THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 4, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to examine Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Leo Housakos. I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee.
[English]
I would now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves briefly.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory, and from Edmonton, the home of the soon-to-be Stanley Cup champions.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I’m Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec. I remember.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. This morning, we begin our study of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting. We are pleased to welcome the sponsor of the bill, Senator Marty Deacon. She is joined by Senator Brent Cotter.
Thank you, colleagues, for being before the committee this morning. Each of you will have five minutes for opening remarks before move to questions and answers with our colleagues.
Hon. Marty Deacon, sponsor of the bill: Good morning, colleagues. Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you today to speak on Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.
Before I get into what this bill does, I want to briefly remind you of what brought us here.
In 2021, Parliament passed Bill C-218, which amended the Criminal Code to remove the long-standing prohibition on single sport betting. Two prior iterations of this bill had successfully cleared the house in earlier parliaments only to die on the Senate Order Paper. Because of the overwhelming will of the other place, combined with the fact that Canadians were already single sport betting in the international and underground markets, I chose to vote for legalization. I had observed this issue globally, along with the expansion of match fixing and even athlete grooming. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and to bring what was already happening into the light of day was beneficial.
I still believe this, though — I wish we had considered at the time the flood of advertising that would go along with it. If you have watched a hockey game or other sporting event in the last two years, you have been subjected to a barrage of advertising encouraging you to a place a bet. Networks have teamed up with betting companies or even started their own betting ads. Betting ads adorn the walls and equipment in hockey arenas and football stadiums, some have even made it onto the uniforms of our teams. This could be a mere annoyance, an irritation for some, if it were not so damaging.
Children and other vulnerable communities see these ads as much as we do. If it keeps up, gambling will be ingrained into the culture of sport as much as competing on the field of play is. Since introducing this legislation, I have heard from countless parents — many fathers in particular — expressing their concern that their children, some younger than ten, have asked about placing bets after seeing these ads. They are inescapable; if you watch sports in this country, you are being encouraged to gamble. We are also receiving data and evidence on what this means for addiction and mental health issues down the line.
How will Bill S-269 tackle this problem? This legislation tasks the government with placing reasonable limits on sports betting advertising to protect society, particularly our children and youth. Specifically, it would compel the government to work with provinces and other stakeholders to do three things.
One, identify measures to regulate the advertising of game sports betting in Canada, such as by limiting or banning the participation of celebrities or athletes, restricting the use of non-broadcast advertising or by limiting the number, scope or location of such advertisements.
Two, identify measures to promote research and intergovernmental information-sharing in relation to the prevention and diagnosis of minors involved in problematic gambling activities and support measures for those who are impacted by it.
Three, set out national standards for the prevention and diagnosis of problematic gambling and addiction and for support measures for those who are impacted by it. It would also task the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, with reviewing its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation and advertising of sport event betting.
Colleagues, some of you might ask why I didn’t go further and seek a full ban. That would have been my preferred choice, but there are jurisdictional and Charter issues that come into play here, which my friend and colleague Senator Cotter can elaborate on. His presence beside me hints that Charter considerations arose often in drafting this legislation over the months, and I thank him for his sage advice in finding what I think is a good balance together with the Law Clerk’s Office.
On that last note, I am aware of the work done by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario in banning celebrities from ads. I’m sure we will touch on this in questions, but I put to you the truck-sized loophole that celebrities and athletes can still appear in advertisements as long as they tell you to bet responsibly. This encourages gambling and associates them with the brand, which has been empirically proven to appeal to children. It has also done nothing to rein in the number of ads Canadians are seeing nationwide despite Ontario being the only province where you can legally bet with these companies.
There is so much more I could get into, colleagues, but I am reminded that we have the privilege of sober second thought. We have the opportunity to fix this. I will now turn it over to Senator Cotter. Thank you.
Hon. Brent Cotter: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here. I mentioned to some of you earlier that this is a bit like “White Coat, Black Art,” I think, Senator Simons — being on the other side of the gurney, so to speak. I think I’m looking forward to it.
I want to speak to three points. One is my own background in connection with sports and law, the second is the general approach this bill takes to highlight a couple of the structural aspects of it and then I’ll field questions in whatever areas you would like to ask about.
Before I came to the Senate, for about a dozen years, I taught an advanced seminar on sports and law at the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. It is remarkable how broad that experience was for me. One aspect of it was that students did major research papers, and every few years a student would write a paper on gambling in sports in the Canadian — or varied country — context. It raised my understanding of it and, quite frankly, led me to be supportive of Mr. Waugh’s bill that passed through here from the other place when we discussed it. As Senator Deacon indicated, we didn’t fully anticipate the implications, particularly around the advertising and promotion of it above the line if I could say rather than in the grey areas where single event sports betting is to occur.
In light of the messages that I think all of us have heard from colleagues and citizens in our communities, Senator Deacon — with some assistance from me — moved in the direction of this bill, which is a general approach that is not directive of solutions but is directive of action. This leads me into a couple of the examples that the bill tries to do in that respect.
One is that it invites the CRTC to take seriously — as it has done in other areas of advertising and promotion of activity within its jurisdiction — the consideration of regulations and constraints on advertising. We have not tried to be prescriptive about what that should look like. They have the expertise, including in issues around the regulation of freedom of commercial expression. These are legitimate constitutional values that need to be respected. But this bill does call for their immediate consideration, hence clause 6 of the bill which does that in explicit terms.
Second, as I think you would know, the issue of gaming and gambling and aspects of advertising and promotion are within provincial jurisdiction. The gaming dimension — as the result of amendments to the Criminal Code in 1985 — and the consequence and significance of that is very much a comprehensive regulation of this area so that consistent national approaches reside within provincial jurisdictions, most notably in the way provinces regulate gaming, the terms under which they establish licences for people who are gaming operators in their jurisdiction and aspects of advertising which fall within provincial jurisdiction. Hence, I think a need for a national approach. This led to clause 3 of the bill which tasks federal ministers to call together that collaboration so that we would get a consistent national approach.
Lastly, we do this a lot but it is important here not only for senators and parliamentarians but also for Canadians to hear what strategies are being pursued and being implemented. The bill calls for a significant amount of research work and reporting. That’s what clauses 4, 5 and 6(2) and 6(3) related to the CRTC are intended to hear.
Over the course of your studies, you will hear a range of perspectives. Some may call for voluntary codes of conduct to address this problem. Some will call for outright bans. These will be thoughtful ideas, and I encourage you to consider them carefully. This is an opportunity for you and us to give this sober first thought. The bill is arriving here. We are the first parliamentary house to study it.
You see the power and influence of the Senate on this basis alone. In the last six months to one year, the tone of that advertising that you see on television and everywhere else has moved noticeably away from shameless promotion of advertising and encouraging people to gamble to more thoughtful encouragement. I can’t list all the reasons for that, but I would attribute part of that to Senate Deacon’s bill. I think if we move this forward in a full way, we will get a comprehensive, constructive answer that will moderate the vulnerabilities but perhaps make it possible for people to participate appropriately in the world of betting on sports. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our good friends who are here with us this morning. Perhaps because I am a much more cynical person, I voted vehemently against Bill C-218 because I predicted that such a thing would happen.
Having said that, I have some concerns about a national framework. If, as Senator Cotter explained, gaming is regulated provincially and only one province has opted to allow this, why do we need a national framework? Is there even constitutional power to have a national framework over something which is so clearly in provincial jurisdiction? That can be a question for you, Senator Cotter.
Senator Cotter: If I can offer another example, it suggests that maybe we shouldn’t have a national approach to health because it’s mostly in provincial jurisdiction.
The Government of Canada cannot dictate — except in some limited circumstances — into areas of provincial jurisdiction but it can initiate collaboration. That’s what we’re calling for here. While it is unpredictable in terms of which provinces might move forward with single event sports betting, the appetite is not insignificant and the revenues are significant both to private operators and to governments in terms of taxation.
It is a temptation, I think, for each jurisdiction to look at this seriously. We ought to look at it in a national way. Advertising, even in provincial jurisdiction, slops across provincial borders. While we are not a unitary country, we are a federation working together to a common goal. That seems to be a worthwhile initiative. While we don’t dictate outcomes, we expect federal ministers to lead in pulling people together.
Senator Simons: The CRTC has no jurisdiction over print advertising. The CRTC has no jurisdiction over signs that go up in arenas or advertising printed on the jerseys of players. The CRTC has precious little jurisdiction over the internet. It regulates radio and television, which are no longer watched by that many people anymore. Moreover, the CRTC — as we have heard repeatedly in meetings — is overtaxed to do the jobs it already has on its plate and is having a hard job keeping up with those.
Will the CRTC be able to help you stop this problem as opposed to something voluntary from the Ad Standards Council?
Senator Cotter: I can offer an observation before turning it over to Senator Deacon. You make a fair point. That’s one of the reasons why I spoke about provincial jurisdiction, perhaps anticipating your question.
Leaving them out of the mix would be a mistake. I know Senator Cardozo will champion lots of the great values of the CRTC. I get all of my sports betting advertising on the television, to be honest. I might be one of these old guard folks.
Senator Simons: It is generational. If we are worried about children, I trust your sober second thought to watch a TV ad, but I don’t get much sports betting in my feeds because I suspect the algorithm knows I’m an unlikely candidate. Where I have heard it is on podcasts where the CRTC has no jurisdiction to regulate advertising on podcasts.
Apart from the CRTC, what other mechanisms do you propose to tell people where and when they cannot place their advertising which is protected commercial speech?
Senator Cotter: That’s the point. We are not going to tell them because we are a federal parliamentary entity. Sitting on the sidelines and not trying to initiate some leadership on this and not directing federal action where there is jurisdiction seems to be an abdication of a fairly serious responsibility here. I’m going to get Senator Deacon to give a better answer.
Senator M. Deacon: In support of that, it’s a good question. It is something we pondered a lot when we looked at the wording to include the CRTC statement in the bill and in my introduction.
We need them. We need to ask the CRTC to look at this. I need to come back to you, senator, because you talked about a demographic that I think is important. Right now, this issue is a patchwork across the country. It means something different in B.C. than it does in both Alberta and Ontario. We have access and a whole bunch of things happening in Ontario that is shared across the country, but they can’t be used. It’s a patchwork bit of a mess.
You are right, a lot of folks use streaming and not television. The prime target, which is the most vulnerable — youth, the age group 12 to 24, families, those most vulnerable — are in basements, in living rooms in their homes watching that betting advertising on TV as children. That’s the data we cannot ignore. They are using other pieces. They have their phone here, their iPad here and something else over here, but TV as the traditional mainstream for this is still active.
Senator Simons: They may be in their parents’ basement but there are precious few 20- to 24-year-olds who own a television.
Senator M. Deacon: Yes. It is the ones tucked away at home with their families.
Senator Simons: I would suggest that it is up to the parents. Sorry, but it doesn’t matter whether it is advertising for junk food or child pornography. I see a pattern of overreach across many issues where people have a well-intentioned goal to protect the children. However, fundamentally, this is a family responsibility.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here. I want to start by apologizing for my reaction to what you just said, but I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that only parents are responsible for their children’s well-being online. In 2024, it’s impossible for parents to monitor everything their children see. That’s like saying liquor stores shouldn’t check to see whether someone is underage.
The government steps in to minimize the harms done to children and should continue to do so.
That tirade aside, I wanted to tell you, Senator Deacon, that the purpose of your bill hits close to home. As far as I’m concerned, we need to protect children online, just as we do in society. Quebec is a leader on that front, in a number of ways. As you know, Quebec passed a law to prohibit advertising that targets children. Few provinces have had similar legislation for as long as Quebec has. Of course, it’s an area of provincial jurisdiction.
I’m a senator from Quebec, so I wonder whether this framework poses any jurisdictional risks given that the provinces have jurisdiction over advertising. Even though Quebec doesn’t have single-event sports betting, I imagine young people in Quebec stream events in Ontario and other provinces and can place bets on those events. Explain to me how the circumstances around single-event sports betting cross provincial lines. Why should this apply to Quebec, since, according to you, it doesn’t have single-event sports betting and has a record of legislating on the issue of child advertising?
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the question. I think that this was mentioned a little bit by my colleague earlier, this approach to a national framework. There are ways in which folks are getting information across the country and across the world, of course. We are trying to set a standard that says this is not good, for young people particularly. There are three groups that seem to be targeted, but for young people particularly. We are looking for a reasonable bar of advice that pulls back the advertising. I would say that the goal to try to make it consistent from province to province and territory to territory is also a direct response to what we have been observing over the last 18 months. How do we bring this to a commonality? How do we bring this to a table where it can mean the same thing, for young people or for families, in all of our provinces and territories?
In your reference to Quebec, Quebec is interesting. In fact, each province is interesting in what they have done or chosen to do or have not done. I still think there are provinces in a “wait and see” motion. Alberta is moving along on something that looks like they are trying to do shortly. We want to keep this consistent.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: On Quebec, what have they done or not done? Am I right that Loto-Québec is not doing single betting?
Senator M. Deacon: No. At the moment, we don’t have much information on what happens with someone in a home in Quebec, although we hear from families. They are not doing the betting in the same way other provinces are.
It is hard to get information that is consistent. So what do we do? We try to set a standard that is safe, fair and protecting. Totally recognizing what Senator Simons has said, the role of families is critical, but we’re trying to make sure that we pull in natural stops — which we can share some examples of — that minimizes this across the country in a consistent way.
Senator Cotter: The concept of working towards national standards meaningfully involves the voice of provincial and territorial governments and gaming regulators. It is fair to say that in this country we have had the experience, particularly in provincial jurisdictions, of some jurisdictions leading. In many of the areas relevant to social initiatives, Quebec has been a leader. I observed on a topic that made me a little bit nervous about how beneficial the approach of Quebec to a topic has been to the Premier of Alberta. She was in public thanking the Government of Quebec.
Part of this exercise is to draw those best ideas together and see if, collectively, we can establish a national strategy for addressing this concern and to produce a degree of consistent so that you are not bombarded with certain types of advertising because you happen to be in one province but you are free of it in another. Children and those vulnerable to addiction are, more or less, the same across the country. We should be trying, more or less, the same approach to legitimate but protective mechanisms for protecting them and not destroying an industry that is legal in Canada.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: However, you say that Quebec is allergic to national standards. We have seen it in the past few years in health and other issues in their jurisdiction. This is squarely in their jurisdiction.
Obviously, I want to say that I’m for the protection of children. I think parents need help. I voted against Bill C-218 especially because I was afraid of what it would do to more vulnerable Canadians.
Senator M. Deacon: Things that folks in the room may or may not know is that, first of all, broadcast is still our number one source of sports and watching sports. The CRTC has a code right now for broadcast advertising for alcoholic beverages. We feel this next step, this work in advertising is in line with that as well. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: To pick up on that last point about the CRTC, I think it is interesting you note that broadcasting is still the number one place that people go to watch television. There are a couple of things that I think are most relevant in terms of having the CRTC play the role you mention here. One is the CRTC having regulations with regard to alcohol advertising, so to add this part is not a long road. The other thing is that it is the one place where you can have a standard that then, hopefully, spills over or at least provides a standard to society or to other players of what a preferred approach is, whether that is newspapers or the internet, as Senator Simons pointed out, where a lot of people go to watch TV and sports. This kind of advertising is not only happening during sports games. It is happening all the time. I think it is useful to have that as there are fewer and fewer tools left in the tool box that the CRTC is still one where you can get a good standard defined.
I look at the time frame of this, and on one hand it is reasonable to have all these things happen. On the other hand, this is an urgent problem. It is going to be several months before this passes — let’s hope this passes soon or later this year — the government then has a year to put together the framework you have asked them to. It will be a while after that when anything will go into effect. Do you have any concerns about this taking too long? Having said that, given what you’ve tasked them with, I can see that it would be hard to speed it up.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I appreciate the question. One could kindly say that it has been too long already. I have a couple of pieces on that.
We are, frankly, trying to get on this faster than we did with vaping and with cannabis. We have enough data and information that initially came from listening to colleagues globally. What can we pick up from other countries that did this sooner? How can we find out more information so that we have an accurate picture?
To come to what you are talking about with patience, time and how long it is going to take. I feel like this should be a factor — in Canada, as of late January or February, we now have meaningful, relevant Canadian data. So if you are federal or you are running a province, as a result of CBC’s Marketplace and the University of Bristol coming together, you now know the number of times in a game — they looked at the broadcast for NHL and basketball — and the prevalence of logos. About 21% of the time they are used in some aspect of gambling and broadcast information signage. This data is real and it’s relevant in Canada. We can only hope that is helping to move this along as quickly as we can in what is a slow process.
What does that mean? Does it mean that provinces say, “Hey, we’re seeing that this really is a problem in our province?” Or do they say, “We’re seeing that this really is something to be moved along.” Then they can put pressure either within the province or federally in a national framework to move this along.
It is too late. It is too long. In my continuous communications and emails from families, they are begging for some support. It’s not even advocating, it’s begging.
Senator Cardozo: Could we have a situation where, with what you’re looking at, the CRTC might be able to move fairly quickly in expanding their alcohol regulations to include gaming, for example, and do that within, say, six months to a year? The government would then be doing something different that would cover an ad in print?
Senator M. Deacon: Let me try clarifying something that might help us even more. Thank you for that question.
Right now, the government doesn’t need this bill, in a way. We have tons of materials and data. We have tons of information, but the government could say, “We’ve got this.” They could say that tomorrow. They can take over this and say, “We’re going to take over this and we’re going to work with the provinces on a number of issues,” like they do in other ways.
We’re doing this because we have a sense of urgency. It may come up in the next hour; it may not. They can step in any time and say, “We’ve got this. We’ve got to move this along. Here’s what we’re going to do.”
Senator Cotter: If I could add one thing to that, Senator Cardozo. Senator Deacon has indicated the urgency that’s communicated to us and probably to you in some informal ways by citizens. The urgency is to act now. That’s the message that’s being conveyed. Acting now is a little precipitous, but we are in a good situation in this one respect: Much of this issue has been addressed in lots of developed countries, particularly in Europe with respect to sports betting advertising. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. We can find answers here around celebrities not being able to engage in advertising because of their special effects on gamblers, particularly young people.
We can see what’s happening with respect to time-of-day advertising, which has happened in a number of countries to try to minimize the temptation right in the middle of the game to bet. Even in some cases — though this is in provincial jurisdiction — identifying the kinds of sports that cannot be bet on, for example, the Olympics, amateur sports and college sports. It’s not quite as big a challenge as appears to meet the eye because of what’s already been done before.
The Brits had this problem. They didn’t anticipate quite as much the way in which advertising would overwhelm, particularly betting on football. But they learned from it. We have a chance to try to learn from either the mistakes that they made or the solutions they have generated.
Senator Cardozo: Are we looking at two processes, one that’s defined in clauses 3 and 4 for the government and one in clause 6 for the CRTC?
Senator Cotter: Yes. One is clearly within federal jurisdiction. The other is to stimulate, through leadership, a national approach to the question. A lot of the provincial regulators have the same interests in terms of gambling addictions and vulnerable communities, yet there doesn’t seem to be a concerted action here in many respects. Senator Deacon’s bill tries to stimulate that concerted action, hopefully cooperatively and in a consistent, national way.
Senator M. Deacon: We are working with other countries on this and learning from them the best practice. You will hear about that in some of the other sessions. The U.K., as you said, has helped us a lot on how they came out of the gates and what they have done to pull back. Italy has done what they would call a total ban. Germany and the Netherlands are also interesting countries because they are working through kind of what we are doing with what we would call pulling the reins in; that is, how can we look at the 15 minutes before or after, the different pieces, to make it work? We are reaching out and using the time and expertise in the best way possible.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, colleagues and witnesses, for an excellent overview of the bill. The excellent questions that are being asked around this table are really helpful.
Quite frankly, it’s such an oxymoron for me in the sense that over the last number of years we have seen any number of athletes from different leagues being banned or punished by the league for illegal activities — everything from gambling on their own teams to gambling on other teams and other activities. I find it so ironic that those same leagues don’t do something with their big stars — I’m thinking of the Connor McDavids and the Wayne Gretzkys. Gretzky is now retired, but other athletes in all leagues are appearing in these advertisements. For me, it’s all about putting the seeds in the ground for these younger kids. I agree with Senator Simons. A lot of the responsibility begins at home, but the reality is that the values we instill in our children as parents become harder to maintain as they go out that door and start interacting with that big world. This kind of advertising is where that really begins to take that value set and cause the kids to start thinking differently.
Should there be some type of communication to the leagues to encourage them to stop professional athletes — or other entities that have well-known celebrities — from being involved in the advertising of goods that lead to addictive behaviours later in life, not for everybody, but for some. Even one is too many.
Have you had that kind of thought process in terms of reaching out to leagues and things of that nature?
Senator M. Deacon: We have not. I have not formally reached out to leagues. We certainly have had some conversations. One has been with what we call Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. I was able to do that to really understand the conversation.
To come back to what you said, this is Ottawa. We’re in Ottawa. We have an amazing hockey team in Ottawa. We have a men’s hockey team, an NHL team, where a player disappeared into the night, essentially, with something alleged regarding this whole piece. I must have had about 600 emails or phone calls from people saying, “Hang on. This is a role model. He’s been removed, but look at the whole team. Look at what’s on their helmets. Look at the logo on their helmets and the logo on the sign.” I’m sharing that with you because then I turn around and say, “What can we do about that? What conversations do we need to have?” It all comes back to this national expectation, this national standard. When this is happening, the folks who are trying to maximize their return and make the most money possible know where the target is. They know that they are going to reach young, impressionable people, those who may have a lower income and those in communities where this is a big deal. It is a money grab.
It takes courage and stamina and it takes a collective will. This is what we’re really working toward. It is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms when you see these pieces saying, on the one hand, you should not do that but, on the other hand, look at the team.
Senator Cotter: If I could make an observation in some of the larger context, Senator Quinn. Up until about 2018-19, the professional sports leagues were opposed to single event sports betting. There was a change in the U.S. laws as a result of a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which opened up to states other than Nevada and New Jersey the opportunity to engage in single event sports betting and betting more generally. The professional sports leagues shifted 180 degrees to embrace it and indeed to partner with betting agencies and the like so that they now have a bit of skin in the game.
It’s not illegitimate because in one respect it’s a legal line of work. I think your point is a good one, that if you were to talk to the general manager or to the president of one of these professional sports teams, they have kids. They are not particularly interested in being contributors to the addictive framework that significant amounts of this advertising can generate. I think they would be open to modifications, but for them it is a complex question because it crosses national borders. In every one of the professional sports leagues, Canada is either a minor or a non-existent participant. It’s quite a good idea. It might be beyond the legislative power of a parliament, but that doesn’t stop it being good policy that can be pursued as an ancillary strategy.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that, senators. I guess part of the difficulty would be that the gambling represents a new revenue stream for owners, and that’s a whole other discussion.
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Following up, one of my colleagues talked about CRTC. I’m a transportation guy. I have learned more about communications, CRTC, in the last year than I thought I’d ever learn in my life, and not all of it is something that I say, “Wow, that’s an organization that’s a stellar example of how to do things.” I don’t mean that in a bad way at all, but they are so busy. They have so many responsibilities. In clause 6 here, I’m just trying to figure out how they will assess the situation. The indicators, I think, for problematic behaviour, addictions or whatever, they would probably fall more in a health stream. How will the CRTC link over? They are having trouble linking over to publishers, broadcasters and all that. I don’t see how they could assess that without needing to talk to health officials who deal with the end result, the problem.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. We will both take a shot at that. I come back to, senator, when I talked about using the alcohol as an example and the code, and when we looked and reviewed and said what does this look like, sound like, feel like. There is no question there is a health component that is very strong in this, and you will hear that as you have different witnesses coming forward. When we talk about the CRTC, I would like to refer you back to the bill in the consultation section because that consultation section will be critical when you talk about what the CRTC’s job is, what the role isn’t and how can they possibly take this on top of everything else.
That consultation embedded in the bill with ministries, with Indigenous communities, with, with, with — those pieces will be critical to make sure we get this right.
Senator Cotter: Could I just add sort of one additional observation, which is that there is no shortage of research on these questions and the harms. It’s not as though they need to launch a whole bunch of research studies to try to figure this out. You can almost pick them off the shelf or out of books and research work that’s already been done.
On this topic, I don’t know anything about the agenda and priorities of the CRTC. If I were involved in running the place, I would be interested, but this has become a priority for Canadians, and my sense is that a meaningful federal agency should be listening.
Senator Quinn: My last question, very quickly, is after reading the materials, one of the first things I thought about was how does this tie into Aboriginal communities who are very much engaged in gambling with respect to having their own institutions. Some of them border or cross Canada-U.S. boundaries. Senator Cotter, I’m wondering if you see any complications with respect to wanting to have a national framework and how it’s applied to Aboriginal communities that are in the business? Would it possibly infringe on their section 35 rights in some way? Are there difficulties that we will become aware of or could become aware of?
Senator Cotter: I delivered a really outstanding speech in the Senate a week or two ago and highlighted that, but not everybody was listening.
Senator Quinn: Which one? I can’t remember them all.
Senator Cotter: Not everybody was listening. I think it’s fairly clear from the Supreme Court of Canada that there may be some unique circumstances to the contrary but that gaming isn’t a section 35 right.
That’s not the most important central question. The central question is really a policy question, and right now First Nations who are engaged in gaming in different jurisdictions with one or two, let me call them, grey exceptions do so under the provincial gaming framework. Saskatchewan is the one I know best. The legislation in the Criminal Code gives the province the authority to conduct and manage gaming. In a number of jurisdictions, they have delegated that to First Nations gaming authorities, and so there is a kind of overall umbrella.
Most jurisdictions, after a little bit of difficulty getting started, have gotten to a pretty good, responsible, professional place in the relationship of what governments are doing directly and what they have delegated to First Nations to conduct gaming operations.
So the answer is, yes, it’s complicated but solved within an overall framework that everybody I think has — revenue is important. It’s become important to governments. It’s important to the businesses, but also responsible gaming is a big factor there.
It adds to the equation. Senator Tannas has a bill before the Senate, as you may recall, that would empower direct jurisdiction for gaming for First Nations. If that moves forward, in my view they would need to be brought inside the umbrella in this kind of dialogue. That would add a complication, but it’s not an unsolvable one, I don’t think.
Senator M. Deacon: I also think, if you don’t mind, on that piece, we have in the last year been able to find out a few things. I think it’s connected to your Indigenous question because it’s important. Why are we doing this bill, and as Canadians, who are we trying to protect in this legislation? We talk about lower-income households. We talk about young Canadians, but Indigenous communities are, as you said, a very big part of this. In the last year, we have seen a higher report of rate of gambling than any other demographic. So I feel like this parallels the concern being quite significant, and those who did gamble were three times more likely to be at moderate to severe risk for gambling problems.
As we go through this hearing process and try to learn as much as possible, it’s also appropriate now just to remind you of something called a dose response, and this is why these levels increase. A dose response is an effect, meaning that the greater advertising exposure increases the participation which leads to greater risk of harm and trends for Indigenous communities and for younger populations. It’s an engine that’s hard to stop once it gets started.
Senator McBean: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for bringing this forward. I agree it’s a bit out of control, but I wonder where we get the space to do it.
I know that for my peers there is no advertising for alcohol and tobacco. If this could come in, if gaming could get added into that code, that works. As we’re watching, my eight-year-old hears this advertising not so much on TV because an eight-year-old doesn’t actually watch commercials anymore. They zoom past them. It’s on the radio and in pop-ups in games that she plays and stuff like that, and that’s on me to manage those. It’s impossible.
When I go through the bill, “minors” comes up three times, twice in the preamble and once in the body of it. If a minor is somebody under 18, this makes me think about Senator Greene Raine’s Bill S-228, which didn’t survive, and from my learnings on this — correct me if I’m wrong — people felt it was too broad, it was trying to help everyone and that it’s not our job to be prescriptive to everyone.
I wonder, as we see Bill C-252 talking about healthy eating and advertising for kids, if there’s some space in your bill — I’ll go with the question. Have you considered that it’s too broad or could be too broad? How did you leave it at minors; and in its broadness, does it leave it vulnerable?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the question, and it’s certainly one that has warranted a lot of thought and a lot of review in constitutional law of raising the bar of alcohol and tobacco and what we can and can’t do in that area.
The one thing that is critically important to remember, when we’re looking at this and minors and the rules, we’re trying to go after a framework, with the parties involved in consultation, that does not come in and restrict and tighten the boundary. When asked, we have all kinds of suggestions that can tighten it up, but in the bill itself we were reluctant to make it any more restrictive or targeted than we did because we want to allow this framework process to unfold.
I respect and followed the process of the other bill that you’re referring to over its different iterations. Because we’re going after a national framework with three areas, we were very careful about becoming too targeted. My colleague might want to respond to that, too, also in consultation with what we saw with previous constitutional and Charter law.
Senator Cotter: I would say that most of the feedback with respect to this bill has been that it’s not prescriptive enough. When I go and meet with people, particularly in Toronto, who have really taken this issue to heart, their expectation is immediate action to ban advertising on sports betting — period, full stop. Just do it. Well, we can’t entirely just do it.
I’m running out of time in the Senate and I’m running out of stories, but there is one story I think I probably told once before. It is about two fellas going down a river in a row boat, and suddenly they realize they are going to go over a waterfall. The first guy says to the second guy, “Throw out the anchor,” and the second guy says, “Well, the anchor is not tied on to the boat.” The first guy says, “Well, throw it out anyway, it might help some.” We think that this bill will do a little more than that. It’s an anchor that is actually tied to the boat, and hopefully, it will slow things down.
Senator McBean: I find the Senate’s kind of going all over the place. We’re now saying you can vote at 16, but you can’t be responsible for this. It’s just trying to be consistent with the messaging of who we think is responsible. I wonder if giving something like the CRTC some guidance on whom they are protecting gives them a stronger hand when creating — if you’re trying to say advertising is a certain range or goes until 9 p.m. because you could reasonably assume a 13-year-old is in bed by 9 p.m., but I don’t know when a 17-year-old goes to bed.
Senator M. Deacon: You’re going to find, I think, as you have the witnesses come through, that the point that you’re making is extremely important. The expertise and the specifics of what we would like to see included will come to this table from a variety of perspectives that have the data, suggestions and why this makes sense for an 18-year-old or a 24-year-old. You will hear that from the witnesses coming forward.
Senator McBean: I have no doubts. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for your bill. This is not a softball question, honestly, that I’m going to ask you. I’m going to step back a bit.
What are the outcomes that you’re looking for? What would make you happy after this bill is passed? What are you mainly hoping to see at the end of this? What outcomes are you hoping for?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, senator. To start that answer, if I have, am working with or am the parent of a young person or those who are most impacted by this from a health and well‑being point of view regardless of whether I live in Charlottetown, Quebec City, Milton or Victoria, I want to make sure that we have overturned every stone we possibly can for a healthy environment to participate, watch and spectate sport that is not distracting and diminishing the values of sport and feeding into mental health, gambling and negative health issues in this country, no matter where I stand.
Senator Dasko: In terms of the outcome with respect to governments, what are you hoping to see at the federal, provincial or any level?
Senator M. Deacon: I’m hoping to see a national framework that looks at and defines what this means in this country and what we’re going after for our vulnerable. Folks, again, I can’t say this enough — this is an irritant for us at our age. This is much more than an irritant for others. It’s an annoyance for us. I want to make sure that in this national framework we go after and make sure that we’re setting a standard that makes sense and goes after the things I just talked about at the national level.
Having said that, I could probably go paragraph 1, paragraph 2, sub-bullet 3, 4 and 5 for you right now of what I dream that would look like, but I also want the consultation to be strong and the municipal, provincial and federal communication understanding the roles to be quite clear and quite strong. We have a challenge with that no matter what bill we touch and no matter what issue we touch in this country.
Senator Cotter: I can offer just one or two observations, Senator Dasko. Speaking for myself, I think I could write what I think would be a good answer that the CRTC should provide here, but it might not be exactly right, and they are the authority. In that area, I hope they would actually produce a set of requirements with respect to advertising within their jurisdiction on this topic.
Let me give you a parallel example completely unrelated to sports and sports betting — securities commissions across the country. Efforts have been made to nationalize and federalize that. They have been constitutionally unsuccessful, so across the country we have provincial securities commissions. They work together. They have developed consistent national approaches across the country. It’s critical, actually, for the securities industry that would happen.
The same thing can happen here. The goals and objectives are the same, I think, in all the jurisdictions across the country. Assuming that they won’t work together — I understand the Quebec jurisdictional point, but on securities commissions, Quebec is in that process because it’s good for Quebec and it’s good for the country. That is equally true here. I hope that the national approach will come together willingly by the people who have the responsibility and whom I believe actually care. Thanks.
Senator Dasko: Do you think it will ultimately lead to restrictions on this kind of advertising, either at the federal or provincial level? Is that the hope? Is it an expectation?
Senator Cotter: Yes. In fact, if it didn’t, in some fashion or other, this would have proven to be a failure. Canadians — at least the ones who talked to Senator Deacon and me, and probably to you — would be disappointed. Some would be more than disappointed.
Senator Dasko: I want to ask about the impact of this advertising. I know it’s only been with us now for a couple of years. You mentioned some data on the incidence and the amount of advertising that is in the public space right now. I’m assuming that the time frame is probably too short to actually assess the impact of that advertising. Is there anything that you’ve come across that would actually speak to that?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I touched on this earlier, but I think Canada’s most recent data on advertising says that gambling messages fill up 25% of each broadcast.
In Canadian terms, not taking data from other countries, they looked at the sample — I think it’s a bit skewed — of regular early-season NHL and basketball, and they were looking at betting companies, logos, commercials, sponsor segments and betting ads on screen. It did not include the sports broadcasters, and we know their role seems to be becoming a little more verbose, particularly during playoffs. That’s what you’re seeing in the advertising on television, but also more than 90% of the physical space is filled with logos and references to playing — the surface, the courtside or the walls of the rinks. FanDuel was the most popular, by the way, if people are looking for the actual company because it’s interesting to learn just a little more about that.
What is the result of that advertising? Do we have data on what that means to a 14-year-old in Milton or Quebec City? It’s behaviour. When I talked about that exposure definition that I gave you about more participation and more watching, that is what is happening as a result of this — mostly in our homes, mostly with a younger demographic and mostly male.
What you’ll hear in the testimony that will come shortly is folks who are in the mental health sector, folks who are doctors working in emergency wards and families who will be able to give you some data on what they are seeing, live and unplugged, in their client base, in their hospitals and in their doctors’ offices. There is data now that is strong enough to be used in Canada. We didn’t want to wait four or five years to come in and present you a whole lot of data as we did in vaping and cannabis. We wanted to get on it.
Senator Dasko: I just have one more question.
I hate to try to tackle this jurisdiction piece again because you have discussed it. Senator Cotter, you mentioned the connection with health earlier, as a provincial jurisdiction. We talked a little about tobacco. I’m sponsoring Bill C-252, the bill that would actually ban advertising of bad foods to kids here at the federal level. That’s the successor to Nancy Greene Raine’s bill, which has come back through the House of Commons and back here.
We have been able as a country to ban — let’s go back to tobacco, which I think is an excellent example. The federal government has been able to ban that for decades. I have to say, as a parent — to your point, Senator Simons — it would have been absolutely awful to not have those laws in place, bringing up my two children without the protection of that. I think I would have been a parent with one hand behind my back, trying to raise my kids in an environment that would have promoted tobacco. Anyway, I’m going on for a bit.
So why can’t this be done in this field?
Senator Cotter: Just a ban, you mean?
Senator Dasko: Right. Just given that we especially in the health field with the examples to restrict in some way the advertising of this harm.
Senator Cotter: I don’t want to try to give a comprehensive answer to this, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to provide that, at least today. I haven’t followed the cases right up to today on questions of commercial free speech. One example of the difference between tobacco and betting on sports is any amount of tobacco is bad, I think. Well, it is not quite the same with respect to betting on sports. The concerns are addictive, vulnerable bettors, young people damaging their financial circumstances, then becoming addicted and hooked on it.
So I think it invites the people who are kind of professionally assigned to this to do a calibrated response. I hope it’s a rich one. But it doesn’t jump out of the gate that this is tobacco, if I can put it that way. I would go quite a ways down the road if I were the emperor deciding this question. But I think the people who are charged with this kind of equation — and the CRTC is the most obvious one at the federal level — ought to be given the opportunity to reflect on it, examine the studies and make a decision and put it in place.
Senator M. Deacon: Just to add that from a non-legal expertise type person, we did look at that. The full ban, of course, you heard me when I started. Tobacco is probably our best adviser on this, and I look at the Charter that we talk about. Courts upheld restrictions on the promotion of tobacco because they considered it a reasonable limitation given the demonstrated and severe harm caused by tobacco consumption and the fact that limiting promotion of tobacco products was considered to be a rational measure which would reduce harm. That took a few decades of court battles. While we would love to see a ban — and it could be a terraced approach — we don’t see it upholding in the same way.
Senator Cotter: Senator Housakos, I know we are probably past our time, but could I just make one observation that is really ancillary at the margins here. It is really about sport rather than about the specifics of this bill. It’s a wonderful, cultural, athletic health dimension of our lives. One of my concerns about what has happened in the last little while is that it starts to feel like sport is only a vehicle and excuse to bet and gamble. If we have gotten so far down the road for that to be even significantly true, that’s a great loss to our society, and I think we need to try to be attentive to managing a culturally iconic thing. I don’t just say this just because Senator McBean is here, but lots of us love sport and want it to be — I’m not pushing the idea that it needs to be clean and all that. It should be and all the rest of it. But it is a valuable dimension of our society, and overwhelming advertising and betting on sports events makes the sports events the margin and the betting the core, and if anything it should be the other way around. Thanks.
Senator M. Deacon: Our values, our roles, our power of sport have to supersede all of this.
The Chair: We are over our hour, but if you will indulge me, I have a couple of quick questions, colleagues. Again, the discussion has been so fascinating this morning. I voted for the sports bill a couple of years ago. I’m in the middle right now, torn if I was wise by doing so.
My question is the following: Have there been any discussions in regard to this bill with the government? As we know, of course, in this place, as much as legislation can be well-intentioned, I draw your attention to Bill S-203 — which we passed more than a year ago — to create a national framework for autism with unanimous support in the Senate and unanimous support in the House; 15 months later, we are still waiting with disappointment. Have there been discussions to see how much of an openness there is on the part of the government for this?
The second question I have is: I look at sports. I’m a sports fan like everybody else. Once upon a time, the sports industry was so dependent on advertising. Now it’s not dependent. It’s exclusively dependent on advertising and broadcasting. My question is: Can professional sport survive without these bets? Because when I watch a football, hockey or basketball game, it seems like 95% of the ads are sports betting ads. Gone are the cigarettes, gone are the beers, gone are the retailers that used to rely on these platforms. Those are the two questions.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the questions. They are excellent questions. The consultation, the conversations with the federal government level, absolutely. I would say if I had to classify them, I would call them more informal than formal. But there are meetings which have taken place with both what I call heritage and sport, understanding the why of what we are doing, creating the interest, the understanding, the support. And at this moment, as a result of a number of meetings and communications, and also at the staff-to-staff level, we are being, the term was, “supported and monitored as this goes through the Senate,” because the question has come back in some settings on the role right now in sport.
Did you want to add anything to that?
Senator Cotter: Two points. One is: You are right that I think this has become a significant revenue generator for the sports industry. Three or four years ago, it wasn’t, and as far as I know, with the exception of the struggles of the Montreal Canadiens, the teams were doing fine.
Secondly, there is a historical parallel, which is tobacco. You might recall that eventually advertising, particularly in relation to sports venues and tobacco, was abandoned. You might remember the Canadian Women’s Open used to be sponsored by one of the tobacco companies. They couldn’t do that any more. Formula 1 carried on and as far as I know they are still prospering.
It seems to me it is a legitimate concern with respect to the industry. I don’t know enough about advertising. My major in business school was marketing. I’m probably the worst in the world who ever graduated. But I think on this question, it’s a bit like pulling your hand out of a pail of water; it sort of fills in. In some ways, I think that will happen. There will likely be a period of time when there is transition where it produces reductions in revenue for the industry, but I don’t think the industry will be jeopardized by it.
Senator M. Deacon: Following up, back to the government consultation piece, a little bit of a thought on that is that, as I said, it has been referenced, it’s being monitored. One of my concerns is the existence of this bill and moving this bill along might be delaying doing something, which is why I’m hopeful we can move the bill along and get it passed soon so we don’t have government delays at the other end.
Our world of professional sport and our world of advertising — somebody mentioned it earlier today — the work we have feels uphill at times. But the comments you made about the real sense of advertising every time you turn on a game, this is where we have to start — not start. This is where we have to continue to do our work so that it doesn’t become the main focus or continue to be the main focus.
It is this young group that is the place we are trying to focus on. The kinds of things we are doing we are hopeful. Things like the 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after where there is no advertising 15 minutes before a game; there is no advertising until 15 minutes after a game. Some of these increments and some of the things we would be suggesting are to get at the heart of what you are talking about, Senator Housakos.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon and Senator Cotter, for being with us today and for being so generous with your time and your answers. I thought that was a great exchange.
Honourable senators, for our second panel this morning, we welcome officials from Canadian Heritage. We have with us Amy Awad, Director General, Digital and Creative Marketplace Frameworks; and Jaimie Earley, Deputy Director General, Sport Canada. Welcome and thank you for joining us. You will have five minutes for opening remarks. I believe Ms. Awad will be making the remarks. Then we will go to questions and answers.
[Translation]
Amy Awad, Director General, Digital and Creative Marketplace Frameworks, Canadian Heritage: Good morning. I would like to thank the chair and the members of the committee for the invitation to discuss Bill S-269, which proposes to create a national framework on advertising for sports betting. The framework would include measures related to advertising for sports betting, measures to promote information sharing related to the prevention and diagnosis of minors involved in harmful gambling activities, and measures to support persons who are impacted by it.
The framework also sets out national standards for the prevention and diagnosis of harmful gambling and addiction, and for support measures for persons who are impacted by it. The bill also requires the CRTC to conduct a review of the adequacy of its regulations and policies in addressing these issues and to report on its findings.
[English]
Like you, we have heard concerns from both organizations and individual Canadians about the prevalence of sports betting advertisements across Canada, including about the impact of gambling ads on children, young people and vulnerable groups, such as those recovering from addiction.
Canadian Heritage’s mandate includes public policy related to broadcasting and sport. The framework proposed in Bill S-269 engages health concerns linked to problem gambling, the integrity of sporting events and the regulation of advertising, including, but not limited to, broadcast advertising.
[Translation]
The Broadcasting Act is within the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and the regulation of broadcasting activity is undertaken by the CRTC. The CRTC is an independent regulator for the Canadian broadcasting system that operates at arm’s length from the government. The Broadcasting Act is a key element of Canada’s cultural policy that helps to ensure the creation and promotion of Canadian music and stories. The act grants the CRTC the authority to make regulations respecting the character of advertising and the amount of broadcasting time that may be devoted to advertising.
[English]
Advertising takes many forms, including broadcast advertising, online advertising and advertising in public spaces and on sports jerseys and venues. The regulation of broadcast advertising itself also takes many forms, depending on the product being advertised, with most regulations working independently from one another. The CRTC has the power to regulate ads that are broadcast to Canadians on traditional television and now on some streaming platforms.
In some cases, advertising associations have developed voluntary industry codes, and in other cases, such as in the case of advertising to children, the CRTC enforces jointly developed codes through conditions of service. Ads involving tobacco and certain types of medications are subject to Health Canada regulations. Provinces are also involved in regulating advertising, in particular with respect to gambling.
Amateur sport at the national level also falls within the mandate of Canadian Heritage. I am joined today by my colleague Jaimie Earley from Sport Canada. Sport unites us and helps foster a shared Canadian identity that encompasses our tradition of excellence and fair play across a variety of sporting and athletic competitions. The department strives to maintain this competitive spirit by protecting the integrity of Canadian sports.
[Translation]
Finally, provinces are currently responsible for the regulation and oversight of gambling activities, including single-game sports betting, through provincial lottery corporations. These corporations have raised concerns about the proliferation of illegal and grey market gambling operations.
[English]
Overall, sports betting and the related advertising is a complex issue that engages many parts and levels of government as well as public policy concerns, including mental health impacts, socio-economic impacts and the disproportionate impacts on specific segments of the population.
I am happy to delve deeper into these issues as they intersect with the mandate of Canadian Heritage, and my colleague and I welcome your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll launch our questions and answers with the deputy chair, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: At the end of the last session, Senator Housakos raised an issue that I think is the elephant in the room. In the last 20 years, viewership of professional sports on television has been in sharp decline, not just in Canada but also in the United States where NFL numbers have been declining, and in Canada, CFL numbers have been declining catastrophically. People are not only not watching but also not going to the games.
At the same time, we saw a sharp reduction in youth betting to the point in Alberta where they had a campaign to encourage more young people to buy lottery tickets. People were not gambling.
With the passage of Bill C-218, we have solved both problems. Viewership of professional sports is up — not in spite of the advertising but because of it. Young people are watching more sports because they can bet. Betting has made it more interesting like interactive video games. At the same time, a whole new generation of people are gambling when they were not buying lottery tickets and not interested in those traditional games of chance.
Having unleashed this genie from the bottle, how would this framework solve anything?
Ms. Awad: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Simons. There are a couple of things to consider. The framework presents a way of tackling some of the elements of the problem that you have presented. It will not, for example, address the decline in interest in sports directly. It won’t even address the knock-on effects for broadcasters that benefit from it via their advertising revenue. Those challenges will continue regardless.
In terms of trying to address the concern related to advertising leading to additional gambling, I think this is what the framework addresses directly. There’s no reason to believe that having governments turn their attention to the issue to try to minimize its impact would not be successful at some level.
Senator Simons: [Technical difficulties] in proposed section 3(d) — this is a question I meant to ask our senators and I ran out of time — it says that consultation must happen with Indigenous communities and organizations with predominantly Indigenous leadership. It seems to me peculiar wording because we have a template for when we mention Indigenous groups. I don’t know what “Indigenous communities” are and I don’t know what “organizations with predominantly Indigenous leadership” are.
Do you have a sense of what is meant by that? Would it be preferable to revert to the boilerplate language we use that enumerates First Nations, Inuit and Métis, the language that is always repeated?
Ms. Awad: As a starting point, I don’t know exactly what was intended here. Sometimes we talk about consultations with different groups of Indigenous people and we make reference to national Indigenous organizations or their representatives. This is not exactly following that language.
In any event, given the passage of the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Act, there would be an obligation to consult to the extent that this impacts Indigenous groups. That would exist regardless of whether it exists in this legislation. It may be trying to capture the element of local gaming activities that individual Indigenous communities may be engaged in or running outside the purview of their national organizations or leadership. It might be hinting at the fact that you want your consultations to go beyond just the consultations with the official representatives of rights holders for Indigenous groups.
Senator Simons: In clause 4(1), the bill requires the minister to prepare a report setting out the national framework and a strategy for implementing the national framework. Would that require further legislative action on the part of the government or could that be done under the umbrella of this bill?
Ms. Awad: I think that preparing a national framework probably doesn’t require any bill so it could be done based on this impetus or on the government’s own policy initiative. The elements of the framework, however, could include legislative elements that would require work. Based on the discussion in the previous session, my understanding is a lot of the work on this national framework will be to bring provinces together so that they can agree on the actions each province will take. That signals to me that some of the legislative work would be at the provincial level.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome to the committee. I’d like to know something, Ms. Awad. What is Canadian Heritage doing? The committee has heard about how problematic this kind of betting can be, not to mention the extremely widespread advertising around it.
Other countries have passed legislation on this. What is Canadian Heritage doing? When you say that this bill can make a difference, I understand that, but what are you doing about the problem? What is the government doing?
Ms. Awad: I will answer first, and, then, I’ll ask my colleague to provide more information. From the broadcasting policy standpoint, all we’re doing right now is exploring the problem. Neither the Minister of Canadian Heritage nor the government has taken concrete measures to address the problems raised in the bill. That may not be the case from a sports standpoint. I’ll let my colleague speak to that.
Jaimie Earley, Deputy Director General, Sport Canada, Canadian Heritage: I’m going to answer in English, if that’s okay.
[English]
The Government of Canada, through Sport Canada, is working closely with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, or CCES. On an angle slightly different than looking at the area relating to the banning of advertisement, one of the things that is preoccupying us is the downstream impacts on athletes that could be potentially subject to competition manipulation or to match fixing because of the proliferation of advertisement in our everyday life. Currently, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is running a consultation with different sport organizations in Canada to look at the potential to create a program specifically related to competition manipulation that all our different national sport organizations who are funded by the federal government could become partners to.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why not also take care of the children who are exposed to this? I find it incredibly surprising. Yes, athletes are an important part. I understand that, but what about these children who are bombarded with these advertisements? Isn’t it your responsibility to do something about that?
Ms. Awad: I think this speaks to the fact that this problem spans across multiple departments and multiple levels of government. This does not take away from the importance of the issue. However, Canadian Heritage’s tool kit is limited to an indirect connection to the CRTC and setting broadcast policy.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You said the CRTC has the power to intervene in some streaming services. You were quite prudent on that. Can the CRTC intervene in such a problem from what you understand, specifically this question of ads?
Ms. Awad: The CRTC has the power within the Broadcasting Act that allows it to speak to the length and character of advertising. As we heard earlier, they have a children’s code in place.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: On the internet too?
Ms. Awad: With the passage of Bill C-11, they do now have the power for curated streaming services to have that type of intervention but the implementation process is staged. They haven’t reached a point in the implementation where they have started to consider that issue. The power does exist, though.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our guests. I have followed the CCES work closely and I concur with my colleague that advertising is the big part of it that we need to address.
I’ll ask Ms. Earley first. Both Ministers St-Onge and Qualtrough have referenced this bill in the media and in committee when asked what the government is doing. I made note that as a framework bill, this bill would force the government to do something that they can actually do on their own.
To your knowledge, has there been discussion between the federal and provincial governments on a way forward to see a national standard for sports betting advertising like we have done for alcohol, tobacco and cannabis?
Ms. Earley: Thank you for the question, Senator Deacon. We have been working interdepartmentally right now exploring the different aspects of this framework.
To my colleague’s earlier point, there are other departments that would be implicated in this type of federal legislation. When you look at the importance of harm reduction, similar to what’s in place for tobacco or for cannabis, those are our colleagues within the health portfolio at Health Canada as well as at the Public Health Agency, and then there’s the whole aspect related to justice and related to our colleagues at Public Safety as well too.
In terms of the sport table, in terms of any kind of conversations — whether this has happened within the provincial or the territorial governments — our focus has been more, as I had earlier stated, related to the downstream impacts on potential competition manipulation. I’m not sure that the table of sport administrators that has the sport table within the P-T realm is really the table that would look at something legislative like this, to be banning advertisement, but it’s something that we are all definitely preoccupied about with the impacts this has on youth.
Did you have anything else that you wanted to add?
Ms. Awad: Maybe I will just add that the concerns from stakeholders or the impetus for this private member’s bill were also brought to Canadian Heritage, and so they would have precipitated examination of the underlying issue. So that examination is going on, but there’s nothing more that I can say.
Senator M. Deacon: Is it urgent? Do you think that examination will convert to action from your department?
Ms. Awad: There are a lot of priorities at any one time, so it’s difficult to assess where it would fall within the priorities. That might be a better question perhaps for the minister.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
You did reference CRTC, Ms. Awad, and there’s some concern, as heard, that maybe this isn’t what the CRTC should be doing or looking after, that it should be left to the provinces to govern this advertising. I note, however, that the CRTC, as mentioned, has a code for broadcasting advertising of alcoholic beverages. Can you give an idea on how the CRTC arrived at this and how it works with the provinces?
Ms. Awad: The CRTC does have a jurisdiction to regulate advertising within the entities that it regulates, essentially the broadcasters, within the broadcasting sphere. It doesn’t necessarily need to do so in collaboration with provinces or with other bodies that have jurisdiction over advertising. It is always very cautious in terms of its content regulation generally, and specifically the regulation of advertising. That’s why a lot of advertising that appears in broadcast is subject to voluntary codes, from the Ad Standards Canada, for example, and the two exceptions for that — and we have touched on them a little bit — is the Children’s Code and the code relating to advertising for alcohol. I don’t have information right now on the genesis for the alcohol code, but that’s information that I could provide to the committee if it’s useful.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. If given a final minute, I would also like to follow up on what my colleague Senator Simons said, and that is that, yes, TV viewing in a general way is down; online viewing is up. Do you see, in your experience, that vice industries, like beer and alcohol and spirit companies, make online-specific ads that run afoul of perhaps traditional broadcast standards? Or are they using the exact same ads online as they would on traditional TV?
Ms. Awad: I’m not sure. I can’t say that with confidence. It’s not the exact same ads for sure, but I couldn’t tell you how aligned they are. I think because of the targeting and so forth there will be differences. They will want to leverage the advantages of an online platform, which allows them to target the specific characteristics of the viewers, which they can’t completely do in a broadcast. I would imagine there will be some significant differences in their online ad portfolio.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Thank you. I will start with Ms. Earley. I get that people think Sport Canada is podium to playground and it’s actually really only about 5,000 athletes — is that right — who receive federal funding and live in federal camps? Is that right?
Ms. Earley: That is approximately the number of athletes who would receive funding through the Athlete Assistance Program, yes.
Senator McBean: Thank you. That was just for you guys.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I love our athletes.
Senator McBean: Are there any restrictions or mention in the contract, the athlete assistance carding contract, that prohibits or restricts an athlete’s participation in gaming or specifically advertising in that contract?
Ms. Earley: That’s a really good question. In the Athlete Assistance Program contract, I would have to get back to you on that. My instinct is no, but I do know that national sport organizations work with the Canadian Olympic Committee that is subject to the IOC’s code on competition manipulation, so as it relates to any athletes that would be participating at an Olympic Games. There might be another sort of venue or another vehicle for them to potentially have something like that in place, but it would be really a question for the Canadian Olympic Committee to respond to in that regard.
Senator McBean: The carding comes from Sport Canada, not the Canadian Olympic Committee.
Ms. Earley: Exactly, the carding for sure.
Senator McBean: I think in one of my earliest interactions with a politician — I was still an athlete — we talked about the difference of the speed of sport versus the speed of politics. I have to admit that I sometimes wonder which cache Sport Canada falls in on this chasing down, the trickle-down effects of competition manipulation and stuff like that when it could be coming in. I know there are always contracts, but maybe for further discussion somewhere, just putting it in the contract so we can at least control the celebrities of our Olympic team from participating in competition.
Ms. Awad, I heard when you were talking about it — and it’s right where Senator Deacon was, about the code — I thought you said something along the lines that the tobacco and alcohol restrictions are a Health Canada restriction. Is that what you said? That’s not a CRTC or Heritage?
Ms. Awad: That’s true for tobacco. Tobacco has Health Canada regulations that are then implemented within the broadcasting system, and so the CRTC is complying with the law in terms of that. For alcohol, that’s why I didn’t answer completely because I think it has a slightly different genesis.
Senator McBean: That’s exactly what I was thinking. Would you suggest or would you recommend that that is the better stream to get this sort of legislation applied, to make it a Health Canada restriction and get it somehow in the same health concern that the CRTC then doesn’t have to become a censor?
Ms. Awad: From a simplicity and streamlining perspective, Health Canada regulations are preferable because they cover all the forms of advertising. The problem is that the mandate and jurisdiction of Health Canada relate sometimes to specific products. So for controlled substances or tobacco, it would have been possible for them to create regulations. It’s less clear whether it would be possible in the context of a service like gambling.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: I hope that the speed of sport is more focused than the speed of political sport. Otherwise we’re in trouble. But in any case, this is a question for both witnesses, and thanks for being here this morning.
Since we have seen more and more sport celebrities, as an example, advertising supporting the various gambling agencies and whatnot, do you have information that would indicate or statistics that show that it’s causing an effect in the rise in gambling amongst any group, particularly children, if you have that?
Ms. Awad: There is a meta study that was conducted of other research in Western countries over the past 20 years, and it did show a correlation between exposure to gambling ads and gambling intentions. Obviously, it is not based on Canadian data because we haven’t had the law for long enough here, but it looks at different jurisdictions in all the different studies. It seems there is a correlation.
Senator Quinn: In the last session with my senator colleagues, I asked about the appropriateness of CRTC undertaking the activities that the bill outlines in clause 6 and that which they would do, or be accountable for. But in other clauses under the consultation area it talks about that horizontal consultation amongst various ministries, and in clause 5, the implementation report talks about five years after this comes into being that the minister — that is, the Minister of Heritage — has to table a report that includes an evaluation of their effectiveness in establishing standardized regulations and the effects of those measures and regulations on persons who are impacted by them.
Where I’m going with that is we’re asking the CRTC to undertake an activity that’s measuring effectiveness, and yet the minister will report on that over the five-year period. Why wouldn’t we have the CRTC in that consultation paragraph so that they don’t have the primary lead; that it’s the minister who actually has the primary lead in consultation with the various ministries outlined, as well as the CRTC, rather than putting it over to the CRTC?
Ms. Awad: There are different ways of structuring it, and that could definitely make sense. My understanding of the bill is that the CRTC is being asked to look at its existing regulations and policies — so that would be part of an assessment process — and then report on its findings in terms of their adequacy. I agree that these things are all connected.
Senator Quinn: It’s great that the CRTC would do what you just mentioned, but I come back to health indicators that seem to be the horizontal work that the minister needs to do. There’s a case to be made that the CRTC should be in the consultation section rather than having clause 6, which identifies that responsibility for them.
We have done so much work, and I’m learning so much about the CRTC. I fear that it would get lost in the shuffle of all the new responsibilities they have, particularly as they deal with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. I think that workload is quite significant. We’ve heard from them within the last three weeks, and they talked about workload and things of that nature and the shifting of resources to deal with other legislation that’s just been passed. This is something that maybe we should think about.
Senator Cardozo: As I see the bill, there are two processes that would take place. One is that the CRTC would be doing its thing with regard to broadcasting on television and radio. That’s outlined in clause 6. Canadian Heritage, or the government, would be undertaking consultation with various partners.
My question is with regard to the part that your department would do. Some of the stakeholders that have been mentioned seem to be people that you are accustomed to dealing with in clause 3(3)(c), as you are with governments in 3(3)(a).
Are you beginning to think about that, or with this being a Senate public bill, you will wait to see what comes and then start planning?
Ms. Awad: I’ll offer a couple of considerations around the process. The bill does specify the Minister of Canadian Heritage as the leader of the creation of the framework. As you study the bill, you may consider whether that’s the best fit given that Canadian Heritage doesn’t have many of the responsibilities. The responsibilities are related to the CRTC, which is a different section of the national framework.
There might be consideration for giving the government more flexibility in terms of how they lead this work — for example, allowing them to designate the minister. In that way, you might get the one that has the best fit in terms of the types of activities that need to be conducted in order to create the national framework.
In our preliminary work, thinking about the problem and thinking about this bill, we have started to work interdepartmentally. To my knowledge, we haven’t yet had significant engagement with the provinces on this. It is still in the early stages.
Senator Cardozo: Who are the other ministers who could be the lead minister? Would it be the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity?
Ms. Awad: I think the idea was that perhaps the Privy Council Office would want flexibility in terms of designating or managing it themselves given that they do have a role with federal-provincial work, and the Department of Justice, obviously, has work related to the previous delegation of the authority on gambling regulators.
Senator Cardozo: The Minister of Sport and Physical Activity works within the Department of Canadian Heritage. Conceivably, the Minister of Canadian Heritage could designate the other minister. But you’re saying it would be better in the interpretation section, under “Minister,” to have something like “means the Minister of Canadian Heritage or other minister as designated by the government,” wording like that?
Ms. Awad: Yes, exactly. I’m not sure that the Minister of Canadian Heritage could designate another minister. Even if both ministers are supported by the Department of Canadian Heritage, I don’t think they can designate each other, to my knowledge.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for being before the committee today.
Colleagues, we need to go in camera for some housekeeping business after we adjourn with our witnesses. Thank you for being with us this morning.
(The committee continued in camera.)