Kelly DeRidder
Kitchener Centre, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, when I debated on Bill C‑16 , the protecting victims act, I spoke clearly to my community to say that I am not voting wholeheartedly against this piece of legislation. I am not voting against protecting victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, while I agree that there is a time and place where time allocation makes sense, this is not one of those times. This is an important piece of legislation that does not have unanimous consent in the House and therefore needs debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was another non-answer. The Liberal government has said that it is going to make life affordable for everyday Canadians. If this is true, can the minister please stand up and explain why seniors make up the fastest-growing group in the Waterloo region facing homelessness?”
“If interventions can come earlier, lives may be protected and future violence may be prevented. Another story from my riding is of a woman who was strangled by her husband in front of their daughter.”
“Our justice system depends on trust. People need to believe that the rules are applied fairly, that serious crimes are treated seriously and that victims matter, full stop. That is especially important when we are talking about crimes that leave lasting scars on victims, families and entire communities.”
“Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, and victims struggle to get justice, so why would we yet again weaken the consequences for offenders, while victims try to rebuild their life? Let us think about that.”
The complete record
Every one of 248 lines we hold for Kelly DeRidder, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Every time she checked in on me, she would always plant a seed, asking, “When are you going to school?” The very first thing I did when I got through detox was march up to my mom's office. She worked for the Waterloo region her entire career, and at the time she was at 99 Regina Street South. I went into her office and said, “Mom, I need a Conestoga College book.” I applied for early childhood education, radio broadcasting and television, and mechanical engineering, specializing in robotics and automation. I literally had no idea what I wanted to do next. I just knew I wanted to do something different. The only thing I was accepted into right away was the engineering program, so that became my path.”
“No one talks about the dark side of addiction: those choices, the self-harm, the trap houses, the abusers of vulnerability and the realities of the life of addiction. I was young. I was vulnerable. I had my own trauma. Then one day, while I was in one of those trap houses, I was looking around and thought to myself, “What am I doing? What is this life? What is my future? What is next, death?" That is when I decided to change. When I was in addiction, my mom showed me tough love. While I was in active addiction, I was not allowed at home. However, she always checked in on me. She always knew where I was, and she would make me go for coffee or Sunday dinner at nana and grandpa's house.”
“If we want safer communities, fewer victims and fewer lives lost, recovery must be the path forward and accountability must be a part of that path. This last part may be difficult for me to get through, but it matters that I say it. There are many faces, backgrounds, stories, people, different walks of life and reasons for addiction. I know this because I am one of those faces. I am one of those walks of life. I am a recovered addict. I fell into addiction in high school. It starts as fun, an escape from reality and good times with friends. Then it turns into something very different. It becomes one's life. It steals from people, who then burn bridges and make choices that trap them in a life of continued trauma.”
“When rehabilitation is judge-prescribed, accountability exists on both sides: on the correctional facility to provide meaningful programming and on the individual to engage in treatment. That accountability is what turns intention into outcome. Bill C-240 also sends a very clear and necessary message to those who profit from addiction. It treats the trafficking of fentanyl as an aggravating factor, allowing for harsher penalties for dealers who knowingly make money off human suffering. Recovery must be paired with the consequences for those who exploit vulnerability for profit. The goal of this bill is simple and focused: to heal and break cycles for those afflicted by addiction and to punish those who knowingly fuel it.”
“That belief is what led me to bring forward Bill C-240 . It is a bill about breaking cycles and putting recovery at the centre of our justice system's response to addiction-driven crime. Bill C-240 would introduce rehabilitation directly into incarceration. It would allow a judge to prescribe rehabilitation, mental health supports, education and training. It would give the individual the opportunity to participate in that treatment, and it would allow a parole board to consider whether that treatment plan has been completed. (1335) What makes this different from what exists today is accountability. Right now, programs may exist, but there is no real accountability to ensure that they are delivered as intended or that the individual receives the full support required to complete them.”
“I see organizations that are changing lives every single day by focusing on rehabilitation and recovery. Groups like Frontline Recovery, HART Hub at the House of Friendship, Celebrate Recovery, Porchlight, Key Metrix and Crow Shield Lodge, along with many others, are doing the hard, often unseen work of helping people rebuild their lives. These frontline organizations understand addiction not as a headline but as a human reality. They prove that recovery works when properly supported. Our stories are different, but at the core of addiction there is trauma. It drives substance use and keeps people trapped in cycles they cannot escape on their own. If we do not heal the trauma, we do not break the cycle. If we do not break the cycle, we are not offering real recovery but only enabling addiction.”
“We must start talking about this crisis openly and honestly. We must move from debate to action, and we must work together across federal, provincial and municipal governments and alongside our communities on the ground, because recovery is possible. People can and do recover. People can come home happy, healthy, healed and drug-free. Recovery must be at the centre of any serious response to this drug crisis. If we truly want to help people who are suffering from addiction, we have to focus on getting them well, not enabling and not just cycling them through systems that never really address the root cause. Addiction is not a moral failure, and recovery is possible when people are given the right supports. In my community, I see what works.”
“If this level of loss were caused by any other threat, the House would be united in urgency, relentless in its response and clear in its resolve, yet despite the scale of this tragedy, the drug crisis too often remains hidden, spoken about quietly, not fully addressed or avoided altogether. Too often stigma replaces understanding, discomfort replaces honesty, and political talking points replace action. We hesitate to talk openly about addiction because it is complex, because it is painful and because it forces us to confront the difficult truths about mental health, trauma, housing, crime and care, but silence has never saved a life. Avoidance has never led to recovery. If we are serious about protecting Canadians, then we must be serious about acknowledging the reality that is in front of us.”
“It is this drug crisis, and it is affecting Canadians everywhere. There are 343 seats in the House, and every single one of them has been impacted in some way. No region, no riding and no community has been spared. For some, it is a 15-year-old girl's grandmother asking for help to save her from this crisis, or a conversation with a police officer when one can literally see the mental anguish on his face because of the human-trafficking aspect of this crisis and the toll it is taking because it feels endless. For others, it is a friend, a neighbour, a colleague or a family member who is struggling right now. This crisis has a face in every corner of our country. We have lost more than 50,000 Canadians to this drug crisis in the past 10 years. This is more lives than we lost in the Second World War.”
“moved that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make related amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-240. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise for the first hour of debate on the second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-240 . Canada is facing a crisis, one that is often described as silent. It is silent in our national conversations, perhaps, but deafening in our homes, in our communities and in our daily lives. It is a crisis heard in worried phone calls, in empty chairs at the family table and in the quiet grief carried by parents, friends and loved ones. This is not an abstract policy debate.”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has made many promises, but the results of those promises are left to the imagination. One of those promises was to spend less than Trudeau. Well, no imagination is needed here. The result is a doubling of spending in less than a year. Families cannot pay for food with these failed imaginary promises. They need results. Will the Prime Minister apologize for promising to cut spending while at the same time delivering the highest deficit in Canadian history? Just an apology please.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being forced to choose between a full tank of gas and a full grocery cart. After 10 years of rising costs, the government's plan only offered limited, short-term relief that has not actually lowered prices at the pump. Conservatives have a plan for a full tank, which is to scrap all federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of 2026, saving Canadians up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 for a family, because when we lower the cost of fuel, we lower the cost of everything. That matters because every truck driver delivering the goods, every small business needing those goods and every commuter that goes to work will feel this cost-savings in their wallets. Canadians do not need another announcement. They need relief. It is time to deliver relief for Canadians that they can actually feel.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify, a bit, the difference between the Norwegian wealth fund and the Canadian debt fund. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund used assets from Norway's resources and invested outside the country to create a fund for its citizens. The Canadian sovereign debt fund is supposed to take debt, which the government says will help boost our resources immediately, although the Norwegian sovereign fund took 36 years to build. I am not really squaring the circle here. What I would like, please, is for the member opposite to admit that the government is actually misguiding Canadians in comparing the Norwegian wealth fund to the Canadian sovereign debt fund.”
“Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, I got that little blue check mark on election night that told me I was coming to the House of Commons to represent Kitchener Centre. I thank all the volunteers who dedicated their time. I thank all the voters who placed their trust in me. I thank my husband, Chris, my rock, who went with the flow when I blew up our lives. There is also my mother Merren, and I know Abigail's life would be very different without my mother's guidance and support at this time. I love my mom, and I thank her. To my caucus colleagues who have been around a while, I thank them for their guidance, their support, their conversation and every answered question. I value them all so much, and I thank them. To all my colleagues in the House, I wish a happy one-year anniversary to the class of 2025.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member is absolutely right that this is a way to shut down committees. Currently, filibustering is being used to make sure we are not able to put our motions forward, but another thing that is going to happen that Canadians are unaware of is that a motion can be put forward by the Liberals to go in camera, and it is going to stifle our conversations even more. I would like Canadians, when they watch committees, to note how many times this happens moving forward.”
“Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am seeing an erosion of trust in Parliament with what is happening here, with not only the floor crossings that have happened but also this reshuffling of committees. Canadians do not understand why this decision is being made, especially in my riding, because we need to maintain the balance to ensure we can properly hold the government to account.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, a year ago Canadians elected a minority Liberal government that promised it would be collaborative with the members of the opposition and make changes in a collaborative manner. What we are seeing now is another broken promise from the Prime Minister because in no way is it collaborative to stack committees so that we cannot hold the government to account and be able to properly scrutinize legislation. Not only is that a power grab, ensuring it is stacking the committees. The government would have the majority with one additional member, but instead of going with that, it wants two to really ensure that our voices are—”
“Changing the rules after the fact, reshaping Parliament to avoid scrutiny, is not fairness. It is a shift away from the very principles that hold this place together. If we allow that shift to go unchallenged, we set a precedent not just for the government but for everyone to follow. This moment matters. This is why we are speaking up and not backing down. No government, regardless of party, should be able to rewrite Canadians' choices. Conservatives will continue to stand against this, to call it out and to uphold a Parliament that reflects the will of the people, not the ambitions of power. This country and the democracy that defines it are worth protecting.”
“We believe accountability is not something to be avoided, but something to be upheld. This is bigger than one motion. It is about whether we accept a path where power is quietly consolidated, scrutiny and opposition are weakened and the voices of Canadians are overwritten. It is about whether we stand up and say that our democracy is worth protecting and that the choices Canadians make matter. Canadians are not asking for perfection from their government, but they are asking for honesty. They are asking for a system that reflects their vote, not one that works around it. When trust in that system starts to erode, it is not easily rebuilt. What we are debating today may seem procedural to some, but Canadians understand fairness when they see it, and they understand when something crosses the line.”
“What we are seeing is a government that is not content with the mandate it was given, a government that is looking to expand its power not through democracy or the will of Canadians but through procedural control. (1535) That is the reality, and it raises a simple but important question. If the roles were reversed, would Conservatives reshuffle committees if we had a majority government? The answer is yes, but that is what Canadians would have voted for. However, we are missing one important question here. If we were elected in a minority Parliament, would we go against the voters, recruit members from other parties and manufacture a majority that Canadians never approved? The answer to that is no, because we believe the mandate given by Canadians matters. We believe the balance they choose should be respected.”
“The people in my community understand systems, incentives and when something does not add up. When they see a government attempting to reshape Parliament, not through voters but through recruitment, they recognize it for what it is. I want to speak directly to them for a moment. They deserve transparency, accountability and a government that reflects the choices they made at the ballot box. Right now, what is being left out is scrutiny. Recruitment that deserves attention is not being covered. Patterns that raise questions are being dismissed. Democracy does not function on silence. It depends on transparency and on the willingness to ask the hard questions, even when the answers are uncomfortable. That brings us back to the motion before us.”
“I was asked to leave behind the people of Kitchener Centre who had elected me as a Conservative, in exchange for aligning myself with the government. That matters, because when elected representatives are quietly courted to change sides, when the balance of Parliament is being reshaped through backroom conversations, we are no longer operating in the spirit of the democratic mandate Canadians gave us. This is not just about me. It is about the people I represent. Kitchener Centre is not just any riding; it is Canada's innovation capital. It is one of the most dynamic regions in the country, a hub for innovation, arts, culture and creativity. It is a place where start-ups are built, where entrepreneurs take risks and where the future of Canada's economy is being shaped every single day.”
“Let us think about that: a dissatisfaction with democracy, followed by a decision that helps consolidate power in the hands of the government. It is a complete dumpster fire. That should concern every single member of the House, regardless of party. I want to make this real for Canadians. Over the past months, opposition members have come forward to say they have been approached; conversations have happened behind closed doors; pressure, subtle or otherwise, has been applied; and Canadians have not heard about it. These are not rumours. These are conversations taking place behind the scenes, away from public view and away from accountability. I can tell the House that I was one of those members who was approached. I was asked to cross the floor.”
“This majority was secured through the active recruitment of opposition members, members who were elected under one banner, by voters who trusted them to represent a certain set of values and are now being drawn into another. Where is the scrutiny? Where are the questions from the media asking why this is happening? Instead, too often the narrative shifts. The focus turns to blaming Conservatives for raising concerns rather than to examining the actions these concerns created in the first place. Even more concerning is what we have heard from some of the members who have crossed the floor. Most avoid speaking openly about it at all, but one openly admitted discomfort with the democratic process itself, specifically with the election of the Deputy Speaker. Crossing the floor became, in part, a response to that frustration.”
“Canadians elected balance and accountability, and what they are getting instead is a slow erosion of that balance, happening right now in front of them. It is not being resisted by the very institutions that should be asking the hardest questions: How was the majority actually secured, how did we get here and why are the Liberals actively recruiting members of the opposition for power? Inside the House we know exactly what this means. Committees are where accountability happens. It is where the government is tested. Now, through a series of calculated moves, the government is trying to control them. It does not stop there.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today because what we are witnessing is not just another procedural move in the House. It is something deeper and far more concerning. For the past number of months, we have watched a pattern unfold that points to the reality of our democracy and its being under pressure, yet Canadians are not hearing about it. It is not leading in the national news, and it is certainly not being examined with the seriousness it deserves. Instead, Canadians are being told a different story. They are being told that everything is normal and that this is politics as usual, but it is not. By-elections have been framed as sweeping wins for the government, as validation of a majority, but that all those by-elections did was keep the main election results the same. The majority was secured through active recruitment of opposition members.”
“Mr. Speaker, he is right. From the Saskatchewan perspective, it has been a long 10 years. One year ago, this Prime Minister made big promises to Canadians, but the results tell a different story: more spending, more deficit and more pressure on Canadian families just trying to get by. He has more than doubled Trudeau's debt while promising to reduce it at the exact same time. Why do this Prime Minister 's promises never match his results, and when will he rein in this spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard the government House leader say multiple times today that the government wants to maintain the institutions that are in place and that it wants to respect democracy. I find it quite ironic that these words are even being used, considering that in over 150 years of Canadian Parliament, active recruitment to secure a majority has never happened in this place. Not listening to Canadian voters and not respecting a minority government has never happened in this place. My question for the government House leader is very simple: Will the government keep the makeup of committees as elected, as the Canadian voices elected them to be at the time of Parliament, instead of now trying to get a supermajority for itself to hide from accountability?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I am finding to be extraordinary here, in the time that I have been able to serve in the House of Commons, is that every time we hold the government to account, we are being told that we are playing games or we are obstructing government. The fact is that this is absolutely not a reality. What we are doing is speaking on behalf of the 42% of Canadians who voted for His Majesty's loyal opposition, ensuring that they have a voice at the table as well. While we are holding the government to account on this particular item, it is very important that the government reverse course here and help those Canadians who need to take different educational paths here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This is going to limit choices for those who cannot take a traditional path. In rural communities, that would be exponential because they cannot necessarily work a job and go to school at the same time. That is what these career colleges are doing for people. When people cannot take a traditional path to education and change their life, they go to a career college. This is a very bad decision by the government, and it needs to reverse course.”
“Mr. Speaker, the announcement about the Canada summer jobs was, of course, a good thing. It affected my community as well. However, there can be both things at once. Because we are supporting students in the workforce over the summer, we should also be supporting those students who are looking at getting an education in a different way because the traditional system does not work for them. While I agree that it is a great program, I disagree with the government's decision here. They are cutting funding for the people who need it the most.”
“Career training is also a great path. We need all of them. We should be supporting all of them, not telling one group they matter more than another. When we do that, we hurt our workforce and our economy, and we push the Canadian dream out of reach. The ask here is simple: reverse this, restore fairness and support students, no matter which path they choose, because if we are serious about helping Canadians get ahead, then we need to stop putting obstacles in the way.”
“They decide which institutions are legitimate and which programs meet standards. The committee made a simple recommendation. If a province says a school is valid, the federal government should respect that. That is the response that puts students first. Right now, the government has not explained why it is suggesting this change or what problem it is solving. From where Canadians are standing, it does not solve anything. It just creates new problems. It creates unfairness and barriers, and it sends the wrong message about the value of work. At the end of the day, it comes down to something simple: respect for students, respect for a different path and respect for the idea that there is more than one way to build a good life in this country. University is a great path. College is a great path. I went to college.”
“They contribute to our communities and support our local economies, but we have also seen the pressure on housing, infrastructure and services. Those challenges need to be addressed properly. The policy that the government is suggesting does not solve these problems. It does not fix housing or improve oversight. It does not strengthen the system. All it does is make life harder for Canadian students choosing career training. If anything, we should be expanding flexible, targeted training options to meet demand, not shrinking them. Career colleges are often the fastest way to respond to workforce needs. They adapt quickly and focus on specific skills. In moments like this, when the economy is shifting, that kind of flexibility is not a weakness but a strength. Provinces regulate these schools.”
“They rely on grants to make school possible. Rent is high, groceries are high and everything costs more. For some people trying to decide whether they can go back to school, change careers or learn a new skill, that support can make the difference between moving forward or staying back. The government removing that support for one group of students is a closed door that will hit those with lower and middle incomes. Canadians who are in these classes are hit the hardest, the very people who are trying to get ahead and break cycles in their own lives. (1250) There is another piece to this that matters, especially in a place like Kitchener. That is the extra pressure put on our post-secondary institutions.”
“We see all across our communities that there are just not enough workers. Therefore, why would we make it harder for people to get those skills? Why would we put up those financial barriers? That is what this does. It makes it harder for people to take that next step and for many, it will mean they simply cannot afford to go. It is worth asking who is most likely to be affected by this. It is not the students with the most resources. It is the ones trying to change their lives. People are going back to school later: new Canadians, people looking for a second chance or a fresh start. This policy does not hit everyone equally. It hits those who are climbing an uphill battle. Now let us talk about affordability, because this is where it hits the most. Most students do not have extra money sitting around.”
“That is where career colleges come in. They train people for real jobs in real industries, often in less time. They prepare people to become personal support workers, medical assistants, IT professionals and skilled trade workers. These are not backup plans. These are essential jobs. These are the people we rely on every single day, and yet, under this policy, many of those students will lose access to federal grants, not because their work is less important or their career is not needed but because of the type of school they attend as the traditional path did not work for them. Let us think about that. We are telling people who want to work in health care, in the trades or tech that they picked the wrong path, so they are on their own now. At the same time, we have a labour shortage.”
“These are colleges that serve our community that the traditional system does not work for, such as single moms working two jobs and still wanting to go to school or anyone who can attend classes outside of their nine to five regular work. These people are now questioning whether they can afford to stay in their programs. Students who are trying to become medical professional assistants, PSWs or IT professionals are now being told that the support they were counting on may not be there. These schools are helping shape our next generation. They give students options, different paths, timelines and ways to succeed, but the reality is that not every student follows the same path. Some students want a university education. Others want something more hands-on, something that gets them into the workforce faster.”
“Two students can be working just as hard, striving to build their careers and trying to build a future in this country, but one of them gets the help while the other gets nothing just because of where they go to school. That is not fair. That is not common sense. That is not how we rebuild the Canadian dream. Those in Waterloo region are incredibly proud of their post-secondary institutions. There are institutions like Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo, but there are also great institutions like triOS College, which reached out to me personally, concerned about this change.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this country when a path was clear. If people worked hard, made good choices and invested in their future, they could get ahead. That was the Canadian dream. However, for a lot of Canadians today, that dream feels further and further out of reach. Costs are up, opportunities feel tighter and more and more people are doing everything right, but still falling behind. At a moment like this, the role of the government should be simple: to make it easier for people to build a life, not harder. That is why this policy is so frustrating. Instead of opening doors, it is closing them. The government proposed restricting the Canada student grant for full-time students. It might sound like a small change, but in real life, it boils down to this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can already see the narrative starting that the Conservatives are filibustering committees and that we are holding up legislation. What I can see eventually happening is committees being reshuffled. I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to keep committees the same for Canadians in the face of democracy and ensure that His Majesty's loyal opposition still has a voice within Parliament.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Shawn Kelly shared that in his practice, he is meeting children as young as 14 who are already struggling with gambling behaviours. (1850) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”