THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 24, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting; and, in camera, to discuss future business.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I am Senator Leo Housakos from Quebec and chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Hello. I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta. I represent Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, this morning we continue our study of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting. To that end, we are joined by video conference by Michael Grade, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, who was Chair of the British House of Lords Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry. Welcome and thank you very much for joining us. We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we proceed to questions and answers. Lord Grade, the floor is yours.
Michael Grade, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, House of Lords: It is a great honour to have been asked to address the Canadian Senate on the effects of gambling advertising in sport.
As the chair said, I chaired a House of Lords Committee investigating the social and economic impact of the gambling industry, and, quite frankly, our findings were shocking. Among them was that, on average, one person a day — usually a young man — committed suicide because of gambling harm. Exposure to advertising, usually when young, must be a contributing factor. We took formal evidence from the families of some of these young men and informally met others. These meetings were very informative and very distressing. I would urge you to arrange similar meetings, if you can, to get first-hand accounts from those who suffer.
When I say that gambling advertising is one of the greatest contributors to gambling harm, I state that as a fact. Yet the industry still argues that there is no proven link between gambling advertising and gambling harm. Inevitably, the proof is not rigorous; you cannot show that harm suffered at the age of 20 is caused by exposure to advertising 10 years earlier. But there is one incontrovertible fact: The gambling industry in the United Kingdom spends £1.5 billion on advertising, much of it around sport. It would hardly do so unless it thought that this was an effective way of inducing people to start and continue to gamble.
Mass media advertising is not, of course, selective about its recipients; we all see it, whether or not we are influenced by it.
Much more pernicious are the approaches targeted at individual recipients, and this is enabled by their smartphones. Here, the algorithms of the gambling companies can and do choose as their targets the most vulnerable: those who already gamble more than they can afford and who often have tried to combat their addiction, perhaps by self-exclusion, but who are all too easy to tempt back through direct advertising. These are the ones from whom the industry makes the majority of its profits.
In looking at more general gambling advertising, we must not ignore these individual direct approaches.
Perhaps the most pervasive gambling advertising is around football, which, of course, in the U.K. is the dominant religion. The industry will tell you proudly of the voluntary measures they have taken to ensure that children are protected from gambling advertising when watching football on television. Prominent among these is the whistle-to-whistle ban — no advertising before 9 p.m. between the kick-off and the final whistle. When I first heard of this, I hoped to be impressed. Naively, I thought that children watching football would see no gambling advertising. I then discovered that this restriction applied only to advertising during the half-time break. The hoardings around the pitch are still full of gambling advertising; so are the players’ shirts. The industry here promised last year that in 2026 they would cease to advertise on the front of players’ shirts. However, the backs and the sleeves will still contain advertising.
What, then, can be done? Obviously, we cannot and should not rely on the industry itself to do anything effective. While 40 of our smaller football clubs have voluntarily renounced sponsorship by gambling companies, most — including the huge Premier League — continue to rely on it. They say that they would be financially bereft without it. They said the same thing when tobacco advertising was banned, but they seem to have survived.
What can governments do? In 2020, the Spanish government imposed an almost total ban on gambling advertising in sport; earlier this year, however, the Supreme Court of Spain overturned a large part of this. Australia was moving in the direction of an online advertising ban, but the industry has fought back, and the government seems to be in retreat. In Belgium, however, an almost total ban was imposed last year, despite vociferous opposition from the industry, the clubs and the media. It can be done.
If and when this general advertising is brought under control, we can be sure that the industry will concentrate all the more on the individual approaches that I mentioned earlier. My committee was told that for gambling safely, “ . . . affordability is key . . . .” The witness who said this was the CEO of one of the largest gambling companies in the U.K. I think he genuinely meant that he would like to see less gambling by those who can least afford it. Some of his colleagues at the table might have thought differently.
I am regrettably confident that it is the most vulnerable and those who can least afford to lose who will be most closely targeted at an individual level through these algorithms. There are many outrageous examples of tempting special offers, free bets, free money and so on being made to those who have self-excluded. Here the controls available to regulators are less effective, but they do have one powerful weapon: In an extreme case, the regulator can in the U.K. suspend or even revoke the licence of an operator who is in persistent and flagrant breach of the rules. I and my committee would like to see this sanction used if necessary. Just the threat of it might improve the conduct of some of the operators.
That was a brief summary of the position as I see it. I would be happy to try to answer whatever questions you may have for me. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Lord Grade. I remind our viewing audience that today, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is studying Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Lord Grade, for taking the time to speak to us from across an ocean.
It’s important for us to understand context here. Canada only legalized single-game sports betting in 2021, and most of Canada still doesn’t allow it, so we have a very different ecosystem than you do in Great Britain. We’re at the beginning of solving a problem that the government — I opposed the legalization of single-game sports betting when the bill came before us. We’ve created this as a situation fairly recently.
By way of comparison, can you explain to us what kinds of sports betting are currently legal in Britain and how long that has been the case?
Lord Grade: Essentially any kind of betting. There is spread betting and betting on results. You can bet on anything, really, through the betting exchanges that exist online, you know, if you can find somebody who will —
Senator Simons: There is the joke that you can bet on who’s going to win an American presidential debate or the Oscars. That is always somehow done through bookies in London.
Lord Grade: Yes, that’s correct. I don’t think there is any inhibition on any form of betting in the U.K., provided that the person who is offering the bet is saying you’re betting on what you’re actually betting on so that it’s fair to the consumer, and that they are transparent about what the odds are, et cetera. So there are no restrictions.
This has been the case since 2005, when the current Gambling Act became an act. It was, unfortunately, a year before the smartphone arrived, and the provisions of the 2005 act have lamentably failed to deal with the explosion. The idea that you could sit in your bath for half an hour and lose $20,000 wasn’t a concept in 2005. This is where it has gone haywire.
Senator Simons: When I say “football,” I mean a different kind of sport than when you say “football,” but one of the challenges that we have here is that professional football in Canada is under incredible financial strain because people are opting to watch the American rather than the Canadian game. The Canadian game is really suffering, and I think the idea was that if you allowed single-game sports betting, it would rejuvenate interest in a sport that was in economic crisis.
Do people make the same argument in England, not just that they need the revenues from the advertising, but that if people are moving away from watching sports on television, they need the gambling to drive new audiences?
Lord Grade: No, I don’t think that is the case in the U.K. Sport is the biggest driver of television viewing — soccer, cricket, rugby, you name it. We are a sports-mad nation. We don’t have the excitement of hockey that you do, but we have pretty much every other sport.
I think you’re in a fortunate position in Canada, if I dare say so, and I’m sure it is the work of this committee to learn from what has happened in other countries, because you’re on the lower slopes of a mountain to climb, and there are a lot of lessons from around the world.
There is no harm in betting. Most people survive gambling. They bet on a horse in the Derby, the Grand National or the Kentucky Derby, whatever; that’s fine. But there is in the corner of the betting “punters,” if I can use that word. It is a very toxic corner, and a lot of people suffer, sometimes fatally, from out-of-control gambling. That is where regulation and legislation come in.
Senator Simons: In Canada, traditionally the problem has been with games of chance — with video lottery terminals and casino betting — and this is a newer thing for us.
Because we’re very early to the game, what would you recommend? We only just legalized this, so we’re only just now dealing with the consequences of the advertising. And because we’re a very large country, if the advertising is taking place in one province, people who are online or watching the game can see the advertising even if they’re technically not supposed to be betting in their province. What would you suggest as ground rules for what we would want to create going forward?
Lord Grade: I believe the betting companies’ primary focus with account holders — and most people bet with credit cards or debit cards — must be doing affordability checks. The technology exists to control this. If someone is betting $10,000 cash a month and they’re earning $30,000 a year, which you can usually tell by their postcode or their spending habits or whatever, they shouldn’t be accepted. It’s the gambling operators who have control of that.
I’m not familiar with how regulation is intended to work in Canada, whether it’s statewide or how it operates, but the second important thing is for the regulator to test games or bets that are put on the market and the way they’re marketed, to test them for addiction. This is incumbent and not difficult. You ought to be able to measure the addictive quality of the games that they come up with. Any product you’re putting on the market should be tested for its addictive qualities.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, sir, for being here this morning from across the pond.
As Senator Simons mentioned, we are probably in the early stages of this as a country. You mentioned we’re on the lower slope. What can we learn from you? My question is this: Do you have statistics that clearly demonstrate the relationship between gambling and effects on health, families, crime and employment that you could share with us, so that we could see what the future could be if we don’t get this under control now?
Lord Grade: I will be very happy to go back and furnish whatever information we have to the committee as quickly as possible, if I may take a second to make a note. It’s really measuring the harm, isn’t it? I’ll take that back and get that to you as fast as I can.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, sir, for doing that.
Lord Grade: It’s a very important point.
Senator Quinn: The other thing you stated was that governments tend to back off. That brings me to this question: What is the lobbying activity of these big companies in the U.K.? Is it front and centre? Are there big monetary supporters of all political parties, influential with various individuals in big areas? Can you speak a little about that?
Lord Grade: I don’t think they need to be seen to be individually lobbying or contributing to funds. Their biggest supporter, I suspect — this is an opinion on my part — is His Majesty’s Treasury, who earn a lot of revenue and are very anxious to see that the take from the gambling sector is not reduced. Many of the measures that we would like to see to reduce the toxic harm in the corner of the betting universe may well affect the revenues. I think you’re always fighting the Treasury.
Senator Quinn: Do you have information about what the financial impact is for the revenue side of the house in the U.K., so we can have a bit of an appreciation for that?
In Canada, the proliferation of online betting and advertising and whatnot by those folks on TV has tapped into the star marketplace. There are some actions that are under way to prevent that from happening, but there are ways of getting around it. We have our superstar hockey players — for example, a name you might know, Wayne Gretzky, a guy from Edmonton, Alberta, from days gone by.
Lord Grade: Indeed.
Senator Quinn: In any case, is that a big issue there, where you have your absolute star players that kids just adore, and they see their holy grail, if you will, on TV promoting gambling? Do you have that sort of issue or has that been restricted somehow?
Lord Grade: It hasn’t been restricted, no. There is no restriction on it, but it should be swept up in any regulations or legislation you bring in that has to do with marketing and what is and isn’t allowed.
What cropped up very often in our discussions on this particular point was the association of gambling with sport, whether that’s through individual ambassadors for betting companies or whatever, creates a situation of normalization; people begin to believe that sport and betting are two sides of the same coin, which they absolutely aren’t and should not be.
All these things contribute to the normalization of gambling. There is no harm in gambling if it’s regulated and vulnerable people are protected, almost from themselves.
Senator Quinn: I do have a supplementary question, if I may. It’s more of an interest question than anything else. We’ve had incidents in various sports in North America where superstar players have been caught gambling, betting against their own team or for other teams. Have you folks in the U.K. run into similar things?
Lord Grade: Very occasionally, and they’re dealt with extremely harshly when discovered.
Senator Quinn: Okay, great. Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, Lord Grade, for being here. I will take this issue from another angle, which is children and minors being affected by advertising. You have a very impressive Online Safety Act that is coming into force soon. Is there anything there that could be used to protect children from this? I must say I’m surprised that the U.K. has not acted on this advertisement question, since you were the first — or among the first — to stop children from betting, because at one point they were betting online. From the research I’ve done, you were one of the first to say that we have to be stricter for that.
How do you explain the situation getting completely out of hand on this question in the U.K., considering the progress you’ve made? Children, obviously, are not all bettors, but if you are in contact with advertisements from early on, it can have an effect on you all your life.
Lord Grade: There is no question. I’m Chairman of Ofcom, which is the communications regulator in the U.K., and we are charged with implementing the Online Safety Act. You make a very relevant point, which is about age verification online, but it should certainly apply to the gambling sector. Age verification is not a perfect science yet. There are all kinds of technologies that are vying to be the most reliable, whether it’s facial recognition or all kinds of other things, different ways that —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Age estimation.
Lord Grade: Yes, it’s terribly important. The gambling operators, within their licence, should be required on pain of severe sanctions to ensure that their age verification is as reliable as it possibly can be. There is too much in our report — I can’t remember the numbers, but we were absolutely shocked to find evidence of how many underage children were getting through the system and gambling.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So what about the climate? How do you explain that you still have not legislated on this question of gambling advertising across the board? Is it just a question of, as you said earlier, government getting money out of it? Is it because you have other priorities? Is it because of legal obstacles?
Lord Grade: No. As you will know, governments and legislatures are incredibly busy all the time, and it is about finding the legislative or government time to make sure. In our report, I think there were 60-odd recommendations, and only 3 or 4 that required primary legislation. A lot of that could be done by the regulator or by the government via secondary legislation, what we call statutory instruments. So it really takes political will, and it also requires the government of the day, the ministry responsible, to hold the regulator to account for failures to act to stop the bad behaviour by the gambling operators.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you so much. I don’t know if we already have your report, but if we don’t, could we have it along with the little package you’re going to send us?
Lord Grade: Absolutely. I’ll resend it. I think the clerk has it, but I will ensure that it’s sent.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much for being here today, Lord Grade. It’s greatly appreciated. I’m the individual who is sponsoring the bill here, and we’ve invested quite a bit into some of the information.
Just before I ask the questions — and I will try to keep it to as few questions as possible — the two pieces that have come up thus far, number one is acknowledging we’ve been at this almost two years, and in that period of two years we are collecting by the day Canadian data, and a lot of it with support from the University of Bristol and the CBC working together on the connections between online gambling and advertising and the mental health of young people. That is coming along quite well. For the committee, one of the summer take-home projects was breaking down this country and what the revenues are. It’s sometimes hard to find where this money goes. Submitted to this committee in late August was an update on what it looks like here province by province. I want my colleagues to ensure you know that became a summer holiday project.
As I listened today, one of the things you talked about and one of your catchier recommendations in your 2020 report was that the gambling operators should no longer be allowed to advertise on clothing or sports teams or any visible parts of their kit, and that there should be no gambling advertising in or near sports grounds and the venues, both professional and amateur.
How does your committee feel about that as time marches on? You’ve been at this now for three or four years, and the Premier League football club that you touched on earlier said they would voluntarily remove advertising from jerseys for their 2025-26 season. Is there any effort to enshrine this in law, either having professional sports begin the process or suggesting this be done?
Lord Grade: I don’t think it needs primary legislation, and if it did, it would take years to get it into the queue and through both houses of Parliament. The clubs are worried; they’re facing in two directions. First, they don’t want to lose the revenue; and second, the reputational risk is so great. Hardly a month goes by without another story of a tragedy of somebody who has taken their own life as a result of running up gambling debts and the shame and horror of it all and being unable to deal with it. So there is a reputational risk and a revenue risk.
In the end, the market has a way of sorting that out. When smoking advertising was banned completely, the hole filled up quite quickly with new advertisers, new people who saw opportunities to take advantage of. The market will take care of it. If they have less money to pay the agents and players, that’s probably not a bad thing.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. When we look at the bill here in Canada and what we’re trying to make happen here, advertising is our starting point for sure. However, we’re also looking at tasking the government with finding measures to prevent minors from becoming problematic gamblers and setting out national standards for the prevention and diagnosis of problematic gambling.
In your 2020 report, you said that over 50,000 children in the U.K. are problematic gamblers. What actions do you wish the government would take — or would have taken back in 2010, or 2005 when the Gambling Act was opened up to prevent this from happening?
Lord Grade: I don’t think the governments need to do it. Allowing underage gambling or underage drinking or those things is illegal. The regulator needs to step in, monitor it and be sure they understand how secure the age verification and age assessment procedures are within the gambling companies. Once you start talking about primary legislation, you are pushing the date back. I do not think that you need that.
I do not know what powers your regulator has. Are gambling operators licensed in Canada?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Lord Grade: Is it by a gambling regulator?
Senator M. Deacon: Regulators, yes.
Lord Grade: It is the regulators’ job. It must be the regulators’ job. They must be held to account. It is happening on their watch. They are in charge. They should be ensuring that this is not happening.
I do not know what sanctions they have in Canada, but if they have a licence, you can take it away if they continually misbehave in this egregious manner.
Senator M. Deacon: From what you have been doing and the committee recommendations that you have, do you feel that in your neighbourhood these recommendations can be enacted through regulations, or is legislation required in your work?
Lord Grade: In the U.K., as you will see in the report, there are only 5 or 6 recommendations out of 60 that require primary legislation, and that is about a statutory levy on the gambling operators to pay for regulation and the harm that they cause, aftercare and so on. Most of it can be handled through an effective regulator that is accountable to Parliament.
Senator M. Deacon: An example that is in your face and in your space this morning — it is Tuesday morning in Canada — is looking at the enticements and promotion on gambling sites. When checking the website this morning, which advertised prominently during the Olympic Games this summer through our national broadcaster, the first things that popped up were these enticements of up to $500 in bonus money and a second chance of up to $250.
I believe that in your 2020 report, you strongly condemned these enticements. From what you’ve learned with respect to cause and effect, why do you find these particularly disturbing and bad, and has any action been taken on this in the U.K.?
Lord Grade: Anybody who is not completely in control of their gambling habit is extremely vulnerable to offers of free bets and money. People who desperately need help with their addictions are not helped by offers of free money — “Oh, well, it is not going to cost me anything” — and they can get sucked in again. It is like the alcoholic saying, “One drink is fine.” It isn’t fine.
Again, this comes down to the regulator. Parliaments need to set principles by which the regulator then needs to effect regulation and impose it with heavy sanctions and a heavy hand to begin with, because the gambling operators have gotten into bad habits.
Senator M. Deacon: Could I get a clarification about something you said earlier? We do talk about a whistle-to-whistle ban, but in Canada we talk about what I would call a real whistle-to-whistle ban, where five minutes before and five minutes after, whether it is broadcasters during the quarters, the periods, whether it is signage, it is a full whistle-to-whistle ban. As I understand it, yours is “kind of, sort of but not really.” Is that correct?
Lord Grade: Exactly. That is beautifully put.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Lord Grade, for being here. I am pleased to speak with you because I am interested in your role as Chair of Ofcom. I served as a commissioner on the CRTC, which is your counterpart in Canada. It has a long name: the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. It is interesting to hear what you are doing in comparison to what our agency does.
You talked about gambling regulations and the regulator. My understanding is that the gambling regulators are provincial in Canada. We as a federal Parliament would have minimal sway over them. We have 10 provinces and 3 territories, and each of them do their own thing.
I would like to understand more about what Ofcom does with respect to gambling, and then I have a couple of specific questions in terms of what you have said.
Lord Grade: Ofcom has nothing to do with the gambling world whatsoever. We regulate the pipes that the internet goes through, the phone lines and mobile. We regulate the hardware and that bit.
Gambling is run by a statutory gambling regulator, the Gambling Commission. They are the ones who, in my view and as we say in the report — or certainly it is implicit in the report — have been asleep on the job since the advent of the smartphone with respect to the way the gambling operators have gamed the system.
The gambling regulator has been far too busy worrying about the fairness of games and claims about what the odds are, transparency and so on. They have lost the plot on the way that the operators were using smartphones, advertising and free money and targeting the young and vulnerable people who are overstretched with their gambling addiction.
Senator Cardozo: Is there any role for Ofcom in this situation?
Lord Grade: No. It is purely a coincidence that I chaired the select committee in the House of Lords and am now Chairman of Ofcom.
Senator Cardozo: When you are in Parliament, you chair the select committee.
Lord Grade: Correct. As one of your senators said before, the overlap is the age verification from the Online Safety Act, which is applicable and should be applied throughout the gambling regulator.
Senator Cardozo: As a side clarification, do you continue to be a member of the House of Lords while you are Chair of Ofcom?
Lord Grade: I do, yes, but I do not take a party whip.
Senator Cardozo: Our system is a bit different here. I do not think that one of us would be able to remain in the Senate and chair an agency.
Can you talk about how well the age verification works?
Lord Grade: We have taken a view at Ofcom, in relation to online safety, that age verification is very important, but because the technology is moving so fast, we should not say, “This is the technology you should use.” It is up to the operator of the online platform to decide which system they will use for age verification. However, under the terms of the act, whatever they choose must be effective. That is well defined in the act. As technology moves on, age verification becomes more reliable. But it is no good picking up something that is only 50% reliable and saying, “Well, we have done it. We have age verification.” There is a long way to go, but age verification is hugely important.
Senator Cardozo: Do people actually have to show a government ID that would have their date of birth on it?
Lord Grade: That is one way of doing it, but in the gambling world, it would be for the gambling operators to decide whether they wanted to use face or age recognition. There are all kinds of different systems. They will have to choose which one they want to use and will then have to show that it is as effective as the best system available.
Senator Cardozo: The other issue I wish to ask you about is an interesting point you made about — though you did not use the term — income level verification. If a person was betting $10,000 and their annual income was $30,000, how would you go about verifying that?
Lord Grade: There are several ways. One is postcode or ZIP Code. Do you call it a ZIP Code in Canada or a postcode?
Senator Cardozo: A postal code.
Lord Grade: A postal code, yes. A postal code will tell you pretty much what sort of bracket someone is in. Then they go through a credit card, though we have stopped gambling operators using credit cards. You have to use a debit card now. With credit cards you can run up debt, but you cannot run up debt on a debit card. That was a very important piece of work that happened.
You need cooperation with the banks and debit card operators. If you apply for a mortgage or loan from the bank, they will know pretty quickly how much you earn and whether it is worth having a conversation with you. The same applies here. The data is there; it exists these days. It is not difficult to mine it, to work out whether somebody can afford to spend $10,000 in cash on a bet. It is not difficult.
Senator Cardozo: Isn’t that too intrusive? I think we will get a bit of pushback here for that level of —
Lord Grade: It happens all of the time, doesn’t it?
In terms of your credit rating and all the rest of it, all of that information is available. If it stops people from committing suicide and all the tragedy that follow from that with families and so on, it is not a big price to pay.
Senator Cardozo: Certainly the debit card strikes me as a relatively simple issue that might be easier to implement and it is not that intrusive with respect to asking people their income level.
Lord Grade: Correct.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Colleagues, for the audience, a point of clarification: Nothing prevents members of the Senate from serving on boards or as officers of Crown corporations or agencies or, for that matter, serving in any other institution. I’m putting that out there as a point of clarification.
Senator Simons: Lord Grade, it is one thing to regulate conventional advertising. It would be straightforward enough to say this to the NHL, which already does not do this — we do not have hockey players running around with 100 patches on their jerseys. So, yes, we could pre-emptively say that will not be cool with us. We could take the signs down from the boards of the rinks. We can regulate television advertising through the CRTC.
However, as you mentioned, we are now in the time of these devices, which can send tailored ads to you every minute of a live game and ask you if you would like to bet on this shot or on this tiny little bit of the play. It is those tiny micro-bets that really add up for people because then they are caught up in the excitement of the game. They’re not just betting on the outcome at the end but on the little slices of action.
How on earth do we regulate that, especially in an international world where even if we did it in Canada, people could get a virtual private network, or VPN, and work around that? In Britain, obviously you are tied into the Continent as well in terms of where you get your information. How on earth does one begin to counter that kind of very targeted micro-advertising?
Lord Grade: You quite correctly identified some of the difficulties, but the solutions are not that difficult to attain.
I do not know whether you have the same thing in Canada, but there is something in banking called KYC, which is “know your customer.” It must be incumbent on the gambling operators to know their customers, what they can afford and whether they have self-excluded — which they usually ignore. You have a button which says, “I do not wish to gamble anymore.” You press the button, but they still keep sending you things and tempting you.
You have to know your customer and what they can afford. You should not be allowed to address tempting offers to vulnerable people whom you can easily identify as being very vulnerable. It is not difficult. It is about knowing your customer. They have a duty of care to the people that they entice into gambling with them. They absolutely have a duty of care to their customers.
Senator Simons: My question is this: How do you deal with this in a porous, online world? This is one of the reasons we legalized single-game sports betting in the first place.
Lord Grade: Of course.
Senator Simons: People said, well, Canadians are doing it anyway; they are just doing it in a black or grey market. The money is going offshore, and Canadian governments, provincial and federal, aren’t gaining any benefit from it. So let’s domesticate it. Let’s make it safe for Canadians to gamble in Canada. We opened this enormous can of worms because people were very naive. They were thinking of the betting practices of their past where you just bet on the outcome of a game. I’m not sure if the people who supported this bill — I wish to clarify again that I was not one of them — understood that in a digital era, this was going to be a much more complicated, enticing and addictive kind of gambling advertising.
Lord Grade: A bit of context here: Most people in our research, et cetera, gamble responsibly and within their means; it is a flutter and they have fun. They enjoy it and it is harmless.
However, there is a small corner of the market which is extremely vulnerable. That is the bit you are trying to protect in what we have been discussing this morning. That is about understanding the affordability of the customer. They are going to have to use a debit card, or maybe a credit card as well in Canada. I do not know. You capture them that way. Even if they are using a VPN, somehow there has to be a financial transaction which will go through the normal, established monetary transfer system. You can capture them there. It is not difficult. We are trying to protect that small but deeply harmed group of individuals who cannot control their gambling habits.
Senator Simons: I understand these are two different roles that you have played in your life, one with this report and the other being a broadcast regulator.
I am trying to understand how, in a world without digital borders, one can even begin to regulate. I understand what you are saying: that they have a duty of care. Presumably, companies do not actually want to be placing bets for people who cannot pay them back. When you are talking about credit checks and things, if I go to buy a new car, the car dealer wants to ensure that I can actually make my payments, not because they are making sure that I do not buy a Lamborghini because my senator’s salary does not allow me to buy a Lamborghini. They are not doing that out of some fiduciary duty to ensure that I do not end up in the poorhouse; they are doing that to cover their bets. Companies presumably will have their own motivated self-interest, but I do not know how we regulate in the web where there isn’t a mechanism for us to do so.
Lord Grade: Even if you are betting through a VPN offshore somewhere, there is a financial transaction. You are using a credit or debit card. That is where you catch it. It is not beyond the wit of a Parliament to deem it illegal for banks or credit card or debit card operators to be liable if they allow money to be used for this purpose offshore. You can always capture it. The weak point for the villains is at the point of transaction.
Senator Simons: I guess the difference is that if I am betting with someone in the Canary Islands, they are not going to come and break my knees if I do not pay them back.
Lord Grade: You never know. I would not test that if I were you.
Senator Simons: I would still like a Lamborghini, but that is not going to happen.
The Chair: Lord Grade, my question is this: Have you in the U.K. come to a percentage of bettors who have an addiction problem? Out of those who used the betting industry for recreation or whatever the case may be, have you come to a determination of what percentage has an addiction problem?
Lord Grade: I will speak from memory but will follow up with a more accurate response. I think it is much less than 10% of betting customers.
The Chair: At what point does government regulating impede on the 90% of citizens who effectively use betting for recreational purposes in order to mitigate the problem that 10% or less are having?
Lord Grade: I hesitate to make a comparison, but even though there are a small percentage of alcoholics, it doesn’t stop people from drinking.
The Chair: We don’t ban it either.
Lord Grade: No, we don’t. It has been tried south of your border. It was tried once.
The Chair: That is precisely getting to my point, yes.
Lord Grade: Exactly, yes. I do not think measures that are there to stop the gambling operators from chasing vulnerable people to keep them gambling in a way that they cannot afford will impede anybody’s liberty and freedom to gamble responsibly. When you read our report, if you could be bothered, I would defy you to find any measure in the 60 recommendations that will impinge on anybody’s liberty to gamble freely and responsibly and what they can afford.
The Chair: I was one of those senators supported our piece of legislation legalizing sports betting. The compelling reason why I did it is because I wanted to take sports betting out of the hands of organized crime —
Lord Grade: Quite right.
The Chair: — and bring it into a world of sanity, because even if government was not in this business, or in the business of legalizing or regulating it, we all know that the 10% who have an addiction problem would be finding ways to nourish their addiction. That would be making it more difficult for the other 90% to engage in the activity, but they would otherwise. And you appropriately brought up drinking as an example.
Lord Grade: You have reminded me of one of our witnesses. I made that comparison during a session of the committee, and the reformed gambler said that the difference between drinking and gambling is if you drink too much, there is a point at which you fall over and collapse; however, as long as you can stay awake, you can gamble. That is the difference and why it is so serious.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you so much. This is something that I will throw out based upon what I heard today: I worry that we can look at this, specifically the online piece as described by my colleague, and think, well, we cannot make it perfect, so why jump the gun and do anything at all? I realize that people bet illegally when they can, but is the argument then: People will break the law, so why have laws in the first place? Canada is at the beginning of this journey. As we go through this, do you think we should throw our hands up, give up and say it’s futile? Or is it worth it to carry on and have the federal government take the lead on a national conversation with provinces and the regulators to come up with a national set of standards on this, using best practices that we have been looking at for a few years and seen internationally, particularly in the U.K.? What are your thoughts?
Lord Grade: You will see internationally that this is a cause of concern in many territories. We talked about Australia and other places.
All markets need regulating at the end of the day because there are unscrupulous people who will exploit them. There are laws against insider dealing in the stock markets. Given the history of stock markets, that is a comparatively new piece of legislation. It doesn’t stop people from insider dealing if they can get away with it. Nevertheless, it shows that all markets develop and have to be regulated. With the knowledge that you have of what has gone on around the world, most particularly in the U.K., Australia and other places, you would be in dereliction of duty, if I may be so bold, if you ignore this problem now that you have legalized it in the way that you have. There is a serious problem of regulation that you must address. There are many case studies and case histories that will inform and help you to draw the line between restriction and freedom to gamble. As you are coming at it, you are lucky in one respect that you have all of this case law and history from around the world that will help you to make the right decisions for Canada.
The Chair: Lord Grade, on behalf of the committee, we would like to thank you for being with us this morning and for sharing your views.
For our second panel, I would like to welcome, on behalf of the committee, Joannie Fogue Mgamgne, Mental Health Commission of Canada, Member, MHCC Youth Council. Welcome and thank you for joining us this morning.
[Translation]
We will start with your opening remarks for five minutes and then go to question period with the senators.
You have the floor.
[English]
Joannie Fogue Mgamgne, Member, MHCC Youth Council, Mental Health Commission of Canada: Good morning, esteemed committee members and members of the gallery.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, where we gather today. My name is Joannie Fogue Mgamgne, and I am a member of the Youth Council for the Mental Health Commission of Canada. I am also completing my master’s in political management at Carleton University.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee to discuss Bill S-269.
I want to start by sharing three hypothetical yet very real stories that illustrate the significant impact of sports betting advertising on youth.
First, let’s meet Jean-Claude, a bright 13-year-old in ninth grade. Jean-Claude loves basketball and dreams of being a star athlete. Recently, he’s been feeling pressure from his friends to join in on sports betting, especially after seeing his favourite artist promoting an online betting app. “If you want to fit in, you’ve got to bet,” they say. This glamorized world of online gambling seems enticing, but for Jean-Claude, it’s a risky path that threatens to distract him from his studies and passion for the game.
Now let’s consider Sarah, a 17-year-old navigating the challenges of adolescence. Sarah’s home life is complicated; her parents have struggled with gambling for years. She has seen the toll it takes on her family — financial stress, emotional turmoil and a lack of stability. Sarah worries that she could be drawn into the same cycle. With gambling ads appearing everywhere promoting a false sense of security and quick gains, the risk feels all too real. She’s caught between wanting to escape her reality and knowing the dangers that lie ahead.
Finally, there’s Ahmed, a 21-year-old university student. Ahmed is facing the harsh realities of student debt, a cost-of-living crisis and food insecurity. In his pursuit of relief, he finds himself tempted by promises of quick cash from online gambling. The sophisticated ads make it seem like a viable solution to his problems, but the pressure only intensifies. Instead of alleviating his stress, it adds to his anxiety and feelings of hopelessness.
These stories reflect a troubling and concerning trend among youth across the country. The marketing of online gambling has become overly accessible and enticing, with influencers, celebrities and artists glamorizing the activity and presenting a romanticized view of success that is far removed from the reality they face. Despite the understanding that sports betting is intended for those 18 and older, research shows that approximately one in five Canadian kids between the ages of 9 and 17 engage in casino gambling or gambling with games online.
Moreover, sports betting has found ways to gamify the experience, with video games rewarding players for engaging in gambling-like mechanics. This connection between sports culture and gambling normalizes risk-taking behaviour among young people. Since the legalization of online gambling in 2021, one investigation revealed that gambling messages made up to 21% of each broadcast on average.
These statistics are deeply concerning and underscore the urgent need for legislative study and potential intervention. If we continue to ignore these trends, we risk further normalizing gambling behaviour among impressionable youth, potentially leading to long-term negative consequences for their mental health and well-being.
We also need to consider the role of “bro culture” and the vulnerabilities of young men. Research shows that male respondents exhibit a significantly higher prevalence of gambling problems compared to their female counterparts. This culture perpetuates the expectation that being a true fan involves “winning” and betting, which further increases young men’s susceptibility to gambling and the associated mental health risks. A study found that among Canadian youth aged 15 to 24, 61.35% had gambled in the past 12 months.
As the expansion of sports betting platforms continues, we must act decisively. We need stricter regulations that protect youth from the overwhelming tide of gambling advertisements. If we don’t take control now, the challenges faced by young people will only amplify, creating a cycle of despair that is hard to escape.
Furthermore, we are living in a time of economic strain, where young people face mounting cost-of-living and other pressures. Many cannot prioritize their own mental health and well-being amidst these challenges.
The correlation between gambling addiction and overall health issues is alarming. In an effort to protect youth, we must consider the multifaceted realities they face, such as historical relationships, the disproportionate impact on young men, financial issues in a cost-of-living crisis and the lack of access to adequate support systems. The combination of increased gambling accessibility and insufficient resources for addressing gambling-related problems among youth contributes to a growing crisis.
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the bill, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much for coming to testify before us. Is this your first time before a Senate committee?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Yes, this is my first time, although I was talking while prepping — we have met before a few years ago during my time in undergrad when I was doing advocacy for Campus Saint-Jean. We snagged a meeting with you, so I’m happy to have familiar faces in the room.
Senator Simons: You do look vaguely familiar. Here is my question to you, then. I remember a time when the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission was worried that youth in Alberta weren’t gambling enough, and they created a lottery campaign especially to target youth, which they said was 18 and up. I said that I didn’t know how a 17-year-old is going to differentiate that, and they said they were concerned that youth weren’t gambling in the way that their parents’ generation did, and they weren’t betting on horses, and, of course, that the horse-racing industry is in crisis because of this. I remember those interviews and that story because I had a very puritanical reaction. I said that it was a good thing that youth are not gambling. So when I look at all of the marketing around single-game sports betting, I wonder if you can tell me if you tracked in your research a trough and then an upcurve of young people 18 to 25 gambling more after a period during which they weren’t gambling “enough”?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you, senator, for your question.
I’m not an expert in regard to the research and statistics on the issue, although I can speak to my own lived experiences as someone who interacts with people who have these ads showing up in their algorithms, on their phones, et cetera.
You mentioned specifically those aged 18 to 25. What I find concerning is with respect to that group under the expected age for gambling — those 18 and younger.
I am the older sister of an amazing little brother, Clement Gagné. He is a fanatic and enthusiast for anything to do with basketball, football. He is on TikTok all the time. I found it concerning. As we see this research, as we’re having this conversation, this is something he is very impressionable around. He has his favourite football player telling him to join in sports betting, because why not? Of course, he’s going to do it. That is why this is something we definitely need to look into.
I personally will go back and look into that research because I think it’s important data we need to use to make sure we’re having data-driven discussions and finding data-driven solutions.
Senator Simons: I remember being shocked at the time. At the time, there was a Conservative Alberta government. They were genuinely concerned about trying to create games that would attract youth. They said people 18 to 25 because nobody was gambling anymore.
I always have that story in the back of my head when we’re talking about this, because it seems to me that these kinds of bets — which you can do on your phone in an instant, don’t have to go to a bookie or to a window to place and can do very privately and instantaneously — seem created specifically for a generation raised on video games and TikTok, to make it integrated into the entertainment experience that lives in your phone.
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Yes. I’m glad you mentioned TikTok. I found, even with the bill, something we seem to forget. We often talk about the traditional media platforms, but we don’t talk about these new social media platforms that are used more by younger folks, such as TikTok, Instagram and YouTube.
As I mentioned, with my little brother, it’s primarily going to be on TikTok that he’s going to find these games. They’re going to say, “Hey, here is a game you can play.” However, that’s not the messaging behind it. With many of these gambling ads, the message is about fitting in, growth and gain.
The messaging they never share is the loss, the feeling of hopelessness, all these different emotions that come after gambling. These are the real conversations we need to have. I am really happy that’s something you mentioned.
Senator Simons: Are people gambling on Discord and Twitch? Are those platforms where people are also?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: I can’t speak to Discord. I know with Twitch, I am aware of that because I do have friends who have unfortunately taken part in gambling-like mechanisms like that. For Twitch, I know that is something. There are many ads running through there as well, and they find themselves, again, on these various social media platforms, specifically TikTok and Instagram.
Senator Simons: We are not the target audience for online games and video games. We’ve been talking about hockey, football, basketball and conventional televised sport.
But I don’t know the answer to this question. There is a whole other industry of people watching streaming and other people playing video games, which I am too old to understand the appeal thereof. Are people betting on that as well?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: I can’t speak to what the mechanisms are like for betting around that. With Twitch and, as you mentioned, watching others play video games, I have seen ads specifically in regard to that kind of gambling. I couldn’t speak more to that unfortunately.
Senator Simons: I will task us with finding out.
Senator M. Deacon: It’s amazing, Senator Simons, the two years of constitutional consultations starting the bill, and what we have and the way of our mainstream and non-mainstream media — a plethora. There were the examples of Twitch and others as we move forward.
I have a question for you. It has come up a few times. It doesn’t come up often, but it has come up before: It has been suggested that, you know what, navigating the barrage of ads is the job of parents, and the hope is that moms and dads can take care of that for their families in this country. We don’t see the same response for alcohol, cannabis or tobacco. We know we have heavy government intervention to limit those ads.
After hearing your initial testimony, I’m wondering if you think gambling ads should remain an exception when it comes to vices and vice industries and be allowed to be promoted often. Or are you at the point, with the information you have, of saying that we have to get on this with regulations?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for your question. I think we need to get on it. Research shows that youth are at a higher risk of developing gambling disorders, and will then develop mental health issues which can manifest as anxiety, stress and depression. That’s already taking into consideration all of the other stressors in their lives.
As I mentioned, there are university students who are currently facing food insecurity. In hopes of escaping this reality that perhaps is already adding to their depression or stress, they go into online gambling.
These are conversations we must have. We do need to take that on right away. If not, we will see a higher number of youth facing substance use and mental health disorders. That’s an important conversation to have.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. When we look at this challenge, we’re hearing a lot more from CAMH, doctors in emergency rooms and fathers who seem to be terrified about what they’re seeing or hearing in the basements of their homes. We’re getting more and more of this data.
The piece I want to touch on in this question is in learning and reading about the different factors. How does the risk of youth problem gambling compare with the risks of how it happens with adults, with youth with problem gambling frequently experiencing co-mental health issues and predispositions with the gambling? There are many different possible correlations out there that make this pile up for some young people. Can you talk about how this impacts youth versus adults, who seem to see this as more of a nuisance than anything else?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you. I’m not a health expert and can’t necessarily speak to the medical status on that.
What I can say in regard to the youth portion of it is that we are disproportionately affected by issues such as this because, as you’ve seen, gambling ads and companies have now found new ways to target youth. We are disproportionately affected by this. They’re gamifying the experience. There is this expectation that you are just playing a game, but what you are actually doing is gambling, which will then create gambling disorders, et cetera.
These youth are likely going into this very naively, thinking, “I’m just playing a game.” What they don’t know is they’re potentially developing a gambling disorder. They’re being sold this false expectation of what a game is. The ads are misleading and not entirely truthful.
This is dangerous because youth, especially if we talk about those who are 9 to 17 — and even all those under 25, because their brains haven’t fully developed — are still also facing many other stressors in their lives. They are not being sold the truth; therefore, they are very impressionable.
That is where I am particularly concerned. I think of individuals like my brother, and we shouldn’t blame him. He simply wants to engage in an app he found on his phone. However, that app is very misleading. I worry that he could potentially get very excited by the app, especially with the pressure of his friends around him saying, “Hey, let’s join. This is what is cool now.” He has his favourite artist telling him, “This is what you should be doing,” all these impressionable behaviours.
When we talk about the link between mental health and gambling, what is important to talk about as well is that these ads enable very high-risk behaviours. A way to manifest that is also starting with substance use. All of that is something that is immensely concerning and is enough for us to not only start having conversations, but genuinely looking for solutions to ensure that we protect our youth.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you for your testimony today.
A quick shout-out to my colleague Senator Simons. When you can reference Discord and Twitch, you’ve impressed me. I still think Post-it notes are high-tech. Good on you.
Senator Simons: I have a 19-year-old nephew.
Senator Cuzner: In reference to a comment made by Chair Housakos about his decision to support the legislation when it came forward, the narrative around the legislation at the time was to get it out of the hands of organized crime and put it in the hands of the bureaucrats, which was very similar to the conversations around the legalization of cannabis. I voted to support the legalization of cannabis.
We’ve had success in Canada with cannabis, and it has been referred to during the hearings here, because when it came out of the gates, there were guardrails there. The rollout was province by province. They were responsible for regulating their own rollouts. In Nova Scotia, access is through liquor stores, and we’ve had good success with that.
I haven’t seen any data or research yet around a huge increase in the consumption of cannabis among young people. I wonder if you monitor that. What is your overall impression of the rollout of cannabis as compared to the gambling, which you referred to as approaching a crisis? Is it different but the same? Could I get your comments on it? Could you first talk about the cannabis in relation to the rollout of gambling?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you, senator, for your question. I don’t exactly have at the top of my head the information or statistics speaking to that direct correlation with cannabis specifically — although, while preparing for this committee hearing, I did have research presented to me in regard to the direct correlation between gambling, mental health issues and substance use. That is definitely something I could get my team to share with your clerk for you to have access to. Unfortunately, I cannot speak more on that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here. This is interesting stuff you’re talking about. To build on what my colleague just said, I’d never heard of Discord or Twitch. I thought I’d look up, “What the heck is Twitch?” I thought I would see something physiological. The first few pages are talking about this thing called Twitch. If you get the Twitch, you have to check it out.
I want to build a bit on what Senator Cuzner was getting at. As we bring in regulatory regimes to help prevent addictions spreading with respect to gambling and whatnot, do younger folks today worry at all about having another deviation? In other words, if you tell me that I can’t or shouldn’t do online gaming, I’m either going to find a way to do it, because I may have an addictive personality, or it will drive me down different avenues, such as drug abuse and things of that nature. I’m not sure what the statistics say, but has the legalization of cannabis in Canada increased the number of participants in that, or is it having the opposite effect? I don’t know. You’re on the ground, so to speak, working with young people. You have your brother, who is getting into Twitch. I’m wondering what your thoughts are in that regard.
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you, senator. That’s an excellent question. For me, it’s about making sure we can do our best to limit a lot of this access. As you mentioned with my brother, I don’t want to put statistics out there, but had he not had all these gambling ads available to him, I don’t know if that is something he would have access to, quite frankly. Specifically for him, that is something he will find on Twitch or on TikTok. But if it’s not on those, he’s never mentioned anything like that.
Even myself, last night I was scrolling on TikTok, and there was an app advertised to me; I won’t mention the name of the app. I don’t even consume sports, or anything to do with sports, and it was on my algorithm page. For me, it’s important to limit the access they have to it, because the way I see it, we’re forcing it down their throats and telling them, “This is what is available to you, so use it.” We are making it positive. It seems like a regular thing and very naive and positive. We need to change that messaging. If it’s going to be available, the messaging needs to change and be truthful to the risk and the consequences. If not, ideally, we just won’t make these gambling ads so available to youth.
Senator Quinn: It’s interesting. Over the last number of days, I was watching something about the history of Walt Disney and some of the classic movies they made. My wife looked at me when they were talking about the Davey Crockett hat. In that time and space back way when, everyone had or wanted one. Those types of things have come through generation after generation. I would like your comments. In the period I’m talking about, we didn’t have social media. You can pick a smartphone up and connect with anybody at any time and in any place. You can connect with your friends on all types of apps basically 24-7. It seems that rather than having an era where something was in vogue and then something new would come along, we’re creating an atmosphere of building lifelong addictions from a very young age. Is that where we’re going as a society, teaching people and bringing them into addictions that strengthen as we move through adolescence and young adulthood and into our senior years? Is this an addictive society we’re creating through this type of thing?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you. I would agree. I would say so. It’s concerning because I think it creates this sort of cycle where we’re enabling this idea of obsession, wanting to fit in, gaining and money. A lot of these youth, as I mentioned, are very impressionable. We’re selling them this idea that what you’re doing is okay because it’s all over your social media. When you’re watching a sports game, it’s there. Everyone has access to it, so obviously there is nothing wrong with it.
However, that’s not entirely true. We’re making it so available to them and so easily accessible; it literally takes 10 seconds to download the app and a few minutes to start playing. A few seconds into that is when the gambling might actually begin, and I think that’s very concerning.
Senator Quinn: I’m just trying to picture young folks today who are getting into this space. It’s becoming problematic. Are there support groups led by young people to help other young people, or is it more adults trying to help young people — who may see this as an imposition rather than a support mechanism?
You’re obviously doing fabulous work, and your age group probably looks up to you for the things you do. Do you think we need to concentrate on how to support young people with other young people rather than maybe coming at it with legislators saying what you must do or can’t do? Sometimes that can be met with resistance, but in combination with support groups of peers — do we have that happening in Canada, peer support groups?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: In regard to many issues — we can talk about suicide, individuals who may be victims of sexual violence and a lot of different issues that fall within the scope of mental health — there are many peer groups.
Specifically when it comes to this issue of sports gambling, I’m not sure. However, this idea you have been talking about, having youth-led peer support groups, I think that is amazing. As someone who sits on the MHCC Youth Council, I will always be a fan of and promote initiatives for and by youth. On top of that, it does need to be a community-based approach; everyone needs to be involved.
Regarding this bill, thank you again for inviting me. It starts like this, making sure that I, as a youth, have access to spaces like this so we can have those conversations. Specifically with the bill, there wasn’t a specific mention of funding with respect to enhancing the support systems that exist. I know there are support systems that currently exist, but they need further funding, or maybe we need to develop educational programs in high school. Having those conversations and seeing how to go from just talking about it to having concrete solutions for youth would be amazing.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that. I will close by saying that I appreciate hearing what you have to say. It underscores for me the importance of having this committee and this Senate completing its work in a timely fashion so we can continue to help people like you address this particular issue. Thank you for being here.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here. It is important to hear your voice. You said that you did not see anything about funding in this bill. That is because it is a Senate public bill. When we do such bills, we are not authorized to spend money. That is not a way we can do it. I understand it is a disappointment, but funding has to go through other channels.
I do not know if you can answer me, but we were talking about your brother, who I understand is under 18. Have you heard about minors going on gaming sites, betting and using the credit cards of others? Is that happening more or less? Is that a problem?
I understand well that the advertisements create the conditions for people betting when they are 18 and over. Do we have problems with minors on betting sites according to what you see?
[Translation]
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand that you’re not an expert or a scientist, but have you seen this kind of access to websites that should usually be reserved for people 18 and over?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: I’d like to start by thanking you for the clarification about funding. I hope you as a committee will have a chance to have this type of conversation and champion us in terms of funding.
When I was asked to be part of the council, the first person I thought of was a friend of mine who lost money by getting involved in gambling. He was 17, and therefore a minor. He often played on a gambling website. It’s very easy for minors to access these sites. You just have to go online, know a few websites and have money to spend. That is something we need to take into account. I find it shocking.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: How did he do it? Did he use fake credit cards or someone else’s cards?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: I think he had his parents’ card. In case of emergency, my brother has access to my parents’ card. He usually has to call or text my parents to tell them he will be using it. Many kids have access to a card. Even when I started university, I had access to my parents’ credit card. I was in Edmonton for university and they weren’t there. Young people have access to credit cards and gambling websites.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are you hoping for a total ban? How can you know who is affected by advertising? Everyone is affected, whether adults or young people. What is your ideal solution?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: I have a few potential solutions. When it comes to entertainment that many young people have access to, such as sports and recreation, perhaps we shouldn’t have advertisements like that because kids are watching. If you are with your mom or dad watching sports and you see an ad like that, you won’t necessarily think it’s bad. Then you’ll go home and want to go on those sites. They’re for leisure and entertainment.
The second thing is that we should set up regulations for everything online and on social media. We are most concerned about kids under 18. They have access to everything. I don’t even know why that should be. It shouldn’t be. I’m talking about everything on social media and online.
There was mention of athletes, celebrities, and so on. If I understand correctly, it doesn’t necessarily cover everything. It was just aimed at regulating their appearances. Personally, I think they should be kept completely away and not be connected to any of that. It’s pretty straightforward. When your favourite athlete tells you to do something, you do it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is the council you’re on putting pressure on the provinces? This is provincial jurisdiction. For example, are Quebec and Ontario aware of these issues? Are there people working on them?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: I can’t answer that question. I’m not sure. I don’t think it’s the same for every province and territory. Young people are more at risk in some than in others. We need to try to predict, anticipate and find solutions. Even I would be interested in seeing how the mechanisms differ among the provinces and territories.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for being here. This has been most informative.
Could you tell us more about your thoughts on the advertising? As you have indicated, it is attractive. The advertising has sports stars, and perhaps the people who are most swayed by that are younger people who look up to a series of leaders in their favourite sports. Do you sense that the agencies you deal with, your agency and others, are getting that aspect of the problem of advertising that may not be said to be for youth but really is having an effect on young people?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you for your question, senator. I would say yes, although I do think that it is different when you are not going to talk with the youth.
I work in communications and can understand why these marketing companies will take gambling ads such as these and use the specific mechanisms they use. It is smart. It makes sense. It is attractive and enticing. We want to use it. They are using our favourite athletes and celebrities, and in the world of influencer media, they are using influencers to quite literally influence us to do what they say. It is smart on their end.
We must have conversations such as this to understand the youth perspective and how we take in the information, because I do not think that it is always going to be the same. I know there is data in regard to the consequences, but we must go back to the drawing board as well. We need not just a proactive response but a preventive approach to this, and to understand what it is about these ads that make them attractive.
Maybe that’s where we need to have another conversation about whether that is something we need to change. Why is it targeting youth? In the research, it says that these ads are targeting youth. You won’t see your average adult downloading an app to go and gamble. It is specifically designed for those who are 25 and under or those 9 to 17. There is that whole conversation around marketing as well.
Senator Cardozo: Yes. We have been talking a lot about the young kids who don’t have credit cards.
However, people who are, say, 15 or 16 onward, and certainly 18 onward, if they have a job, they have likely got a credit card or at least a debit card. It does not take a lot for them to be working hard and gambling all of that money away as soon as it comes in.
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Exactly. I got my first debit card at 12. When I look at that age group, I think 12-year-olds very well could be taking part in activities like that. That is really concerning.
My brother is 13 and in ninth grade now. Just like the story of Jean-Claude that I mentioned at the beginning, that is a reality for him. I have been able to witness the conversations that take place among him and his friends, and it is this whole culture of being influenced. Even with the “bro” culture, as I mentioned, young men are vulnerable and will be disproportionately affected by this. With sports, statistically, you see that more men — young men — are watching sports. They are already having those conversations. If they see something popping up in their algorithm, that is obviously a conversation that they are going to continue to have. Now add the fact that a 12-year-old can have access to a card, and maybe at 14 they are starting to work. This is something that they have easy access to.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much, and thank you for the work you do.
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a few questions as well. Could you confirm for us if the Mental Health Commission of Canada is an advocacy council or does it actually provide on-the-ground services? How much is the annual budget, and where does the funding come from?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: I want to reiterate that I am not speaking on behalf of the commission as a whole. I am speaking here because I sit on their youth council. I cannot necessarily speak to the commission. I can say that they are not an advocacy group. Aside from that, I cannot really say.
The Chair: Are they an advocacy group?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: They are not.
The Chair: They are not. What are some of the services they would provide in this area?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: In regard to services, they have a lot of educational programs that they run. As I mentioned, even with this bill, one initiative that we can look at — though we have mentioned funding is maybe not possible — is potentially having initiatives or national frameworks that want to promote educational campaigns or support systems. That would very much resemble the kind of work that the Mental Health Commission of Canada provides. In regard to specific programming or anything like that, I cannot speak to that.
The Chair: There is clearly a problem, particularly with young people who fall into sports betting addiction; otherwise we would not be here having this discussion. Thank God it is a small percentage of the total number of people who are gambling but, nonetheless, it is not negligible.
You mentioned education a few times, I know that Senator Quinn alluded to it as well. I know it is not federal jurisdiction; education is very much a provincial jurisdiction, and we never like to step on their toes. The truth of the matter remains that we live in a country right now where at 10, 12 and 13, they are discussing sex in school and all other sensitive subject matters.
Are there programs across the country or in specific provinces where, at a very young age, they are talking addiction, alcohol and gambling addiction? Because you are correct. You mentioned on a number of occasions that youth are very impressionable. On the one side, there is the force of marketing, which is the bottom line. Whenever money is involved, people find ways to put out a compelling, powerful argument to attract dollars.
Are our educational systems across the country preparing young people for, on the one hand, enjoying some of this entertainment and really defining what it is, but also highlighting the pitfalls and dangers and teaching these young people to assume personal responsibility? Once we get to the point where they are already addicted — I saw it as a young man: I had friends of mine at the age of 12, 13 and 14 going into back alleys and literally stealing money from their parents to place bets on sporting events. Those individuals spiralled out of control, and their lives took a terrible turn. Are provincial governments and educational systems responding to this problem in your opinion?
Ms. Fogue Mgamgne: Yes. I will have to say that this is my opinion. I cannot speak to all of the educational curricula across the country. I can speak from my own experience that there were mentions of addiction, although the issue is that it stops maybe at substance use. We are now developing with AI and social media, which are growing, this idea of gambling online. That is not a conversation that falls within that conversation of addiction. That is why we need to expand the conversations that we are having, expand the dialogue to ensure that does fall into that group.
From my own experience, I cannot remember being at school and being explicitly told that gambling is an addiction, or what you do, or what the support mechanisms are. Let’s have this conversation. As for my brother, he is in ninth grade right now, and I cannot think of any conversations that he has had. I even asked him — in order to prepare myself for this committee — what conversations that they are having at school. The only ones that he is having at school are with his friends about participating in sports betting, not with his educators on the risks and challenges that come with that.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Regarding something that was said earlier, so that you know that there is some hope and as a point of clarification, when the bill was written, it was written with three big goals in mind. While money — which Senator Miville-Dechêne was very accurate about — is not tied to a Senate-written bill, one of the recommendations is to identify the measures to promote research and intergovernmental information sharing related to both the prevention and diagnosis of the harmful gambling activities of minors, et cetera. With that in mind, while we cannot put in the funding piece, one would suspect that the government might decide to put some money into this at that stage of the game, though not at this stage. We hold promise for that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the witness for being here today and for your interesting testimony. We appreciate it.
Colleagues, we will now go in camera to take the final 12 minutes at that remains to discuss future business. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)