Bardish Chagger
Waterloo, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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 mor…”
The complete record
Every one of 181 lines we hold for Bardish Chagger, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments the member shared. I know we do not have a lot of time before the next member speaks, so I would just ask the member to perhaps use this time to share with Canadians what the bill would do, so we can minimize the misinformation or disinformation out there.”
“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—”
“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, 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 am not going to get into the semantics of whether it is a couple of pages long or a lot of pages long, but I am hearing that there is a need for Canada to be in this space. Is the member suggesting that not doing anything is the answer, or is he suggesting that perhaps we could find a way to move forward and make sure that Canada is part of this game?”
“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, 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, 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?”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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. [ English ] 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.”
“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. (1900) [ Translation ] I also want to thank all my colleagues who worked on Bill S‑211 in the hallways, by email and in the House.”
“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.”
“This demonstrates sports betting advertising not as a partisan issue, but rather as a growing issue of concern that we need to address. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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.”
“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. [ English ] 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.”
“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.”
“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, 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.”
“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, there is a long-standing tradition that members are all honourable members in this chamber, and if something was to take place, members have the ability to rise and withdraw or retract. It is not for any member in this chamber to police what happens in here. Mr. Speaker, I think you are doing a good job and that you should have confidence in the job that you do.”
“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, 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 was so wrong with the reasoned amendment that we are debating the removal of a short title.”
“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 about any constructive feedback to ensure that the system does work for Canadians and that Canada takes its international—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Hon. Bardish Chagger: 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.”
“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.”
“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. (1800) When gambling-related harms occur, families are often left to carry the burden.”
“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.”
“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.”