Debates of April 15th, 2026

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.

This Senate bill, as we all know, seeks to develop a framework to regulate sports betting advertising in this country and set national standards for the prevention of risk for persons negatively impacted. It also provides for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, better known as the CRTC, to review its regulations and policies to reduce the incidence of harms resulting from sports betting advertising.

Let me speak to the heart of the matter. I spoke in the House in November 2020 in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code, single game sports betting. In that speech, I addressed the elephant in the room, which was problem gambling and addictions. As it stood at that time, there was absolutely no consumer protection or support built into the illegal sports betting systems for those struggling with gambling addictions resulting from illegal or offshore markets.

I want to remind everyone that the bill simply removed the federal restrictions, allowing provinces and territories the right to take over the single sports betting market, stemming the illegal offshore market, and to collect the tax, the profits, to use provincially instead of letting the money go to the offshore conglomerates.

In my province of Saskatchewan, I think the province has done a good job. It has shared the money with sports, recreation and culture. Alberta has done the same. Now, they are going to set up a heritage fund. Each province and territory makes its own decisions.

The bill provided provinces and territories with the ability to regulate and collect revenue, which could be used to fund mental health programs, research and addiction treatment, and it had widespread support from the provinces and territories. I should add that in the House the day we voted, the vote was 303 to 15. All parties were involved.

As members know, the regulation and administration of gambling has fallen directly in the purview of the provinces and territories since the 1985 federal agreement that transferred the rights to gaming to the provinces and territories. However, that does not preclude us from considering a federal framework in the interest of protecting vulnerable Canadians.

I am of an age to remember gambling in the shadows. It was the Irish Sweepstakes tickets. They were sold illegally in this country. I remember going into a room and someone would say to me, “Come here, I have these Irish Sweepstakes tickets.” That was back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Today, we cannot walk a block without seeing a Lotto 649 or Lotto Max sign lit up in neon. Confectioneries, gas stations, drugstores and grocery stores all have a huge variety of scratch tickets to choose from that are shiny and colourful, right in front of our eyes. If someone wins a free play, they are rewarded with flashing lights and called a winner. Everybody in the store can hear it.

Do members remember the five-minute television segments where the lottery numbers were drawn live while millions sat watching with their ticket or tickets in hand? These forms of advertising and promotion have been unchecked for decades. The television commercials, in my opinion, preyed upon vulnerable and desperate people. Anyone can buy a ticket today for a hospital home lottery, potentially winning a home, but what are the odds? The commercials seen today show a beautiful landscape and a lifestyle that most can only imagine.

In my estimation, fifty-fifty draws are the new fundraising technique. Young people are now coming door to door selling fifty-fifty tickets. We can scan the code, select how many tickets we want and then pay. We have seen the Toronto Blue Jays, especially this past year with their remarkable playoff run, reaching unheard of payouts with their fifty-fifty. Tens of millions of dollars have been raised.

It is the same thing in Western Canada with the Edmonton Oilers. They have a very successful fifty-fifty, as do a lot of teams in this country. I noticed that the Vancouver Canucks had a front page ad for a guaranteed super jackpot of $1 million in this Saturday's Vancouver Sun newspaper. We have all seen the advertising during a live game. It is non-stop, with networks even promoting the sale of tickets several times during a game.

Gaming has been around forever. This did not just start with my bill, Bill C-218. Gaming has been present for decades in this country, sometimes disguised as entertainment or as charity. Sports betting advertising, though, took the promotion to an all-time extreme. I feel that some provinces have dealt correctly with advertising, provinces such as B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I have talked to them about their concerns and about a framework. They all agree they would listen to a framework. Others, like Ontario and Alberta, want to see it wide, wide open. I have also talked to them about what they would like to see if a framework is in the offering.

We have seen advertising on NHL jerseys. We have seen professional players doing advertising about responsible gaming. There is no national consensus about how to manage the national advertising on sports. As a former sports broadcaster, I have to admit I was surprised at the barrage of ads that were running during the sporting events since the passage of Bill C-218 in 2020. The networks, which were starved for a new source of advertising revenue, in my opinion, exploited this golden opportunity to flood the airwaves with ads. What was always an accepted practice prior to the passage of Bill C-218 quickly became an avalanche of targeted, even predatory, and excessive advertising. It came at us from all sides, and I think the public was simply blindsided.

This has put the spotlight, unfortunately, on sports betting advertising, which we are here today to talk about with Bill S-211. I am supportive of putting a spotlight on addictions. I am very supportive of putting guardrails in place to protect the most vulnerable among us. However, let us not be short-sighted. This issue did not begin with sports betting ads, and it goes way beyond the sports betting ads. If we are going to take an honest look at the harms caused by gambling advertising, we must, I believe, consider all forms, like the lottos, the fifty-fifty, the hospital home lotteries and many more.

It has been five years since my bill, Bill C-218, passed, and every province and territorial jurisdiction is renewing their agreements this year with their gaming companies. I have spoken to a number of provincial counterparts about sports betting and their vision going forward. First off, I want to give a shout-out to the many provincial governments that did an exceptional job in writing their legislation for advertising. I have looked over their legislation, and for the most part, I think they got it right. They are dealing with advertising around school zones and dealing with minors, event hosting agreements, etc. It is very thoughtful and insightful legislation.

The issue of sports betting advertising lies with the rights holders of the broadcasting companies. It is expensive now when they buy the properties of the NHL, baseball, NFL and so on. It is tough to recoup their investment, so when the gaming companies saw this opportunity to exploit the market to the broadcasting companies, they were in desperate need of revenue. Let us be honest. This is why the Senate has targeted sports betting advertising. We are not the only jurisdiction in the world rethinking new ways to improve safety.

It has been 40-plus years since the federal government handed over gaming authority to the provinces. Therefore, it is time that we sit down and have a discussion about the framework.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S‑211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. This bill responds to very real concerns that have become apparent since sports betting became legalized.

My colleagues will agree that sport has a unique ability to bring people together. As a Quebecker, I grew up with the fierce rivalries and historic victories of the Montreal Canadiens. Last fall, we saw Canadians from across the country rally behind the Toronto Blue Jays during their incredible playoff run. This summer, the world will gather in Canada to celebrate the love of soccer during the FIFA World Cup.

Canadians know that sports betting advertising has become ubiquitous in sports broadcasts. No matter the sport, viewers are bombarded with ads encouraging them to get in on the action by placing a bet. Canadians of all ages are exposed to these advertisements. When a child sees their favourite athlete associated with a betting platform, it sends a clear message: Betting is part of sport. This kind of message exacerbates or even creates gambling problems among both vulnerable groups and children. It can also seriously impact the mental health of Canadians and, ultimately, the integrity of sport in Canada.

I believe it is our duty to take action to reduce these risks for the benefit of all Canadians, young and old. Bill S-211 is an excellent step towards preserving the integrity of Canada's sporting culture and Canadians' mental health in the face of sports betting advertising. It is up to us, as MPs, to ensure that this bill can bring about the positive change that lies at the heart of its objectives.

During the previous Parliament, the House passed Bill C‑218, the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Saskatoon South. The bill amended the Criminal Code to enable the provinces and territories to manage betting on races, fights and single sport events in their jurisdiction. Prior to the passage of Bill C‑218, Canadians participated in illegal betting, with no consumer protection, on offshore betting sites or with black market bookmakers with ties to organized crime. These illegal practices funnelled money out of Canadian communities and into the pockets of criminals. That money was not reinvested in communities, as is the case with revenue from legitimate, regulated lotteries.

Ontario is currently the only province that allows private gaming operators, through an agency called iGaming Ontario. Gaming companies are aggressively purchasing advertising slots on regional and national sports broadcasts. As a result, these ads are now being seen across the country, not just in Ontario.

The volume and prevalence of sports betting advertising may increase the risks for Canadians who participate in it. The role that advertising plays in influencing gambling is problematic. Studying effective measures to reduce these risks is an important issue that deserves our attention.

It is estimated that viewers watching sports see roughly three gambling ads per minute. That is on television. There are more than 19.3 million active online gamblers in Canada, making it one of the fastest-growing sectors. However, despite the fact that a regulatory framework for legalized sports betting was introduced in Bill C-218, Canada ranks eighth in the world in terms of money spent on offshore gambling, totalling approximately $4 billion per year. We need to better understand how these dynamics affect public health in order to implement measures that will reduce social harm and protect the most vulnerable from problem gambling.

This advertising is seen by sports fans of all ages, including children, as I mentioned earlier. Its pervasiveness during events, especially during sports broadcasts, makes it seem like a natural extension of the game. We know that most adults realize that these are sports-themed commercial ventures. Most of them remember a time when betting on sports was a crime, but the same cannot be said for the teenagers or children watching games with their parents. For young fans growing up in an age when their favourite athletes are appearing in ads for betting platforms, bets and contests on the sidelines of games have become a central feature of the sports experience.

Research has established a correlation between gambling advertising exposure, a more positive attitude toward gambling, increased gambling intention and increased gambling behaviour. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk of harm, in terms of both frequency and severity, especially among children, young adults and vulnerable individuals.

However, it is not just young people who are at risk. Older adults with mental health challenges or problems, such as cognitive decline, are also at increased risk of developing a gambling addiction. There is some evidence that suggests there is a link between exposure to advertising and the severity or intensity of gambling problems and other challenges. Regardless of our views on the place that sports betting should have in our society, we must recognize our responsibility to reduce the harms associated with activities like sports betting advertising, especially for vulnerable people.

Bill S-211 requires the federal government to establish a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising, provide tools for the prevention and identification of problem gambling, and support those affected by the harmful effects of gambling.

Responsible sports betting can have a place in our culture alongside a framework for informed and responsible gambling. Betting can be structured so that money is reinvested in our communities, rather than being siphoned off by criminals. It can be regulated so that vulnerable individuals and their loved ones do not face the very real health risks and other harms associated with gambling. We have an opportunity here to address this issue responsibly before sports betting is normalized through advertising in a way that fails to account for the risks associated with this activity.

Given the issues surrounding sports betting, and given the potential impact on children, young people, older people and vulnerable groups, I believe it is essential to address the issue of sports betting advertising which, as I mentioned earlier, has become ubiquitous. This bill will enable us to put up safeguards and provide information to help protect vulnerable groups, to have funds to reinvest in our communities and to ensure that sport remains a force that continues to unite our country.

We will be able to watch the 2026 FIFA World Cup together, safe in the knowledge that we are protecting our constituents.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

I will begin with a simple observation. Canadians are noticing a change. Hockey games, football games, family shows, even online videos are now full of sports betting ads. What used to show up once in a while is now constant. They are tired of seeing their favourite celebrities and athletes encouraging gambling at every commercial break. For many Canadians, especially young people, these athletes and celebrities are role models. When those same public figures are used to promote gambling, it carries a level of influence that goes beyond typical advertisement.

In 2021, Parliament made the decision to legalize single-event sports betting. People were already doing it, often through unregulated sites. Bringing it into the legal system helped provinces regulate it, but since then, something else has happened: Sports betting has exploded, and Bill S-211 is trying to deal with it. At its core, this is about trying to get a better handle on this fast-growing industry.

Before we get into the contents of the bill, it is important to be clear about how things currently work. Provinces are mainly in charge of gaming, and some have stricter rules than others. They license companies, set rules and, in some cases, even operate the platforms themselves. However, advertising is different. Ads do not stop at provincial borders. We can watch the same advertisement if we are in Vancouver or Kitchener Centre. This is part of why the issue has become more noticeable. This also raises a basic question: Why is this one area of advertising so lightly regulated when so many others are tightly controlled?

We already regulate gambling differently from any other product, because it is not like other forms of advertising. This is something that can influence behaviour in ways that require extra caution. A great example that comes to mind is the limits placed on alcohol and tobacco advertisements. We have limits on when ads can run, where they appear and how they can be targeted. We need to protect our young people. It would be reasonable to ask why a similar thing would not apply here.

It is worth looking at the impact that this is having around us. In 2025, a study from the American Institute for Boys and Men found that in states with legalized sports betting, there was a clear sign of financial strain on families. Credit scores went down and more people fell into debt troubles, collections and missed payments. Bankruptcy rose by as much as 25% to 30% a few years after online betting was introduced.

It means that individuals struggling with addiction face constant triggers with very little protection. For someone working to regain control of a gambling addiction, constant exposure to these betting ads is not just background noise; it is a huge barrier on the path to recovery. It can be difficult to move forward when the same messaging appears during games, online and across multiple platforms. For those individuals, it is real. We need to recognize that constant exposure can make a difficult situation even harder.

Even beyond the statistics, there is a real impact here that we cannot afford to overlook. When gambling becomes more visible with constant exposure, it does not just affect the individual, but the entire household. Families feel the strain when money that should be going towards the mortgage or rent, groceries or savings is instead lost through gambling. It is also important to recognize that not all families feel this equally. For those already dealing with the rising cost of living or financial pressure, even small losses can have a much greater impact. In an economy where Canadians are already stretched thin, this is not a minor concern.

We also see the emotional toll this can take. It creates stress in relationships, arguments at home and, in some cases, it can cause a breakdown of trust within families. What may start as casual betting can turn into a pattern that becomes difficult to control. Unfortunately, that pressure is felt most by spouses, children and parents.

This is why exposure matters. When gambling is constantly promoted while the family is sitting down for Saturday night hockey, it normalizes behaviour and can carry big risks for households. It makes it much harder for those trying to step back from gambling to actually avoid it. For many fans, it is also changing the experience of the game itself. What used to be about the sports is increasingly tied to odds, bets and promotions.

We also know that protecting young people is a major concern here. A number of weeks ago, Dr. Shawn Kelly shared that in his practice, he is meeting children as young as 14 who are already struggling with gambling behaviours.

Dr. Kelly also shared that, even at home, his own son is starting to ask questions about the difference between over-under and plus-minus while watching hockey highlights. It is no wonder why when 21% of our sports broadcasting time is often made up of gambling advertisements. This issue is already part of our everyday conversation. When something moves from being niche to being a part of daily life so quickly, it is reasonable for us to take notice and analyze if the rules have kept pace.

At the same time, there is a broader question about responsibility. In a modern digital world, we live in a world where advertising follows people whether they are watching TV, streaming platforms or social media. The line between entertainment and promotion is becoming harder to see, especially for younger audiences. In that kind of environment, the question is not whether people should be allowed to participate in sports betting, but whether our current approach is clear, consistent and appropriate for the reality that we are seeing today.

It is also worth noting that Canada is not alone in facing this issue. Other G7 countries have already begun taking a closer look at how sports betting is advertised and the impact it can have. In some cases, they have introduced clearer national rules around when and how these ads can appear, especially during times when young people are likely to be watching. By comparison, Canada's approach remains more broken up. We rely heavily on provinces, industry standards and evolving guidelines, all without a national picture. It does not mean that those efforts are not important, but it does highlight that we may be lagging behind when it comes to having a universal understanding of the issue. This is a great way to begin closing that gap by making sure we are looking at this in a more complete way.

Conservatives believe in personal freedom. We believe that with freedom comes responsibility. Adults should be able to make their own choices, but freedom does not mean free-for-all. It does not mean flooding every sports game with gambling ads, and it does not mean ignoring the impact that this may have on families or young people. There is a clear difference between giving Canadians the freedom to make a choice and surrounding them with constant pressure to make that choice. That distinction matters.

Right now, different provinces and groups are trying different approaches. Some have rules on advertising. Industry groups are working on codes of conduct. The CRTC has also said it may align broadcasters with certain standards once they are finalized, so there is already activity happening across this country. The question is whether it is working well enough and whether it is consistent.

This is where Bill S-211 comes in. It would not ban advertising. It would not take away provincial control. Instead, it would ask for more coordination and for government to study what is actually happening. Some will say this is not enough, and others will worry that it goes too far. What it really does is ask for a clear picture of the situation and whether our current system is working as intended. We are not trying to change the entire system overnight, but to make sure we are asking the right questions and getting the full picture of what is happening. This industry is changing rapidly. The responsible thing to do would be for us to pause, review and ensure that there are safeguards in place and that they are doing what they are meant to do.

At the end of the day, this issue is not about being for or against sports betting. It is about whether the system we have today is keeping up with the reality Canadians are living in. With constant advertising and young people at higher risk of being exposed, and with families starting to feel real financial and emotional pressure, it is fair to ask whether more coordination is needed. Bill S-211 is a step toward bringing governments together, looking at the evidence and making sure that the rules reflect what is happening on the ground. Canadians expect us to take that kind of balanced, practical approach.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Waterloo has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

I would like to begin by thanking the constituents of my riding, Waterloo, as well as all those across Canada who are confirming the importance of this debate from coast to coast to coast.

Like many of my colleagues, I have heard and responded to many Canadians regarding the high volume of sports betting advertising, which is frankly destroying the simple joy of watching sports. As a reminder, this bill has been formally joint-seconded by members stretching across three political parties, who represent ridings from seven different provinces and one territory. This demonstrates sports betting advertising not as a partisan issue, but rather as a growing issue of concern that we need to address.

At the very least, the health and safety of Canadians is an area of shared jurisdiction. I invite my colleagues to support sending Bill S‑211 to committee so we can determine the appropriate role that the federal government can play while taking jurisdictional concerns into account.

While some provinces have been taking appropriate steps to combat the growing harms of sports betting and its advertising, overall their approaches have been fragmented, which has created gaps for abuse and the growth of illegal markets and addiction. We must all be able to agree that we need to rid our society of these issues. We have an opportunity to work together to determine the best approach, and committee is a great avenue for this.

It has now been five years since single-game sports betting was legalized in Canada. In this short time, the data is already showing drastic results. I recognize that all levels of government and all jurisdictions have a role to play. This Senate public bill that I have sponsored in the House aims to determine the federal government's role. We all know that the health and safety of Canadian people is a top priority for all governments, which confirms that the Government of Canada needs to take seriously a national framework on sports betting advertising by working with provincial governments, public health agencies, experts, the private sector, people with lived experiences, and so forth.

As we come to the end of second reading debate on Bill S-211, it is important to finish by reminding ourselves where the bill came from. Bill S-211 was reinvigorated by Senator Marty Deacon, a Canadian from Waterloo 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. I thank her for her leadership.

I also want to thank all my colleagues who worked on Bill S‑211 in the hallways, by email and in the House.

I want to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Northumberland—Clarke, who all spoke to Bill S‑211 in the first hour of debate on this bill at second reading in February of this year.

I also thank the member of Parliament for Drummond, the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, the member for Saskatoon South, the member for Compton—Stanstead and the member for Kitchener Centre, who spoke this evening to conclude Bill S-211's second reading.

The calibre of debate has really demonstrated the best of this place. It shows and proves that respectful debate and dialogue is possible. I call on all colleagues to move Bill S-211 forward to committee so proper conversation and scrutiny can take place on the correct path forward and to ensure that there are suitable parameters around sports betting advertising in Canada so we can return to the joy of watching sports with our loved ones.

I would be fine with passing the bill on division, but I know there are members who want to stand in this place in support of or in opposition to the bill, so later on I will be asking for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion 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.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech, I am requesting a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Public Service of Canada

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for decades, governments in this country have chipped away at the public service. When the Liberals came to power, they ran on not cutting jobs of hard-working public servants who provide these services, and yet that is exactly what they are doing across the country right now.

This is about having a government that works for the people they represent. This is about whether Canadians can actually get the help that they need and access the services that they depend upon. Right now, they cannot. In my office in Edmonton Strathcona, my excellent, dedicated staff are overwhelmed, not because they are inefficient but because the system is so broken.

This is what underfunding looks like. It means a worker who lost their job cannot access EI and is facing eviction. It means a senior who applied for OAS months ago still has not received their OAS and cannot pay for groceries because their benefits have not arrived. It means that a parent loses the Canada child benefit and waits half a year for it to be fixed. These are not isolated stories. This is the daily reality for Canadians.

Instead of fixing this problem, the government is making it worse. Tens of thousands of public service workers are being cut. That means that there are fewer people to answer the phones, process the applications and fix the mistakes when the system gets it wrong. Therefore, wait times will get longer, errors will increase and Canadians will fall through the cracks.

Cuts to food inspection mean greater risk of contaminated food reaching family dinner tables. Cuts to environmental oversight mean less protection for the air we breathe and the water we drink. Cuts to indigenous services mean fewer supports for communities that already face systemic barriers. Cuts to science mean decisions made with less evidence and more guesswork. At a time when Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, the government is making it harder for them to access the very services they depend on.

Now, the government is saying that AI will fix it, that artificial intelligence is the solution. However, Canadians do not need a chatbot when they are about to be evicted. They do not need an automated response when their benefits are being denied. They do not need an algorithm deciding their future without accountability. They need a human being who will listen, who will understand and who will fix their problems.

AI makes mistakes, and when government systems make mistakes, Canadians pay the price through missed payments, lost benefits, delayed care and real harm. This is not innovation. This is downloading risk onto the people who can least afford it. They are seniors, people living with disabilities and families already stretched to the limit.

Canadians are not asking for less government. They are asking for a government that works; a government that delivers benefits on time; and a government that sees them, hears them and helps them when they need it the most. Right now, they are not getting that and these cuts are only making it worse.

We need to reverse the cuts. We need to stop the layoffs of the very people Canadians are relying upon. We need to invest in the public service so that benefits are delivered on time, calls are answered and mistakes are fixed quickly. We need to halt the reckless replacement of human services with unproven AI systems and we need to commit to building a system that is accessible to everyone. Canadians deserve that from their government.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that the government made a clear commitment to Canadians to bring fiscal discipline to the federal budget. It will spend less on government operations so that it can invest more in areas that will grow our economy and strengthen our country at this critical juncture. As part of that effort, the government launched a comprehensive expenditure review last July to meet its commitment to responsible, cost-effective spending that delivers results for Canadians. The review required federal organizations to bring forward savings, proposals to spend less on day-to-day running of government by targeting programs and activities that are not core to the federal mandate, are duplicative or are not aligned with government priorities. Organizations also considered ways to work more efficiently, leveraging existing technologies where needed.

Budget 2025, tabled last November, presented the results of the review, which identified savings across the government of $13 billion annually by 2028-29. The size of the public service grew by over 40% in the last 10 years. It is not sustainable. This will include decreasing the size of the public service by approximately 16,000 full-time equivalents. The budget also announced a commitment to reduce 1,000 executive positions over the next two years. The reductions are being managed with fairness and compassion, relying on attrition and voluntary departures to the greatest extent possible.

Organizations are also required to follow established workforce adjustment processes outlined in collective agreements or, in the case of executives, through career transition measures. Both set out clear processes and supports for employees who may be impacted. Workforce adjustment is the process organizations use in the core public administration when it has been determined that a position is no longer required. In a workforce adjustment situation, there are specific provisions governing how this is done that are codeveloped or negotiated with bargaining agents. Indeed, the government is leveraging all available tools to limit involuntary departures. This includes early retirement incentives. This program would provide an opportunity for eligible employees to retire without penalty for early departure.

These reductions are being carried out fairly and responsibly and in line with the government's obligations as an employer. They are part of the necessary and major recalibration within government spending that will redirect funds to be invested in Canada and Canadians. They are what the moment calls for, an investment in Canada's future.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am very disappointed by that response. The member spoke about the idea of fixing the system. I would like him to say that to the senior who called my office because they could not access OAS. When we call the government to get help, we are told, “Don't worry. Don't worry. This senior can wait. When they do get their benefits, they will get many months at one time.” It is as if the government does not understand that people actually have to buy groceries every month. They have to pay their rent every month.

When that member of the House talked about impacts and how this is being fiscally responsible, he has to know, because I know that my office is not the only one. I understand that every member of Parliament has a constituency office dealing with the same issues, where Canadian citizens cannot access the services that the government is responsible for providing. The system is broken.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr Speaker, let me underline that the government is making responsible choices to focus on core priorities that will deliver more effectively for Canadians. This is a transformational time for the public service to revisit how it works, how it can improve services for Canadians and how it can build the future for Canada.

The government is committed to managing the reductions to its workforce with fairness and compassion. The workforce adjustment process is one way we are doing this. The early retirement incentive program, introduced in budget 2025, would also help further reduce involuntary departures subject to criteria that is set by Treasury Board should it be approved by Parliament.

Through the comprehensive expenditure review, the government is making responsible choices for Canadians to focus on core priorities and deliver more effectively for Canadians.

Carbon Pricing

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in December, I asked the Minister of Jobs and Families why the Prime Minister was increasing industrial carbon taxes during a cost of living crisis. These costs do not stay with large emitters, but are passed down the supply chains, raising the price of groceries and transportation, and stunting economic growth. Lower fuel costs would reduce the price of shipping, building materials and essentials, making life more affordable for Canadians who are already pinching their pennies.

That is why this week the government listened to the Conservatives. However, its plan only delivers a third of the relief Conservatives propose for a third of the year. Eliminating federal taxes would also ease pressures for small businesses operating on already thin margins. The industrial carbon tax disproportionately targets energy-intensive sectors that small businesses rely on, such as fuels for shipping and electricity for day-to-day operations. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, nearly two-thirds of small businesses report that they are absorbing additional fuel costs. A third have increased their prices as a result.

Taxes and regulatory burden remain among the top pressures facing small businesses in Canada today. We are already seeing the consequences. Business closures are up 19% since 2019. Small business employment dropped by 34,000 jobs in March alone. Employment declined across every region in the country. Fifty-five per cent of small businesses would not recommend starting a business in Canada's environment today.

While the government has temporarily suspended the federal excise tax on gas and diesel this week, it has doubled down on the clean fuel standards and the industrial carbon tax, which is set to increase to $170 per tonne by 2030. It is subjecting our economy and Canadians to a death by a thousand cuts. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that Canada's emissions reductions will have a limited impact globally, yet Canadian businesses are bearing disproportionately high costs. Temporary relief does nothing to offset permanent structural cost increases, causing our economy to hemorrhage jobs and investments and not address the affordability crisis.

The situation, unfortunately, is projected to get worse. A study by the Fraser Institute estimates that increasing the industrial carbon price to $170 per tonne by 2030 will lead to a 1.3% reduction in our GDP nationally, reduce average incomes by $1,160 per worker and cost Canada 50,000 jobs. The report is clear. Reduced returns on investment will lead to cancelled or delayed business expansion, less capital investment and ultimately lower long-term living standards for Canadians.

Over the last decade, Canada has already lost 1,000 entrepreneurs, while our population has gone up by 10 million people. When Canadian firms face higher input costs due to carbon pricing, investment flows elsewhere. The Business Council of Canada has warned that investment is increasingly being redirected to the U.S. due to more competitive policy frameworks. For small businesses, that means fewer contracts, fewer supply chains, less growth and fewer jobs. I have been contacted by businesses from B.C. and across Canada that cannot afford to keep their doors open due to mounting financial pressures that are not just international in nature but from Canada as well. The Hub recently reported that Canadians are opening more businesses in the U.S. than at home because we have no regulatory framework to protect entrepreneurs.

The government's policies have made it impossible to meet its own economic objectives. Why is it making it harder to do business in Canada? Will it finally scrap these policies before more jobs and investment leave our great country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford proudly represents many of my extended family in the Sumas and Sts'ailes first nations, and I raise my hands to him for that, but I have to disagree with how he is painting the industrial carbon pricing.

We have said before that there is no carbon tax on food and farmers, and farmers are not subject to the industrial carbon price. Independent modelling from the Canadian Climate Institute and Navius Research shows the impact of industrial carbon pricing on agriculture is less than one-tenth of 1% by 2030. Why? It is because farmers are not the ones paying it. Industrial carbon pricing applies only to large industrial emitters: steel, cement, mining, oil and gas. Under the output-based system, facilities can cut emissions, buy credits or adopt cleaner technologies. It is a flexible and efficient framework that reduces emissions at the lowest cost while protecting business and competitiveness.

Global pressures, not federal climate policy, are driving food inflation. Disrupted shipping routes, climate-related crop losses and the impacts of international conflicts on fertilizer and energy markets are the same challenges faced around the world. That is why yesterday the government temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel across Canada. Starting April 20, this measure will provide immediate relief to Canadians, reducing prices at the pump by approximately 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. It lowers costs for businesses and truckers across key sectors while we continue to build long-term energy security. This is in addition to our new Canada groceries and essentials benefit announced earlier this year, which will help more than 12 million low- and modest-income earners afford day-to-day essentials.

We are also investing heavily in adaptation. Since 2015, more than $6.6 billion has supported community resilience, with new funding in budget 2025. Indigenous leadership is essential to this work and supported by over $2 billion in indigenous-led climate initiatives since 2020. Climate action is economic action. Our policies protect families, support workers and position Canada for long-term prosperity.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do enjoy debating with the member for Vancouver Quadra every single time.

I will point out, in disagreement, that the suspension of the fuel excise tax proves the argument I was making, that increased regulations and carbon taxes in Canada do impact our cost of living, and that is why, indeed, the government listened to the Conservatives, in good faith and constructive parliamentary debate, and decided to remove it until Labour Day.

The member also mentioned climate change adaptation in his remarks, and I am glad he did, because he knows as well as I do that my constituents in Semá:th first nation, across Sumas Prairie and across the eastern Fraser Valley really are looking for leadership from the Government of Canada. When we come forward with a flood mitigation plan, it will require federal leadership to build the requisite climate-resilient infrastructure to prevent the next flood. The member knows as well as I do that Sumas Lake used to be a lake. Now it is farmland, but we need to fix that area for future agriculture.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do recognize what the hon. member has stated. I have talked with many of my family members in that area about that very topic.

I will repeat this because it matters. Farmers do not pay the industrial carbon price, and groceries are not subject to any carbon tax. Our government eliminated the consumer fuel charge back in 2025. Industrial carbon pricing applies only to major emitters and gives them practical, low-cost options to reduce pollution. Eliminating these tools would not lower food prices. It would increase pollution, undermine investor certainty and weaken Canada's competitiveness as the global market shifts to cleaner production. There is no food packaging tax, and independent analysis shows food inflation has been driven by global disruptions, not climate policy.

Canadians deserve solutions grounded in evidence, and that is exactly what this government will be delivering.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:21 p.m.)