player? We need to deeply consider whether we want important, healthy Canadian cultural institutions to be intertwined with the often harmful habit of gambling.

Research shows that the more we are exposed to gambling ads, the more positive our attitude becomes toward gambling, intentions to gamble become greater and gambling activities increase. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that almost one in four young people who bet online reported harms due to gambling behaviour, and that online sports betting is associated with double the risk of gambling harms compared to other forms of gambling. Also, sports betting advertising is four times more appealing to children than adults.

I learned a lot about the significant impacts that problem gamblers face when I did that news series 25 years ago: impacts on their own health, on their mental health and on their well-being, and equal impacts on their family and their loved ones. Problem gamblers are four times more likely to have anxiety and depression, and seven times as likely to have planned suicide in the past 12 months. Excessive advertising can exacerbate all of these issues, as I heard from problem gamblers, and that was a quarter century ago, long before the onslaught of the advertising we face today. Researchers say that there is a possibility of a connection between the extent of exposure to advertising and the intensity of the gambling addiction.

Bill S-211 asks the federal government to establish a national framework, regulate sports betting advertising, provide tools for the prevention and diagnosis of gambling and support those who are impacted by a harmful gambling addiction.

Canadians agree that something should be done. In 2024, a poll by Maru Group found that most Canadians have a negative attitude toward gambling ads: 75% say that we need to protect children and youth from gambling ads, 66% say that those commercials should not be allowed during live broadcasts and 59% believe in a national ban on this type of advertising. When we pair gambling with the broadcast of a game, we normalize sports betting as an integral part of the sport experience. It is not.

I will leave members with words from Bruce Kidd, a retired professor of sports policy. He wrote an article in The Globe and Mail on February 7, in which he established that about four million Canadians, the population of about Alberta, are at risk of a gambling addiction. He said:

Think about multiples of the number of people who watch a Blue Jays game in Rogers Stadium. And then think about their families. If we fail to pass Bill S-211, those will be the numbers of...people we’ll have abandoned to the careless greed of the advertisers who think they’re doing their part by saying over and over again—and disingenuously, of course—“Please gamble responsibly.”

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this debate has been excellent. I have learned many things. I will start off with the joy of sports, and the member for Waterloo talked about this a bit.

I was never much of an athlete, much to the disappointment of my father who was an athlete, but the one thing I could do was watch sports. One of the greatest joys I have is either watching my daughter compete in her competitive dance or watching my son compete at hockey. He is a goaltender and is at a tournament tomorrow, so I would ask everyone to please wish him good luck. There is nothing that I enjoy doing more than watching them compete and have a great time.

What I also love to do is sit around the house, when we get that break from time to time, and watch sports with them. Seeing them enjoy watching team Canada's hockey team compete, which won five to nothing, brings joy around. My chosen NFL team is the Buffalo Bills and there is nothing better than sitting around with friends and family and crying together as they lose yet again in the divisional round. There is a purity to people competing, giving everything they can, working so very hard to get to that great moment and coming together as a team. Anyone who has worked as a team, which is what we are in the House of Commons, knows the thrill of coming together, putting someone else's interests above ours and competing to get the best possible product, or bill, and winning the game. There is a purity and a greatness to that.

I must say that the gambling around this has tainted it. Some of the other speakers also talked about this earlier with respect to the particularly vulnerable groups in this: young men and boys. If we go to a high school, we would see that nearly every teenage boy, and every teenage girl for that matter, has a phone. If we looked at what was on their phones, I can guarantee members that over 80% or 90% of them have a gambling app. That is scary because it is leading them down a path. Not everyone will go down the path where it will have a big impact on their life, but some will. What is the number of individuals who go down that path and have that challenge? What are we willing to accept in society? Is it okay if one in 10, one in 100, or one in 1,000 give up their life to a horrible gambling addiction that sucks in friends and family members as they try to support these people? What is that number?

One of the things I do when I look at legislation or at laws as we try to make the best decisions in this House, which I believe all 343 members attempt to do, is that I look at it as if we were driving to that perfect society where we all live in prosperity and abundance, where we are kind and gentle with each other and where we only have good days, and I ask if this law would get us closer to that. I am not naive. I know we will certainly not get there in my lifetime, and probably not even after that, but as a House, as legislators, we should be striving toward that goal. When I see this legislation, I say, yes, this is another step toward it, because it starts to rein in and regulate the amount of advertising.

There are a couple of issues I have with this legislation, and I hope they will be fleshed out at committee. Of course, we will be supporting it to go to committee, and we hope it will get fleshed out. The overall driving principle of this legislation to expose our children to less gambling advertising is going in a positive direction. I really do not think anyone can say no to that.

In fact, I am told that there are industries out there right now that are self-regulating and self-imposing those regulations with respect to the amount of advertising. To those folks I would say that is a great job and may they keep it up. The less government we have the better. In this case, I think there is a need for some intervention, unless of course the industry can get together and control its own house, which would be great.

I have been there, like the member, sitting and watching sports, and I do probably watch too much sports. It is just amazing; we will see, in one show, three or four different advertisements for online sports betting. We will then see them on the boards of the skating rink. We will see them in the back of the basketball stadium. We will see them in the baseball stadium, in the back. They are just absolutely everywhere. They are invasive.

Just as the government has stepped in and regulated advertisements on things like alcohol and nicotine and smoking, I think it makes sense to have a process here.

The Bloc Québécois actually raised a terrific point, in that a lot of this is provincial jurisdiction. When we look at national frameworks, the idea is good. I have no doubt about that, but I am hoping that some work can be done in committee, so that we do not just have a bureaucrat-led, one-size-fits-all solution, so that we bring in partners, so that we have agreement from the provinces, so that we have agreement from the premiers from coast to coast and so that we have agreement from industry, quite frankly.

Whether one works for a multinational or whether one works for Parliament or whether one works for a premier, the reality is that we all have children and we all want the best for those children. We need to find a solution where we have everyone working together to make sure that children are protected, as there has clearly been an excess of advertising of online betting.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the government members' defence of the industrial carbon tax. They say farmers do not pay it. They say it only applies to large emitters. They say it has almost no impact on households.

Let us walk through this in plain terms. When a farmer in my riding buys a new combine or replaces their tractor, that equipment is built with Canadian steel produced under a carbon price that is rising to $170 per tonne. When they purchase replacement parts, install an irrigation system, upgrade an industrial dryer or build a machine shed, those materials are made from steel and aluminum produced under the same industrial carbon cost. The government may not send the bill directly to the farmer, but the farmer receives it anyway.

Statistics Canada has confirmed that realized net farm income dropped by $3.3 billion in 2024, which is a 26% decline. At the same time, operating costs climbed to $78.5 billion and farm debt rose to 14%. Farmers are not looking for lectures about climate policy; they are trying to cover their costs and plan for the next season.

Professor Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University has been clear, saying, “The industrial carbon tax...continues to erode competitiveness in the agri-foods sector.” He has pointed to the growing cost gap with producers in the United States. That gap matters when Canadian farmers are competing directly with American producers who are not operating under a $170 per tonne carbon trajectory.

When Canadians say food costs are too high, they were asking for policies that bring costs down. Instead, they received a temporary one-off rebate. I do not oppose this rebate, but it does not change the cost structure for farm equipment; it sends money back after the price has already gone up. If the policy increases costs at the production level and then we offer rebates to offset those higher costs, that is an admission that the burden exists.

Canadians do not want a cycle of higher costs followed by temporary relief; they want structural change to make things cost less. The government speaks out about being pro-Canada and strengthening domestic supply chains. It speaks about building more here at home, but if something is produced in Canada to be used in Canada, such as steel and aluminum, it carries this industrial carbon cost. This is the same when the government wants to use Canadian-made steel and aluminum in a Canadian-made car, a Canadian-made ship or a Canadian-made bridge. Everything the government wants to build more of in Canada is increased by the industrial carbon tax, while other markets are unaffected.

The incentive for suppliers to build or fabricate elsewhere becomes higher. For example, the Liberals chose to build B.C. ferries in China instead of Canadian shipyards, which means using non-Canadian steel and no support for Canadian shipyard jobs. We cannot ignore that reality.

The question is straight forward: If the industrial carbon tax increases the cost of producing the very goods we say we want to build in Canada, is that policy helping affordability or is it making the problem worse?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure we make it clear that the member is presenting a picture of the industrial carbon pricing system that simply does not reflect how it works or to whom it applies. There is no carbon tax on food, and farmers are not subject to the industrial carbon price. That is a fact. Independent modelling backs this up.

An analysis from the Canadian Climate Institute and Navius Research shows that the economic effect on industrial carbon pricing on consumption will be extremely small, less than one-tenth of one per cent by 2030. Industrial carbon pricing has essentially no impact on the agricultural sector. The same analysis projects that the cumulative GDP impact on the agricultural sector would be 0.08% by 2030. Farmers do not directly pay the industrial carbon tax, and there are almost no costs passed to consumers.

The system in question applies only to large industrial emitters: the steel, cement, oil and gas, mining and other heavy industries. It was designed so the biggest polluters, not smaller operations like Canadian farmers, are the ones carrying the costs. The intent is straightforward: Cut emissions from major industrial facilities while protecting competitiveness and keeping jobs here in Canada.

Under the federal system, industries have several compliance options. They can make their operations more efficient, including by adopting new technologies; they can generate or buy credits from cleaner performers; or they can pay the carbon price. This is not a one-size-fits-all levy; it is a flexible framework that rewards innovation, drives investment and minimizes cost impacts across the economy.

When Canadians see higher grocery bills, the main drivers are global: disrupted shipping routes, climate-related crop impacts, and the cascading effects of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine on fertilizer and energy markets. These are the same pressures facing consumers in Europe, in the United States and around the world.

Our government has taken concrete steps to support producers, and it continues targeted support through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. We continue to work with farmers and not against them. The idea that scrapping the industrial carbon pricing would suddenly make fruit from the Okanagan cheaper is simply not rooted in evidence. Eliminating climate policy will not reverse climate-related crop losses. It will not stabilize global supply chains, and it will not protect Canadian industries from carbon border measures being implemented by our trading partners.

Climate action and economic strength go hand in hand. We will continue to deliver on both. That is what this side of the House promises.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no member of the House is arguing against reducing emissions. The question is whether driving the industrial carbon tax to $170 per tonne, while our competitors in the United States do not face the same burden, is helping the environment or simply pushing production elsewhere. If steel production moves south, emissions do not disappear; jobs disappear, investment disappears and Canadian competitiveness disappears. Meanwhile the farmer still pays more for his equipment, and the manufacturer makes fewer products.

This is not a debate about caring for the environment; it is a debate about whether the policy is making life more affordable. The government has still not answered that.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this because it matters: Farmers do not pay the industrial carbon price, and groceries are not subject to the carbon price. Industrial carbon pricing focuses only on major emitters and gives them practical options to reduce pollution at the lowest possible cost, while it also drives investment in clean technology in Canada.

If the opposition succeeded in dismantling these tools, it would not lower food prices. It would increase pollution, reduce investor certainty and place Canadian industries at a competitive disadvantage as other countries move toward cleaner production.

Our government will stay focused on affordability, economic resilience and a cleaner future for Canadian workers and families.

Automotive Industry

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government proudly announced recently that it was removing its failed EV mandate and replacing it with a shiny new emissions standard, but, as Shakespeare warned us:

Look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under't.

The surface appears to have changed. The explicit sales quota is gone, but beneath it seem to lurk the same coercive rules.

The old mandate aimed for 100% zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. The new emissions standard, by the government's own proposal in its press release, will result in 75% EV adoption by 2035 and 90% EV adoption by 2040. Therefore, automakers will still endure the same intense pressures, credits, penalties and subsidies to sell mostly electric vehicles.

If this is not really just the old mandate, if it is not just the snake in disguise, can the government please explain to me what the difference is?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my colleague from York—Durham.

On this day of all days, to receive this question is really quite something. This is the day on which the administration to the south, the U.S. administration, has rejected a decades-long bipartisan consensus. The very serpent that the hon. member refers to is the existence of California-level emissions standards that have become increasingly stringent over time and helped us get the kinds of vehicles that we are manufacturing here in Canada, whether they be internal combustion engine vehicles or hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles.

There has been a long-time consensus among Liberals and Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives in Canada and a long-time consensus between Democrats and Republicans. Today, the U.S. administration is making a very clear decision to break away from that and to say in their challenging of the endangerment finding that they want no emissions standards whatsoever, and the Conservatives are embracing that extreme far right position. This is a position that comes out of the project 2025 playbook. It comes out of a complete rejection of any progress in this sector, the kind of progress that gave us the vehicles that we have today.

In our auto strategy, yes, we are proud of the investments in electrification. We are proud of those rebates. We are proud of the supply chain that we hope can continue to grow out of the investments we are making in electrification. We know that the investments in sustainability and electrification are the very investments that attract new investment, new greenfield auto plant investment that we have had over the decades here and of which we hope more will come. We know it is all based on a set of skills that are the best in the world. The workers and the team members at the different auto companies and parts suppliers are the best workers in the world, which is why more investment is being attracted here.

This was a major piece of news today. Not only is the Conservative opposition opposed to the EV rebates, which we knew it would be, but it rejects any tailpipe emissions standards whatsoever. The Conservatives are associating themselves with an extreme far right position that is the current policy of the U.S. administration rather than embracing the bipartisan consensus that has stood us well for decades, has increased stringency and has resulted in the cleaner vehicles that people want. It is really quite something, and I look forward to an explanation.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member doth protest, but he does not answer my question. I have another one, about the new EV industrial strategy, as it is called.

I am not one for subsidizing companies, but if they are going to subsidize companies, as the Liberals are proposing, with a new subsidy for the purchase of American-made electric vehicles, should it not at least be available to all Canadians on an equal footing? Right now, we know, and studies will show this and the government can confirm, that for the most part, working-class people buy used vehicles and cannot afford or choose not to buy new or lease new EV vehicles, which are on the higher end.

In other words, what the Liberals are proposing is regressive. What steps will they take to ensure that the subsidy that they are going to offer will be available to all Canadians?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this new EV rebate is positioned a bit differently from the older one. It is capped at vehicles retailing at $50,000 or less. Sometimes I hear from the other side that we are denying consumer choice in some way. In fact, our policy is to attract investment of all types while looking at the electric vehicle future that we are pointing to.

The auto strategy is about vehicle production generally, and we think that the marketplace is well served. We are very well served by our auto dealers in this country, which provide a wide variety of options to consumers, and this auto strategy is very consistent with that.

Indigenous Affairs

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan decision is not a small local dispute. It is a Canada-wide concern. It raises fundamental questions of property ownership. The court found that aboriginal title may exist over lands currently held in fee simple by private owners. That finding carries significant implications for Canada's land title system, a clear system built on certainty.

For generations, when the Crown granted fee simple interests, those grants were understood to provide certainty of ownership. One of the doctrines historically relied upon to support that certainty was the extinguishment argument, the position that historical Crown grants were treated in law as having settled questions of aboriginal title in those lands. This has long formed part of the legal architecture underpinning property ownership in Canada.

However, during the Cowichan litigation, the federal Liberal government made a deliberate decision not to advance that argument at trial. That was not a procedural failure; it was a directive to the federal counsel. The extinguishment argument, central to fee simple certainty, was not defended.

Since that ruling, uncertainty has spread beyond one region. Land title questions are surfacing elsewhere in British Columbia, including most recently in relation to land claims in the Kingcome Inlet area. When foundational legal principles appear unsettled, the ripple effects extend far beyond the original case, yet the federal government has provided no clear public explanation of its directive, no detailed legal justification and no clear statement of principle. Filing an appeal does not explain what doctrine the government now stands behind. If this reflects a policy shift, Canadians deserve transparency. If a new framework is being adopted, it should be clearly communicated.

The government's decisions have consequences. In Richmond Centre—Marpole, families are concerned about the security of their homes, which are often their life savings. Lenders are raising questions. Developers are pausing projects. Large and small businesses are reassessing long-term plans. On October 23, 2025, the City of Richmond wrote to the Attorney General urging restoration of the extinguishment argument on appeal and seeking clarification. There has been no response. City council subsequently passed a motion calling for federal action. There has been no meaningful engagement.

More than 500 residents attended a public session seeking answers while provincial officials stepped in to provide reassurance. Property law cannot operate in governmental ambiguity. Certainty underpins mortgages, development, taxation and long-term investment across this country, and the federal government carries the ultimate responsibility for securing property ownership in Canada.

Will the Liberal government explain why it directed its lawyers not to advance the extinguishment argument, what legal principles it now intends to defend and what immediate steps it will take to restore certainty and confidence for Richmond residents and Canadians across this country?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this important topic and giving me the opportunity to speak to the issue. It is an important topic, and it is valuable to be having this discussion today in the House.

However, as we have this conversation, it is also important to note that this matter is before the courts, and so it is incumbent upon all members to be judicious and responsible when discussing this case so as not to impact the legal process.

Our government understands that the trial judge's decision in the Cowichan case has created uncertainty for potentially impacted landowners in the area over which title was found to exist.

Since September, we have been clear: Canada disagrees with the B.C. Supreme Court ruling and appealed it on September 8. British Columbia, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation have also appealed. We are reviewing potential legal arguments and all options are on the table.

This decision's potentially significant implications, including on private fee simple property rights, require greater legal certainty, and our government is committed to attaining that clarity through the proper legal process.

To be clear, we are absolutely committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability for private landownership. That is why we defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial, and we will continue to do so now as we go through the appeals process.

We absolutely understand the frustration of some potentially impacted private property owners in Richmond over the fact that they did not receive official notice of the proceedings prior to the decision being released.

Canada brought an application in 2017 seeking an order requiring the plaintiffs to notify the private landowners in this case. At that time, the court declined our request to have plaintiffs give formal notice to the private landowners.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Canada filed its consent with the court regarding the application by Montrose Industries and Ecowaste Industries to be added to the litigation and have a limited reopening of the trial. This would allow the company to provide its perspective on how the declaration of aboriginal title impacts its legal and financial interests, evidence that was not before the court during the trial. We are now awaiting the decision from the court regarding the application.

However, through it all, I want the House to know we absolutely respect the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights and title, and we maintain a firm commitment to advancing reconciliation. We will continue to work collaboratively with all parties to uphold the principles of reconciliation, transparency and legal responsibility throughout this process.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I believe the residents of Richmond do not buy the argument that since the case is before the courts, we cannot make comments. The B.C. government and the Richmond city council have made comments, so it is not right for the federal government to be silent on this issue.

Secondly, to say that the government has appealed is not enough. It filed an appeal at the very last minute and without a clear direction about what it is going to use as the grounds for the appeal.

Once again, will the Liberal government retract its directive to its counsel and use extinguishment as the grounds for appeal in this case?