Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, petition e-7341 was initiated by a constituent in the riding of Waterloo. With almost 45 online signatures, the petitioners are raising concerns regarding the prolonged security screen delays of applicants residing in Canada with valid immigration status. I have spoken with many of these constituents and have heard a range of perspectives. Constituents agree that we cannot compromise the security and safety of Canadians, which is why the petitioners are asking the House of Commons to request the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study immigration security screening delays to review whether existing resources are sufficient, examine the accountability mechanisms for timely security screenings, evaluate the use of a risk-based triage system and consider independent oversight or audits from officers who report Parliament. The petitioners have shared with numerous MPs their personal experiences, and they are reiterating those through my presenting this petition on their behalf.

Madam Speaker, I listen to the debates in the House, and I know that the Bloc Québécois likes to say that there is always one Liberal member who asks questions. There will be several of us today, because I really appreciated that speech. I think that here in the House, we have the opportunity to work together. It is easy to say that we have support or that we do not, but I think that what makes a difference is providing constructive feedback. I would like the member to tell me how we can work better together and how we can ensure that we represent our constituents better in the House, because that is what my constituents in Waterloo want. I want to find ways to work together, and I think that is also the Prime Minister's approach.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back representing the good constituents of the riding of Waterloo and to be having this really important debate. Similar legislation was introduced in a previous Parliament but unfortunately did not come to fruition. We know there are many communities looking to advance legislation such as this. It is good to hear the goodwill on the opposition side in wanting to see this legislation advance, and I hope to see that done quickly, because if we want to see implementation and action, passing this legislation is definitely an important step. I would ask if the minister could please tell us who was part of the co-development of this act. Were others engaged in this process? That is something that constituents in the riding of Waterloo are asking. They are also asking how the commissioner would be chosen. Any insight from the minister would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister reminding us what this bill is about. It is about working with provinces and territories and providing them with the levers to help Canadians. Even on a bill so simple, we hear the opposition talking about the importance of having debate and conversation. Anybody who has been observing committees has seen, whenever the opposition has an expert, a witness or a minister present, its members are busy talking about their pets, including all the way up to elephants. It is interesting, because when the Conservatives have the opportunity to ask questions, to scrutinize and to actually be an effective opposition, they choose to spend time talking about anything but the legislation or what is in front of them. We see it here in the House as well. When people want us to work, when Canadians are hurting and want us to serve, the Conservatives cannot fathom the government succeeding in doing well for Canadians. They would rather keep advancing their narrative than help their own constituents, neighbours and fellow Canadians. I would like to hear this from the minister: Why is it important that we get this legislation done, and what do we see as the potential outcomes? Why is it important that the government be able to deliver for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, I find some of the comments from the official opposition interesting, especially when comments are made that 30 hours of debate is not enough. I agree that we want to raise different perspectives. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives. They want to hear us having meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons, as well as in committee, but they also remind me that we are not just here to talk things out and to debate. We need to make decisions. Canadians made a decision to send the Liberal government to Ottawa to govern the country and respond to the challenges we are facing. Can the secretary of state just reaffirm the importance of making decisions and calling the question on votes so we can be productive? The opposition has the ability to ensure that members can be heard, but they refuse to share how many members want to speak because they are derailing the conversation rather than staying focused. Why is it that these tools constantly need to be used?

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, and I really appreciated the insights being provided. I think this is important legislation, and I personally believe the federal government has an important role to play when it comes to housing. In Waterloo, constituents have really appreciated the federal government stepping up and returning to the housing scene and having different levels of government working together. We have received some substantial investments from the federal government when it comes to increasing the affordable housing supply, a supply that will remain in our community for generations to come, with some of the most historic kinds of projects that we have not been able to dabble in before. I would like to hear the member's thoughts as to why the Conservatives are taking the approach that the federal government does not have a role to play. Why are they so concerned that the federal government will help Canadians and give them a hand? In the region of Waterloo, I have been asked by constituents about Conservative members voting against the bill, our legislation and our budget, yet when it comes to housing projects, the Conservatives offer these hollow letters of support for those projects. We know that in the past Conservative members were reprimanded for asking the minister of housing for support for their communities. Clearly, there are Conservative members who want to see the federal government support housing initiatives in their communities. I would like the member to build upon some of those comments. It is unfortunate that this is not the chorus that the whole Conservative Party is singing, but I am confident there are some Conservative members who are confident that the federal government has a role to play. What are the member's thoughts?

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the last exchange was interesting. We just received an example of a Conservative member's wanting more investment in housing and more affordable housing built, recognizing that his constituents need the federal government to play a role, yet rather than working with the government to ensure that we can have more successes for Canadians, the Conservatives would rather slow things down and have Canadians hurting. I find it fascinating, and we experienced this at committee yesterday as well, that the Conservative Party is going out of its way to almost amplify the hurt of Canadians rather than being part of the solution. That is probably why the Conservative Party remains the professional opposition: It actually does not want to be part of the solution. Could the parliamentary secretary please expand on the importance of the legislation, the federal government's role and how it would actually help the people like the ones the member for London—Fanshawe has just referred to? I have to say that I am starting to miss the previous member for London—Fanshawe, because I do believe she would have at least fought hard to ensure that the constituents were fought for, rather than standing in the way and hoping that they hurt. I want Canadians to succeed. I will fight for the people of Waterloo. I would like to hear the member's comments.

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments about really being there to meet Canadians with what they need and finding out ways to do it are not lost on me. Just last month, the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta stated in a press release that they are going to invest $323 million in affordable housing. There will be 41 projects in the province of Alberta. They will also build more than 70 new shelter spaces for Albertans in need. This press release, which was signed off on by both the Government of Alberta and the Canadian government, talks about Build Canada Homes. I would like to know if the member supports the 41 projects in here, including the projects in Red Deer, Lacombe, Calgary and Edmonton. The list goes on. Does he believe the federal government has a role to play—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on this file and on the importance of bringing this issue forward. What we know is that the individuals were not always believed. Luckily, society is advancing, but there has just been a case in Ontario where 48 women came forward, and the judge had no problem suggesting that there was no credibility to any of their testimony. I would like to hear the member's comments on the work we need to do on how we ensure that survivors are believed, and that when they come forward, they receive the dignity and respect they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petition e-6898, a petition on social affairs and equality, initiated by Tanner Bergsma, a constituent of the riding of Waterloo. Petitioners recognize that there are benefits within the country, but they feel that these benefits do not go far enough for the challenges they are facing. Petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to establish a national living benefit to ensure that all Canadians with disabilities and seniors receive a guaranteed income above the official poverty line. They would like it to be indexed to inflation, and they want to also ensure that it is protected from provincial clawbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments and the level of discourse and debate taking place on this legislation. We saw a Canadian from southwestern Ontario be part of the mission of people going the farthest that we have seen in our lifetime. It has been pretty impressive. It is really encouraging, and initiates the desire for the private sector to grow and for opportunities to grow, where academia meets the private sector and so forth. Is there anything else the member would like to expand on? I know that constituents in the riding of Waterloo are really looking forward to seeing this debate advance.

Mr. Speaker, in Waterloo, UWaterloo grads are turning Canadian research into real-world solutions. KA Imaging's advanced X-ray technology is improving diagnostic accuracy, creating skilled jobs locally and helping clinicians make better decisions for patients. Its portable X-ray technology is being used in Canadian hospitals and globally in remote rural clinics in Kenya, Nigeria and 12 other export markets. Will the government share how we are supporting innovators like this in Waterloo, across Canada and around the world that are improving global health outcomes and saving lives of women and children?

Mr. Speaker, Team Dave is FRC Team 3683, the first robotics team at St. David Catholic Secondary School in Waterloo. Team Dave's participation in the first robotics competition is what gives the team its structure, intensity and connection, but what stands out is how they balance their competitive drive with their culture of helping others. When asked, Team Dave shared that the most meaningful part of their season was supporting fellow teams across the Waterloo Wellington community. I have seen it. Team Dave showcases the best of Waterloo and Canada. Team Dave is not just a team that builds robots. It is a competitive engineering program, a training ground for real-world problem-solving, a node in a global robotics network and an environment that develops both soft and hard skills. In March, Team Dave won the Canadian Pacific Regional in Vancouver, B.C. I congratulate Team Dave. We look forward to seeing what comes next. We thank the sponsors, mentors, parents, teachers and supporters who never cease supporting Team Dave. I wish the team a happy sweet 16.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the reminder of how the Conservatives do tend to bring about their convenience. It is more like the “do as I say, not as I do” Conservative Party. We really do not necessarily know where they stand. Sometimes their own members are confused. I would like to hear from the member, just to bring the constituents of the riding of Waterloo up to speed, what we are debating today and perhaps what took place.

Mr. Speaker, dozens of constituents from the riding of Waterloo have signed the petition I am presenting, and many of these applicants have lived in Canada for several years, maintaining lawful status, contributing to the economy and the research sector, and repeatedly passing previous security verifications. Many of these constituents are actually Iranian nationals holding Canadian masters degrees and Ph.D.s. The petitioners are raising to the Government of Canada that they feel and believe that the security screening process is disproportionately unfair for people who come from certain parts of the world, so they would like to bring this matter to the government's attention. The petitioners make the point that they have been here for an extended period of time, sometimes even 10 to 15 years, before they are invited to apply for the provincial nominee program to have permanent residence. They would like the Government of Canada to look into this process and the scrutiny under the security process. They want Canada to be safe, but they also want to have a fair chance to be able to establish themselves and to continue contributing to the Canadian economy as Canadian citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for you to review some of the exchanges that have taken place during question period today. As per the Standing Orders, you will recognize that unparliamentary language, when it becomes personal, is not welcome in this chamber. I can understand it when we are referring to legislation and to policies, but when we are referring to hon. members with certain terminology, which I am not going to repeat, I think that really should receive a ruling. There was a line of questioning today going after certain ministers, labelling them with certain adjectives and adverbs that are just not suitable or appropriate as per the Standing Orders. I would just ask that you rewatch the excellent question period that we just had and let us know if it was suitable or not.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I appreciate him acknowledging that Canadians need to pay attention to this debate. It is interesting, because Canadians should know that the debate we are currently having in the House is on the removal of a short title. Constituents within the riding of Waterloo would want to know what was so appalling about the short title that the Conservatives chose to remove the reasoned amendment they had put on notice, which members were prepared to debate. This morning, the Conservative House leader came in, removed the reasoned amendment that the Conservatives had supposedly put thought and process into, and chose to replace that substantial debate with one on removing the short title. I would like to hear from the member what was so wrong with the reasoned amendment that we are debating the removal of a short title.

Mr. Speaker, the member had a point of order earlier. He was concerned about the same old members asking questions, and he really wanted a question from the MP for Waterloo, so here I am asking a question on behalf of constituents from the riding of Waterloo, who think this is important legislation. I agree. We have received many emails regarding this legislation from all sides. It is a true diversity of perspectives. They know it is an important debate to have. There was a question posed about a reasoned amendment that was placed on notice. Rather than debating that reasoned amendment, the Conservative House leader came in this morning and changed the debate. Now we are debating the removal of the short title. The Conservatives are suggesting that that is not the debate, but that is the debate that we are having. I would like to hear from the member what he has against the short title and why we are not debating the reasoned amendment.

Mr. Speaker, similar issues have come up within the riding of Waterloo, where people recognize that having a federally funded or publicly funded health care system is important. People are also noticing that provinces are oftentimes dabbling with the idea of a two-tier health care system. There seems to be much recognition that asylum claimants are a different group of people in that they are usually very vulnerable, coming from places in the world where they will not be safe, hence why we have an asylum system. I do believe that the road the Conservatives are travelling is scary, is at the risk of misrepresentation and is really about dividing Canadians on an important issue. A former cabinet minister and Conservative member did say that anger is an emotion, not a substitute for strategic policy. I would like to hear from the member about any constructive feedback to ensure that the system does work for Canadians and that Canada takes its international—

moved that Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Marty Deacon for her dedication in crafting the bill, alongside her colleagues in the Senate, who unanimously voted to send the bill forward to us in the House. Senator Deacon is a Canadian who has coached and led teams from the grassroots to the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games and the Pan American Games. She, like many members of the House, has witnessed first-hand what the power of sport and the opportunity of sport can be. Sports betting is legal in Canada, yet constituents in Waterloo, as well as constituents across multiple provinces and territories, have shared concerns regarding the abundance of advertisements, which now often overshadow the sport itself. I have witnessed the joy of young people being given very basic equipment and facilities that allow them to learn and lead through sport. This is what sport should be. However, we are hearing directly from Canadians that the lines are being blurred. This is a problem we all bear some responsibility for. I include myself in this, as I voted in the 43rd Parliament for Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting. Members will recall that, in 2021, Parliament passed Bill C-218, which amended the Criminal Code by removing the long-standing prohibition on betting on the outcomes of “a race...or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest.” It removed one line from the Criminal Code that referred to single sports betting. This, in effect, permitted provinces to allow for single sports betting in their own jurisdiction. It is interesting that the ads we see that permeate every phone and television screen across the country are all from Ontario, the one province, for now, where private companies are allowed to operate and advertise. To date, every other province or territory allows for single sports betting only through its own lottery corporation, yet I and my colleagues have heard from our constituents from coast to coast to coast that they are growing tired of and increasingly concerned by seeing advertisements pushing sports betting. Sending the bill to committee for a thorough and thoughtful study would go a long way in trying to make this right. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, for seconding the bill. I also appreciate that Bill S-211 has been joint-seconded by many colleagues spanning three political parties and seven provinces and one territory. I and many colleagues are eager to respond to the growing concerns of constituents and to determine the correct framework forward. I will just give a reminder that less than five years ago, to gamble meant leaving one's home and going, most likely, to a casino. I will elaborate on this a little bit later. Many other countries, such as the U.K., Australia and Germany, have implemented similar policies to some degree. Italy has banned ads outright. Admittedly, for all these jurisdictions it remains a work in progress, but the takeaway is that other jurisdictions are at least doing something about it. Why are they? It is because they legalized sports betting well before we did, and they are reckoning with the outcomes. We have the benefit of foresight here. We can see where this is heading, and we cannot stand by and let our country and its citizens steer straight toward that iceberg by doing nothing. Gambling is not a benign form of entertainment for everyone. For a significant number of Canadians, gambling is addictive, with consequences that extend well beyond the individual to families, workplaces and communities. Problem gambling is associated with financial distress, mental health challenges, relationship breakdowns, and, in severe cases, self-harm. Sports betting is a unique and distinct form of gambling. Its abuse is deeply intertwined with users' love of sports: an activity that is rooted in community, identity and shared passion but that masks the true nature of the harm. Sports bettors often develop a perceived personal connection to the athletes and teams they wager on. This familiarity can create a false sense of expertise and control, leading individuals to believe they can outsmart the game and heightening their risk of larger financial losses and addiction at higher rates. Sports betting is widely perceived as socially acceptable, even celebratory. It is framed as a way for fans to connect over their shared love of sports, making its abuse more persuasive than in traditional forms of gambling. As a result, the social acceptance, encouragement and normalization of sports betting significantly downplay its serious risks and set it apart from how other forms of traditional gambling are understood. The digital era has expanded access to sports gambling-related harm in an unprecedented manner. Whereas individuals once had to physically travel to a casino or other betting venue, today this access follows users around, with virtual betting sites existing in the user's pocket. The sort of addiction we have with our phones and social media, which we have all been guilty of at one time or another, applies directly to gambling habits as well. An article that was shared with me, from the American Institute for Boys and Men, states: Beyond easier access, much of the increase in online gambling is due to the fact that gambling companies have engineered their games to be ever more difficult to resist. They feature the same behavioral nudges and dopamine delivery mechanisms as social media platforms. These are not your grandparents’ slot machines. Every part of a gambling app is designed to be fun, easy to use and hard to quit. After a cursory age-verification process...bettors can deposit money as easily as buying anything else online. The apps have their own version of the endless scroll, with a constantly updating menu of things to bet on. ...“Imagine being a gambling addict and always having a slot machine in your pocket except you also need that slot machine to stay in touch with friends [and] family, to get jobs and contact co-workers, for banking, for navigation.” The list goes on. Online expansion of sports gambling promotion has made access to abuse easier, while the consequences feel less severe. Public safety is a top priority for the Government of Canada. The health and safety of Canadians is, at minimum, a shared responsibility. Canada has long recognized that addictive products require a different regulatory approach. Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and vaping products are all legal but are not treated as ordinary consumer goods. Their advertising is restricted, and their promotion and regulation are grounded in a public framework that prioritizes harm reduction, particularly for young, vulnerable people. These harms have all been treated with a national coordinated approach that has been shown to be effective. June 29, 2026, will mark the fifth anniversary of legalizing sports betting in Canada. Enough time has now passed since the expansion for its impacts to become increasingly visible. A recent report released this past November by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that 9.1% of Canadians are classified as experiencing problem gambling. The people most affected by problem gambling harms were those who engaged primarily in online gambling, specifically young men aged 18 to 29. The mental health harms associated with problem gambling are profound. People experiencing problem gambling were four times more likely to report anxiety and depression, four times more likely to have thought about suicide, and seven times more likely to have made a suicide plan in the past year. These findings make clear that gambling-related harm is not limited to financial loss but also constitutes a serious and growing public concern. It is vital to recognize that national gambling statistics include only people above the age of 18. This is because research is limited to individuals who are legally permitted to gamble. Therefore, current national data does not reflect minors engaging in online sports betting, but we know that these youth exist, through the abundant sharing of stories and lived experiences that I and many colleagues are encountering. Through consultations with the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine, my team met with clinicians and pediatricians who work directly with impacted youth. These frontline professionals reported a growing number of children and adolescents presenting with harms related to online sports gambling. These clinicians reported treating children as young as 13 years old for severe problem gambling related to online betting. In these cases, the consequences extended beyond the individual child, placing significant emotional and financial strain on families and creating serious disruptions within the home. Pediatrician and youth mental health advocate Dr. Shawn Kelly shared that his own seven-year-old child asked about sports betting terminology after being exposed to gambling advertisements during a televised sports event in their own home. As a result, sports programming is no longer permitted in their household. These are only a few of the accounts heard from constituents spanning the country that make clear that youth exposure to online gambling is not hypothetical; it is already producing real and harmful impacts, underscoring the urgent need for stronger protections regarding persuasive media advertisements. When gambling-related harms occur, families are often left to carry the burden. Parents and siblings must cope with the emotional strain, financial stress and breakdowns in trust that can follow a loved one's gambling addiction. What is especially painful for many families is the way this issue has begun to intrude on one of the few remaining shared family activities, which is watching sports together. For too many households, sports have shifted from a source of connection and joy to a source of anxiety and blatant annoyance. The volume of betting advertisements has been so abrasive during sports games that in 2024, on average, betting ads occupied up to 21% of advertisements during broadcast games in Canada. Its proliferation across all marketing forums is overshadowing the purpose of the game itself, which is to build community around cheering a team on. On that note, I must say, in the Olympics, go team Canada.

That is right. Mr. Speaker, I understand the intent in 2021, when Parliament legalized single-game sports betting in Canada. This was achieved with the objective of bringing gambling activity out of the illegal market and into safe, regulated frameworks. The legislation granted provinces and territories authority to regulate their own sports betting markets to promote responsible gambling practices, but since its legalization, provincial and territorial approaches have been fragmented, creating gaps across Canada. While most provinces have stuck to a public, regulated model with government oversight of the industry, Ontario, for example, has opened its market and allows private gambling companies to operate and advertise in the province. What begins as persuasive advertisements through the province can quickly and easily turn into engagements in illegal, unproductive or offshore activity. It should bother every jurisdiction that has not loosened its market that its own populations are being encouraged to place bets with companies that legally they cannot bet with. If they have held back on privatizing because of a more cautious approach, then why should their populations be bombarded with ads from one province that has decided to open the floodgates? This is at least one thing a national framework would undoubtedly address. As it is, protections for gambling ads nationally will only be at the level of the lowest common denominator. The Internet, or even traditional cable, cares little for provincial or territorial boundaries, and all Canadians deserve the same degree of protections from gambling promotion and its associated harms. Problem gambling is federally recognized as a public health concern and warrants the same seriousness of treatment as other harms in Canada. Like tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and vaping, gambling risks are not distributed evenly across the population. Aggressive marketing can exacerbate harm among the most vulnerable to addiction. When betting odds, celebrity endorsements and winning inducements are broadcast repeatedly during sporting events or on social media platforms watched by millions of Canadians, including an abundance of children, we are no longer talking about neutral information; we are talking about normalization and encouragement of risky behaviour that is more easily accessible than ever before. Even in Ontario, where celebrities and athletes were recently banned from promotions, there are some workarounds. These individuals can appear in what purport to be public service ads put out by companies that encourage a person to “bet within your limits”. This is almost worse, because it still affiliates an athlete with a brand, but it also tells people that as long as they know their limits, gambling is a safe and healthy practice. Bill S-211 recognizes this reality. Bill S-211 acknowledges a legitimate public concern in protecting Canadians who are most vulnerable to the proliferation of advertisement in recent years. It calls for a unified approach across Canada to close the gaps in advertising abuse to protect youth and those most vulnerable to persuasive marketing and addiction. I hope all members will recognize the merits of having committee study this bill and that all members will engage in this discussion so that we can do our best to keep Canadians safe. While I am on my feet, I know this week has been tough, especially because we have lost young Canadians. We owe it to these young people to make sure their future is bright and frameworks are in place that work for them. I want the communities that have been impacted to know that the people of Waterloo are with them in our thoughts and prayers, and we will continue to stand by them.

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

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, constituents within the riding of Waterloo have asked me to present this petition on behalf of Falun Gong practitioners. The petitioners share that Falun Gong practitioners follow the principles of truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. They recognize the importance of relations between different countries, but they also value the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They would like us to uphold freedom of thought around the world, including for Falun Gong practitioners. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community, which is targeted by foreign repression among other things. The people who have signed the petition are practitioners, and they believe that the Falun Gong should have the ability to practise freely.

Mr. Speaker, International Development Week is a moment to reflect on how global challenges are connected and how smart investments can create lasting change. One of the major drivers of food insecurity is climate change, especially in the world's most vulnerable communities. That is why Canada is investing in women and economic empowerment as part of its international development efforts. I joined Mennonite Central Committee Canada, Canadian Lutheran World Relief and the Canadian Foodgrains Bank for a breakfast on the Hill. Speakers shared that Canada's ODA investments are delivering results, and that when women have access to resources, education and leadership opportunities, families eat better, communities grow stronger and local economies become more resilient. This International Development Week, I would like to thank all organizations, team members, volunteers and donors for their contributions to making Waterloo, Canada and the world a better place. Their efforts demonstrate what it means to be Canadian, and by working together, we can deliver prosperity through partnerships.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Yukon's sharing his insights. As someone who has visited Yukon Territory, I know it is a very different experience in the Yukon than it is for constituents within the riding of Waterloo. The constituents within the riding of Waterloo want members to work together. I know that the Conservatives had their convention this weekend and are coming with a new approach to say they want to help Canadians. The legislation would benefit the constituents in the riding of Waterloo. The sooner we can get it passed and enacted, the greater benefit they would receive, and sooner. I would like to hear from the member what the benefits would be to the Yukon, and what the benefit would be of all members' coming together to recognize the importance of helping Canadians during these times. What would the legislation do for them?

Mr. Speaker, since the member entered this place, I have found him oftentimes to be reasonable. The words he shared today really demonstrate that, at least to constituents in the riding of Waterloo, who often ask if this House can be functional. Today, seeing the deputy leader of the Conservatives move a motion for this legislation to advance so Canadians can receive the supports they need is a demonstration that the House can function. We would like to see the House function on legislation such as the crime bills, and constituents in Waterloo would like to see that as well. I would like to hear from the member whether he agrees that we can have constructive feedback and conversation. We can always do better and do more, but it is important that we take the wins for our constituents to ensure that the government and all members of Parliament are able to deliver for constituents. I know that is what constituents in the riding of Waterloo want. What are the constituents in the riding of Calgary Centre expecting from members in the House?

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the words of the parliamentary secretary, and it was pretty impressive to hear because I believe we can be very thoughtful in this place. It is interesting because the leader of the official opposition sent the Prime Minister a letter to say that we could co-operate, but it seems the Conservatives' approach remains exactly the way it has always been. It is the way they want it done, and it is not really to be constructive and productive. I have received several emails from constituents in the riding of Waterloo echoing the words of James Moore, who told the Conservatives that anger cannot be the solution and only approach, that there has to be thoughtful debate and dialogue, and that Canadians expect action. I would like to hear from the member regarding what he is hearing from constituents on how we can better serve them, on some of the things the government is doing and on whether anything has changed with the Conservative Party, because we know this is not the party of our parents and grandparents. That is for sure.

Madam Speaker, I also want to send some friendly new year's wishes, and I hope the 2026 season treats the member and her loved ones, and all constituents and Canadians, well. I listened intently to the member's comments, and I think today's debate has been an interesting one. I know that we use references to the government under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper when it is convenient, and I know that when members on this side use that example, Conservatives say that it was decades ago. I think we need to recognize that sometimes actions take time before we can reap some of the benefits or the challenges that come with them. When the member refers to Canada's reputation on the international stage, I would like to hear the member's comments as to why Canada does not have a seat on the Security Council, because the first time we lost that seat in a decade was during the decade of darkness. I think that this member is one who wants to see her constituents and Canadians succeed when she talks about co-operation. I want to see the same for the riding of Waterloo. I would like to hear her comments on that and whether she agrees with former cabinet minister James Moore's comments that the Conservatives need to have a real plan and that anger cannot be their platform.

Mr. Speaker, Carmen Tam, a constituent of the riding of Waterloo, created Petition e-6695. Today I rise to present it on behalf of 14,921 petitioners. Petitioners need the House and all Canadians to know that in 2025, online video game storefronts like Steam and Itch.io removed numerous games featuring adult sexual content because Mastercard, Visa and other payment platforms changed their policies to regulate adult entertainment. Petitioners share with the House that this sets an unsettling precedent of financial censorship. Petitioners are saying to let creators create and to let consumers choose. Payment processors should not be cultural gatekeepers. The petition demands the protection of consumer choice and creative expression against financial censorship. Petitioners agree that laws and regulations, all rules, including our Standing Orders, should be followed, but payment platforms should not determine what a creator can create or a consumer can purchase.

Mr. Speaker, petitioners raise an issue of equity and dignity, as well as of basic autonomy, for people with disabilities and their families. The RDSP is meant to secure a person's long-term financial future, yet petitioners raise that the current rules create unnecessary barriers that prevent many people from even opening a plan. When qualifying members lose their ability to act after 2026, and when only a narrow set of relatives are permitted, people will be left without support and could be forced into costly and intrusive legal processes that undermine their rights and independence. Petitioners calls on Parliament to extend and expand access so trusted supporters chosen by the individual can assist without delay, and to ensure that these practices are consistent across Canada. At its core, the petition, initiated by Amy Ross and Sue Simpson from the riding of Waterloo, is about respecting people's self-determination and ensuring that no one is denied financial security because of outdated rules.

Madam Speaker, constituents within the riding of Waterloo have been talking about this MOU. It has definitely been gaining a lot of traction. They are noticing that it is a comprehensive document, which provides some certainty for investors and provides certainty for Canadians for the economy. They were pleased to see that the federal government is wanting to work with provinces and with indigenous communities, because it is the right approach. We should all be able to be at the table. Premier Smith has agreed that industrial carbon pricing is essential to attract investment and decarbonize production. Will the minister explain how strengthening Alberta's tier system is key to competitiveness?

Madam Speaker, the motion before the House today was moved by the Conservatives, who picked out a few parts of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta. In my opinion, the full agreement is a document that gives the federal government, the provinces and indigenous communities a way of working together. Does the member agree that it is important for all levels of government and indigenous communities to work together and to have important discussions so that we can build a better future for all Canadians?

Madam Speaker, the comments shared by the member are quite refreshing. It was impressive that the Conservatives chose to amend their own motion but still came up short. What is even more interesting is that constituents within the riding of Waterloo recognize that the Conservatives actually never have a plan for the environment. Today, we see that when the Conservatives bring something forward, they do not recognize the importance of an industrial carbon price actually making our economy and our country more competitive. It is really important that we recognize the importance of working with different levels of government and with indigenous communities, another concept that the Conservatives just cannot understand. I would like to hear the member's comments on the importance of having a competitive industry and a competitive economy, especially today, more than ever.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to represent the good people in my riding of Waterloo. It has been interesting because in my inbox, I am receiving several emails. I am receiving emails in regard to some of the challenging times Canadians are facing, and they see that in budget 2025, there is opportunity. They see some ability and some hope. They appreciate the national school food program. They appreciate that it would become a permanent program in Canada, not only for the days when times are tough, but for when they are not so tough. There are always going to be some families that struggle, and a program like that can ensure we help some of the most vulnerable in society. They look at the measures for homes, for people to build their first homes. They look at the ability to actually see that the Canadian Armed Forces are going to get the supports they deserve and need. I know this member served in uniform, and I thank him for his service to this country, as well as all men and women in uniform.

I know the members opposite want to call time because I am talking about our armed forces and the important work they do, and the Conservatives have a history of chopping them. I would like to hear from the member why it is important we pass this legislation. Why can Conservatives not grasp that we are here to fight for Canadians? We have to leave some of our political stripes aside so we can ensure people in our communities can benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I met with a few constituents from the riding of Waterloo and also from ridings across the country, and today I present a petition that over 600 individuals have signed in regard to families in Canada that have wrongfully been separated due to what they suggest are flawed child abuse assessments by child abuse pediatricians. Petitioners note there is no legal requirement for a second, independent medical opinion before children are apprehended. They note there are medical conditions that can mimic signs of abuse, yet differential diagnoses are often not properly considered. They note there is no federal data collection on child abuse cases that are initially substantiated but later found to have had medical explanations. Petitioners are therefore calling on the House of Commons to require physicians offering medical opinions in federal or interprovincial child protection matters to hold certification. They are requesting that a second, independent expert opinion be offered or mandated, that national guidelines ensuring relevant medical conditions be ruled out before concluding that something is abuse, and that data be collected and published. In addition, because of past incidences, they are also calling for a national inquiry into wrongful apprehensions due to medical misdiagnosis. I am presenting this petition on behalf of constituents of the riding of Waterloo, parents primarily, as well as from people across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments that were shared by the member and the contribution she makes in so many different ways. I really appreciated her opportunity to also talk about IP, intellectual property, which is really important in the riding of Waterloo. The University of Waterloo is notorious for ensuring that research academics actually own their IP so that they have a vested interest. I would love to hear from the member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, in regard to the benefits of the budget. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo are really asking for constructive debate, ensuring that more Canadians can benefit. They recognize that the official opposition has just been dialing it in. They do not want to be constructive in their feedback. They do not want to be part of the solution. We would love to hear what she feels the budget can deliver for Canadians and how it will actually benefit constituents in the riding of Waterloo, her constituents and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the member's speech and the fact that he has actually paid attention to the debate going on today. What really struck me were the comments in regard to Canada's being a trading nation and the importance of opening up opportunities for Canadians and Canadian businesses. I know that Canadians within the region of Waterloo want access to global markets. They not only want to be able to sell to the Government of Canada; they also want our solutions to be solutions for other economies around the world so Canadian jobs and Canadian communities can benefit. I would love to hear the member's comments in regard to Canada's being a trading nation and how the Conservatives have changed their position on the importance of global trade.

Barbara Robinson is a professional engineer in the riding of Waterloo. She and dozens of other petitioners have signed a petition calling on the Government of Canada to update, to change, the National Building Code. The petitioners acknowledge that the National Building Code, part 3, makes no provision for menstruating women's needs in public toilet stalls. They raise the point that unless something is poo or pee, it should not go down the toilet, so pads and tampons should really have a space for disposal; therefore, adding to the code the necessity of having a garbage can in women's stalls is important. Citizens and residents of the riding and region of Waterloo are calling upon the Government of Canada to change the National Building Code to make provisions for public toilet stalls to meet the needs of people who menstruate.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we are having today on this important legislation. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have been sharing many comments and many concerns, so I was pleased to see that there were no report stage amendments and that we would go to debating the bill at third reading. We would like to see this bill passed so that Canadians can benefit from its impacts. Another thing Canadians are saying is that this House used to have constructive feedback coming from a strong opposition, and there has been a lack of that. It seems that the official opposition does not want programs to be improved and it does not want to offer constructive feedback to ensure that more Canadians can benefit. I understand that this legislation would benefit 22 million Canadians. We know times have been tough. I would like to understand from the member what he believes it is important for the Conservatives to do to help more Canadians and ensure that we can deliver, because that is the role we play.