THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 25, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to consider 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 evening, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. My name is Leo Housakos. I’m a senator from Quebec and the chair of this committee.
[English]
I would call upon my colleagues, starting on my left, to briefly introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests. I’m Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome. Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: This evening, we’re continuing our study of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.
[English]
For our first panel this evening, the committee welcomes Matthew Young, Chief Research Officer at Greo Evidence Insights, Senior Research Associate at the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction and Adjunct Research Professor at Carleton University, and Rob Simpson, Principal at Sagewood Resources. We are also joined, via video conference, by Brian Dijkema, President, Canada, Cardus, and Helen A. Hayes, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us. We will hear the opening remarks of five minutes from Professor Young, followed by Mr. Simpson, Mr. Dijkema and then Ms. Hayes. Opening remarks will then be followed by a period of Q and A.
Professor Young, you have the floor, sir.
Matthew Young, Chief Research Officer, Greo Evidence Insights: Thank you, senators.
My name is Matthew Young, and I am here on behalf of Greo Evidence Insights and the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. I’m honoured to appear during this committee study of Bill S-269.
Greo Evidence Insights is a Canadian independent not-for-profit organization that has been working on gambling research and harm reduction for over 20 years. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, or CCSA, was created by an act of Parliament in 1988 to provide national leadership on substance use health issues. Personally, I have been researching addiction, substance use and gambling for over 30 years.
As described in the preamble of the bill, and as you’ve heard from other witnesses, recent major national and provincial gambling policy changes have resulted in a sudden increase in opportunities to legally gamble online. As of April 2024, 50 different gambling companies were operating 82 different websites in the province of Ontario alone. Since 2022, we’ve all witnessed the dramatic rise in gambling advertising.
A recent joint report by the CCSA and Greo argues that these major gamble policy changes are cause for concern for three main reasons: One, these changes have resulted in increased online gambling among Canadians, which in turn is expected to result in increased gambling-related harm among the general population, especially among youth and other vulnerable groups.
Two, the type of gambling being made available — online gambling — is fundamentally different from and riskier than other forms of gambling we’re familiar with, like Lotto 649. Canadians can gamble online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from the comfort of their homes using their computers or smart phones and spend as much money as they have access to, including using their credit cards.
Three, the volume of gambling advertisements repeatedly pairing sports with betting normalizes gambling, leading people to think of betting as an integral part of their enjoyment of sports and being a sports fan. This is especially concerning among youth and young adults.
Despite these concerns, the impact of these changes on the health of Canadians is largely unknown, as there is no systematic national, provincial or territorial monitoring and surveillance of gambling related harm. The limited data available is not good. For example, the number of people calling the Ontario Problem Gambling Helpline has increased significantly since 2021, driven primarily by calls associated with online gambling. In addition, a recent online survey conducted by Mental Health Research Canada found 7% of Canadians met the criteria for problem gambling. This represents more than a 1,000% increase since it was last assessed in 2018. Rates of problem gambling were even higher among younger Canadians aged 18 to 34 years old, reaching 15%.
Gambling is not an ordinary commodity like corn or wheat. It is addictive, and a portion of people who engage in it are harmed. This makes it more like alcohol, cannabis or tobacco. That is why these types of commodities are often regulated by the same provincial government authorities, such as the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission, or AGLC.
The inherently harmful nature of these commodities is also why there are national codes or regulations governing advertising for alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. In contrast, there are no such national codes or regulations for gambling. The inherently harmful nature of these commodities is also why Canada has national frameworks or strategies for cannabis, alcohol and tobacco to protect the health of Canadians; however, there is no such national strategy for gambling. This is why CCSA and Greo recently released a report, which I believe has been distributed to committee members, calling for a pan-Canadian strategy to respond to the expected increase in gambling related harms.
For these reasons, we commend Senator Deacon and Senator Cotter on their bill and ask the committee to consider two ways in which it might be strengthened: First, the bill should be expanded to include all forms of gambling and not simply sports betting. There is evidence to suggest that although sports betting may attract people to online gambling, online casino games, including slots as well as other online games, account for the most total wagers on gambling sites.
Secondly, the bill should include funding for and task an appropriate organization with national-level, systematic monitoring and surveillance of gambling related harm.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Young.
I turn the floor over to Mr. Rob Simpson.
Rob Simpson, Principal, Sagewood Resources, as an individual: Thank you, senators, for the invitation to speak. Please bear with me as I set a somewhat unusual stage for my recommendations.
Advertising for sports betting exists in two types: The first, general public advertising, functions to normalize sports betting, increase caché through celebrity involvement, recruit new patrons and assert that available tools and resources ensure safety, but it’s likely that these outcomes have already been met with the industry’s satisfaction. By this I mean that the player basis likely has sufficient mass and momentum to sustain and expand itself in the future.
The second type is direct-to-patron advertising. Less recognized, it functions to increase gambling involvement in the existing player base. I’ll argue that it, in particular, also demands attention.
Meaningful gambling discourse requires data but the needed sports betting data is not made available. In its absence, I’ve drawn from casinos and online survey data to anticipate what is likely there. The key metric organizes the entire player population according to amounts lost in a year and separates it into deciles. If the player base were a million, each decile would represent 100,000 people.
At this point, please refer to the chart that was distributed beforehand, and I’ll speak to the arrows that are on it.
In line with the diagrammed arrows, here are five key takeaways: arrow 1 shows that just under 20% of patrons in deciles 1 and 2 will come out ahead at the end of the year. Looking down arrow 2, deciles 3 to 8 see losses more than double in each transition but nonetheless contribute relatively little to overall revenues. In decile 9, however, losses jump significantly, averaging $2,400 a year and contributing 11.5% to revenues. Arrow 3 shows that the average loss in the tenth decile then increases by more than sixfold to $15,200 for the year. Of note, the distribution within the tenth decile skews such that the highest loss is over $1.5 million.
Arrow 4 shows that the patrons in the tenth decile generate over 80% of revenues, and, therefore, are a central concern to sports betting providers. However, a considerable portion of the gamblers in the tenth decile quit or substantially cut down each year due to the harm they’ve experienced. Therefore, the retention of profits requires replacing them with new patrons from the lower deciles. Growing profits year over year requires increasing the average loss in the tenth decile.
The fifth arrow illustrates that to achieve these ends, providers employ a formidable range of inducements to cultivate patron progression to the tenth decile and to increase the average loss in that decile. Direct-to-patron advertising is the cultivation vehicle. It’s ubiquitous, relentless and continues without limitation until the patron has no more to lose.
Cultivation increases patron losses by design and intention; however, there’s an inescapable relationship between the amounts lost and the onset of harm. Thus, hundreds of thousands of people in the ninth and tenth deciles are knowingly placed at increased risk of harm.
How might this understanding be applied to sports betting advertising? My overarching recommendation is to place conditions on providers continued ability to advertise and market their sports betting products. Four applied recommendations might be considered by the committee.
Recommendation one, impose a tax of up to 50% on all online advertising and marketing expenditures, and dedicate those revenues to monitoring the prevalence of harm, developing effective prevention and interventions, and embedding algorithms into patron data to proactively identity those at risk of harm.
Recommendation two, given that direct-to-patron advertising contributes substantially to the onset of harm, place limits on the number and type of inducements that can be used to cultivate increased gambling.
Recommendation three, require annual data summaries from providers including by decile, average, median, highest and lowest loss amounts so that key trends and preventive impact can be identified.
Recommendation four, the final one but of critical importance, amend the Criminal Code to define the terms “conduct” and “manage,” which have devolved into a pro forma meaningless recitation. Why a core Criminal Code construct remains undefined —
The Chair: Mr. Simpson, if you could wrap it up because we are —
Mr. Simpson: Perfect. I am on the second to last line.
Why a core Criminal Code construct remains undefined is incomprehensible. A definition will bring accountability to every party involved in the provision of gambling across Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Now over to Mr. Dijkema.
Brian Dijkema, President, Canada, Cardus: Thank you for the chance to speak tonight. I’m speaking in favour of Bill S-269. We support the creation of a national framework for sports betting advertising.
To strengthen this bill, three areas should be focused on: one, move to a complete ban on sports betting advertising and, indeed, on advertising for gambling writ large, and if that is not possible, to provide incremental options to achieve that end; two, redirect a portion of the revenue earned by corporations through sports betting to research for the prevention and treatment of addictions and mental health issues that come from that; and three, improve the efficacy of gambling prevention messaging.
Cardus recently completed a study on the outcomes of this. It was one of the biggest experiments like this taking place in Ontario, and the guidelines for the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addictions say that players should not spend more than 1% of pretax household income on gambling, but the average account in Ontario spends $283. Note that one player could have more than one account. If it is just one account per player, that accounts for 3.2% of the average monthly household income in Canada. The net losses are, therefore, more than three times what experts consider safe.
It is important to note that when players exceed 1%, they are 4.3 times more likely to experience financial harm like bankruptcy, 4.7 times more likely to experience relational harm like spousal abuse and divorce, 3.9 times more likely to experience emotional or psychological harm, depression, anxiety and so on, and 4.4 times more likely to experience health problems related to gambling.
We recommend three things. The first is the strengthening of paragraph 3(2)(a) with a view to a complete ban on sports betting instead of restricting its usage. As Mr. Young and Mr. Simpson noted earlier, sports betting is a high-risk form of gambling, and increasingly, it acts like ESGs, or video lottery terminals, which are the most addictive of all.
If you watch a sports broadcast in Ontario, you are likely to be exposed to 2.8 references to betting per minute. That includes children who are watching hockey, a baseball game or whatever. We would say that these have the biggest impacts on those who are vulnerable to gambling addiction and particularly minors.
The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health says that students from grades 7 to 12 who have gambled online has increased from 4% in 2019 before this was allowed to 15% in 2021. I also want to note the rationale for legalizing sports betting was to meet existing demand in the black market supposedly. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to see advertising. Yet we are.
I understand that you will hear a witness later on who would note there’s a significant black-market segment. We have done work that says that research is not reliable.
If a total ban is not possible, we propose two alternative recommendations that are incremental. Number one is to move toward banning advertising sports betting during broadcasts. This was done in the United Kingdom. That would mean that during the live hockey game or the Canadian national women’s team winning gold, there would be no betting advertising, including on the rinks or on the fields. Number two, our second secondary recommendation is that the national framework identify measures to ban advertising for in-game bets. Research shows that in-game bets, the bets on who will win the next face‑off or score the next basket, are the most dangerous because they are very quick, and it becomes an online slot machine. These losses become huge and are drivers of addiction. This recommendation has been made in Australia, and I recommend that this committee consider that as well.
The second recommendation is to add to paragraph 3(2)(b) a requirement that includes ways that gambling corporations, whether private or Crown, would contribute financially to problem-gambling research, prevention and treatment. Gambling corporations invest hundreds of millions in marketing. They know it works, and research shows that it works. We suggest that if they are going to spend that much money on advertising, they should pay an equal amount to provide supports for those who are addicted and to support the research, so we know better — very similar to what Mr. Simpson said earlier. We have recommended a dollar for dollar-matching program, that if they spend one dollar on advertising, they spend the same amount on supporting those who are addicted and likewise.
The third recommendation is, and we think this is critical regardless of whether it’s sports gambling or any gambling, that subclause 3(2) identify measures to improve the efficacy of gambling prevention messaging.
Currently, it is a bit of a throwaway line in the ads. If you listen to Ontario’s Lottery and Gaming Corporation, or OLGC, or other ads, they’ll have a line that says, “Know your limit, play within it.” There are, however, best practices and studies that show that there are other forms of recommendations related to gambling prevention that actually work.
We suggest that like the messaging on cigarette packaging they note the harms that can be done to those who become addicted and to explicitly note that there are clear calls to action. The best research says that these do work. Instead of “Know your limit, play within it,” the advertising could say something like “What are you prepared to lose today? Set a limit” and then end it. Those are a number of practical recommendations.
Our work has been submitted to the committee. We recommend that you read it. I want to end on the fact that we’re speaking here tonight, and I’m reading statistics and talking about social science data. But I think it is important to remember — and I know each senator thinks this way — there are people tonight in Gamblers Anonymous meetings, and they’re there because their lives have been ruined by gambling and the addiction to it. It is real, and it is dangerous and it ruins people’s lives.
I want to express my support to those who are working to get free of their slavery, and to encourage you to help them get out of that slavery.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dijkema. Tonight we are having a hard time getting our witnesses to stay within the five-minute limit. Ms. Hayes, you have the floor.
Helen A. Hayes, Senior Fellow, Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy: Thank you, chair, and members of the committee, for inviting me to appear today.
My name is Helen Hayes, and I am a senior fellow at the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, and a PhD candidate at McGill University. Much of my research focuses on Canadian technology policy, including a strong focus on online safety and platform regulation to promote the best interests of young people online.
It’s a privilege to be testifying before you today on behalf of the Centre for Media Technology and Democracy. Housed at the Max Bell School of Public Policy, the centre’s interdisciplinary work examines the rapidly shifting digital landscape in Canada and its effects on our society, economy and democracy.
While many others appearing today or in previous committee meetings have focused their statements on the psychological and other mental health effects of online gambling, I will share my opinions and expertise on the online ecosystem with a particular emphasis on the impacts of advertising practices and ease of access to sports betting platforms on the digital well-being of young internet users. This emphasis stems from my work on child-centred design practices for online platforms, including primary research I conducted with young internet users at Canada’s Youth Assembly on Digital Rights and Safety in June 2023.
The digital ecosystem has become an integral part of our daily lives, shaping how we interact, engage, and consume content. It has redefined the boundaries between public and private spaces, changed the very nature of advertising and marketing and offered access to platforms that allow for constant engagement, often in ways that are unregulated or difficult to monitor. As a result, social media platforms, online gaming and digital entertainment have woven themselves into the fabric of Canadians’ routines. In this context, sports betting and its advertisement presents specific dangers.
For example, ease of access to sports betting platforms — available 24-7 at the touch of a smartphone or click of a computer mouse — can create environments where immersive features and targeted marketing encourage prolonged engagement and addiction-building habits. This is especially concerning for young internet users, who are not only more susceptible to online marketing, but often develop close attachment to or reliance on internet-enabled devices for social interaction and community building.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment emphasize the need to ban targeted advertising to children, recognizing the potential harm that this kind of digital targeting poses to their mental and emotional well-being. Sports betting ads, when delivered through the same algorithmic systems that drive engagement on social media, can have a uniquely harmful effect, normalizing gambling behaviour at an early age by providing insight into access and promoting ease of use.
Troublingly, we are already seeing the effects of such advertising on young people’s awareness and usage of sports betting platforms in Canada, which speaks to the impacts and reach that sports betting companies have among young internet users.
Data from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health reveals that the number of students from Grades 7 to 12 who have gambled online has surged from 4% in 2019 to 15% in 2021. This is likely to increase without national safeguards.
For these reasons, I believe that Bill S-269 represents a necessary step toward a standardized approach across Canada to mitigate the risks posed by sports betting to young people and others. I am particularly encouraged by the explicit inclusion and awareness of the unique impacts of sports betting on minors.
With that said, I would like to offer three suggestions to improve the bill’s approach, which I will expand upon shortly.
First, explicitly include the Minister of Heritage in the outlined mandatory consultations for the national framework.
Second, at most, address, or, at least to acknowledge broader platform governance issues in the national framework.
Third, strengthen youth protections in the bill.
I urge the committee to take the bill’s proposal to ensure mandatory consultations take place with ministers seriously by explicitly including the Minister of Heritage in consultations for the development of the national framework, in part to align some of its goals with those of the broader online safety agenda in the country. This is because, to be effective, I believe any national framework must also address broader platform governance issues, including the algorithmic and other design decisions that impact people’s access to and interaction with targeted advertisements.
I would also encourage the committee to strengthen the call for youth protection in the bill, including by stipulating that the framework ought to evaluate sports betting ads based on their likelihood to appeal to and reach young internet users.
In sum, the well-documented consequences of easy access to and increased used of addictive online platforms, including sports betting websites, crystallize the need for a national strategy to combat its harms. But this too highlights the absolute importance of regulating online platforms writ large, platforms that have an outsized — and increasingly negative — impact on Canadians’ mental well-being. A national framework must include stronger platform regulation, mandatory consultations with relevant ministers, and an alignment with the broader online safety agenda and the country to ensure the best protection of young people online.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hayes.
Senator Simons: Mr. Simpson, I think you were the first to raise the issue of in-game betting, although other witnesses then expanded on this. This is, of course, one of the trickiest questions. It is one thing to regulate ads on television and radio. We can do that through the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. It is one thing to regulate the ads that go on the game boards around the rink. Regulating the internet and in-game advertising is much harder, especially when it is micro-targeted toward specific individuals and their weaknesses.
This is just a framework because a lot of gaming is regulated provincially. There is a finite number of things that the federal government can do unilaterally. But one of the things that other people have talked about is instead of regulating the advertising — which is a freedom of speech issue — what would you think about regulating the terms of the licence for the companies that run the betting operations? Would that be a more effective way, as the framework is developing, to come at this?
I don’t know who wants to tackle that first.
Mr. Simpson: I will take a crack at it. When I talk about the direct-to-player inducements, those are the things that can be regulated. It is a form of advertising, but it goes to an individual, and it says, “For your next bet, if you put down $10, we will double it.” The person who wasn’t contemplating betting, suddenly is. That kind of inducement can be identified and either restricted in terms of the number or the limits or eliminated altogether.
Interestingly, the Canadian Gaming Association talked about wanting sports betting so you could bet on the outcome of the Leafs game or the outcome of the Stanley Cup. It is not that anymore. Most betting is the inducement that goes internally.
I feel strongly that that’s where new attention should be paid. Conditions should be put on them. Certain types of inducements should be banned, and there should be limits on other types.
Senator Simons: I don’t know if anybody else wants to tackle it. To me, the challenge is, how do you regulate what happens online? How do you regulate what’s happening in targeted emails that are coming to people’s phones, which are not the same kind of advertising that you can regulate on television?
Does anybody want to take a crack at that? Literally, how would you do that?
Mr. Simpson: You have regulations passed, and then you have a regulator, such as iGaming in Ontario. They monitor what goes on, and they issue penalties if they see violations of regulations. That’s the mechanism that I imagine would be the most appropriate way.
Senator Simons: That’s not something the federal government can do, and when it is micro-targeted and that personalized, it is hard to see, because people are getting stuff sent to them directly without a mass media buy. Do any of you have any insight as to how that might functionally work?
Mr. Dijkema: I don’t want to suggest that I know all the ins and outs of the way Google and other companies run their algorithms nor on how bet365 or other companies will make use of them, but I do know they are rational. They are coded and, therefore, something that is put in a particular way to deal with certain people in a similar way, although in a different mode, to the way an advertiser will buy a block of time on Bell and use a similar algorithm.
It strikes me that while the matter may be more complex because of the nature of the algorithm, it is, nonetheless, possible for a regulator to do, because it is something that is legible and could be seen and noticed. The companies themselves know this because they put together algorithms that will target certain players and certain people taking certain actions.
I do agree with you that it is more complicated, but I would say it is probably not impossible.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll carry on where my colleague left off.
The last time that we talked about touching algorithms during the study of Bill C-11, the outcry was quite strong. I don’t know whether we can still consider it.
However, I strongly support regulations. I listened to all of you and you had many ideas. However, as a federal government introducing a bill at the federal level, it isn’t possible to get into these details and say that half of all advertising revenue should support gambling prevention and addiction reduction. I imagine that your ideas could help fuel this committee’s discussion later.
I’ve gone off on a tangent, but I want to come back to the topic of children. Ms. Hayes, you quoted the United Nations, which says that advertising shouldn’t target children. In fact, only one province has tough laws on toys and food, and that’s Quebec.
In the case of gambling advertising, I’m sure that the sports betting companies would say that they don’t target children at all and that this isn’t their problem. How do you think that this is possible?
I’m quite concerned about your figures regarding children under the age of 18 playing and accessing these gambling sites. You’re an academic researcher. Can you explain how this is possible?
[English]
Ms. Hayes: Thank you for the question. My concern, as I raised in my statement, has to do with targeted advertising, as you mentioned, of young people. One of my calls for strengthening youth protections in the bill is to ensure that young people are taken into consideration in the framework through an evaluation metric that would enable people to evaluate sports betting ads based on their likelihood to appeal to young people or to reach young internet users.
This is why I am calling for a broader online safety and platform governance perspective on this issue. A lot of what we are talking about in the online space or the online ecosystem has to do with people’s access to content that is algorithmically fed to them on social media platforms and other internet platforms.
To answer your question about how this can be done: strengthening the way in which the sports betting ads are evaluated in the framework to include their potential reach algorithmically, also considering the impact that the social media channel has on the spread of that content and the potential access of that content to young people.
The ad doesn’t have to necessarily be explicitly targeted to children but at least accessible to children or have the potential to be reached by child users or young users online.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What about the 15% of children who are betting and are under 18? How is that possible?
Ms. Hayes: I think that speaks to, first, the accessibility of online sports betting ads to young users and the accessibility of young people to the sports betting platforms generally. Now that we have smart phones, laptops, more internet-enabled communication, young people can access these platforms, and clearly they are. I am obviously not an expert in the way that people might reach sports betting. I am more of an expert on the online platform and online safety part of things. I will say that if they have an online device, they will have access and can get access through a variety of channels.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Young, do you have anything to add on the topic of children?
[English]
Mr. Young: One thing to keep in mind is that youth gambling and online gambling are not new. What is new is the huge amount of advertising that we are seeing. When you get such a huge amount of advertising, it drives participation. That participation occurs both among young people and older people.
The other important thing when it comes to sports betting is that youth watch sports. Youth love sports and we want youth to enjoy watching sports. But if they watch sports, they will be exposed to advertising.
The online environment is challenging. I think that great headway could be made by in-game reductions in the amount of advertising or bans during live sporting events.
There is a lot of headway that could be made by just trying to rein things in a little bit, because, right now, the numbers are not great.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Deacon, I have a question for all and anyone on the panel. Since we’ve gone online with sports betting, has there been an increase in gambling addiction? Do we have any statistics in that regard? Prior to legalizing online sports betting, these activities were taking place in dark alleys and, of course, through nefarious forces and criminal organizations that were benefiting from it.
Has legalizing online sports betting increased the actual addiction levels?
Mr. Young: The early figures we have do suggest this, yes. As I said in my remarks, there is no organization that systematically monitors gambling-related harm in Canada. We are forced to do one-off studies. Before 2018, we had about 20 years of pretty stable problem gambling rates in Canada and participation. In fact, between 2002 and 2018, rates were going down.
In 2018, the rates were at about 0.6%, but we don’t have any national figures right now. The closest we have is the online panel study that I indicated in my remarks, which is from Mental Health Research Canada, which is not a formal epidemiological study. But they found 7%, and 7% is over 1,000% increase in harms. We don’t have much more than that.
The only other thing is the increase in calls to problem gambling helplines, which have also increased significantly.
The early indicators are that, yes, it has increased so far. How much? We are not sure, because nobody is doing the monitoring and surveillance that’s so necessary to understand.
Mr. Simpson: I would like to suggest that the focus not be on addiction solely. People who experience harm are right across the spectrum of gambling involvement. In fact, studies on land‑based gambling show that over two thirds of the total burden of harm occurs to non-addicted gamblers. These are people who are spending more than they can afford and suffer consequences from that in terms of financial viability, their family relationships, their work and so on. Two thirds of the burden of harm is non-problem gamblers.
My suggestion is we focus on harm and establish a principle that reducing harm from gambling is the goal. In doing that, we will also reduce those who are addicted.
Mr. Young: I would add to that, too. In drug policy, we have a thing called the U-curve. When drugs are prohibited and we have ultra-prohibition, we see an increase in harm. It’s mainly from the toxic drug supply; we know all about that.
We also know that in the curve there is the other side, which is commercialization. That’s why when we do cost studies the costliest substance in Canada is alcohol because it is so widely consumed. When Canada legalized cannabis, the framework used this model because they wanted appropriate regulation. They wanted to allow people access but not encourage use. That’s why cannabis has strict guidelines around the promotion of it.
Mr. Dijkema: That’s the appropriate analogy that Mr. Young used. The best analogy is not Bill C-11 and this bill, but the best analogy is the advertising of cigarettes, cannabis and this. That’s the nature of the discussion we need to have.
With regard to the nature of the harms being done, we have done studies on who gambles and the nature in which it works. It is undeniable, and the evidence is clear that it is regressive in its use. Those who are poor or most vulnerable are spending a much greater percentage of their income on gambling. Therefore, it is functioning as a regressive tax and one that is often used by governments in lieu of a more just distribution of tax.
We also know for certain through evidence that electronic gaming machines that allow you to chase losses and allow you to move quickly between games are the most addictive. That’s exactly what is going on with sports betting, single-game parlays and in-game betting. The evidence suggests that’s more likely to be more addictive in the long run, although I agree with Mr. Simpson.
The Chair: The next question I have — and I think I heard Senator Simons say earlier that government cannot regulate ads that are being pushed out to cellphones. Did I hear —
Senator Simons: I said I didn’t know how. I wanted someone to try to explain to me how that would work.
The Chair: To that point, my understanding for years is that we’ve had a “do not call” registry in Canada. We’ve had an unsolicited registry of marketing emails in Canada. It’s a law that’s been in place in our country for over a decade. So I don’t know if our witnesses would be familiar with it, and why would that law not be helpful in this instance to help curb some of this activity?
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that law on the books to begin with, but I do know there’s a non-call registry and a registry for unsolicited emails. Obviously, you would have to register for that, but if you know you’re suffering from addiction, this would also be a tool that could be used where you tell these platforms, “There’s a firewall; please don’t solicit me.”
I don’t know if anybody is familiar with it or if anybody wants to comment. If not, that’s fair; I can and our researchers to do some analysis on that.
Mr. Dijkema: In our paper, one of the recommendations that we went into deeper, was to have a single place where people who felt the addiction or felt they were spending too much might be able to prevent themselves from getting onto these platforms themselves to mark themselves and identify themselves. Right now, they can’t do that, because it’s a whole series of platforms. If you’re addicted or you want to chase losses elsewhere, you can sign up for accounts on eight or nine different platforms.
So a centralized place where you can so-called lock yourself out would be something that we’ve recommended.
In terms of the nature of email — I’m not sure if that’s possible on algorithms — perhaps it is — but the nature of the advertisements are coming on phones or scrolling or through the apps, and the internet usage, whether it’s Google or in other places.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to all our guests for being here today. It’s greatly appreciated.
The first question I’m going to ask — it was a good study from Cardus. Mr. Dijkema, it concerns the demographics. You just started to talk about it, but I wanted to make sure I have it correctly for the record.
In the research you’ve done, have you discovered what Ontario is making most of its gambling money from? Is it generally even across income levels? You started to talk about what you are seeing in the demographic data a link between household income, those vulnerable and the risk of problem gambling. Can you elaborate on this a bit, please?
Mr. Dijkema: Yes, of course. Thank you for your question, senator.
Unfortunately, we don’t have that data on sports betting per se, individually. As Mr. Young was alluding to, we don’t have a central place that’s doing that studying.
However, when we looked at gambling writ large with the OLG in Ontario, we noted that there was a significant difference in demographics. Those who were among the poorest — I’m just trying to finding the exact number here — the highest quintile was spending only 0.24% of their after-tax earnings on gambling, whereas the lowest quintile was spending 0.7% of their income. So it was a massive income disparity in terms of the nature of it.
It looks to be the absolute inverse of our tax code, which is progressive. If you look at the graphs, it’s the opposite. Those who are poor are spending more.
I agree with Mr. Simpson that it’s not just those who are addicted who are suffering harms. A vast chunk of the overall revenue garnered by OLG — and one would suspect, therefore, by the major companies as well, if that holds true for the sports betting — is coming from those who are addicted. So that’s problematic as well.
Senator M. Deacon: On that note about the need for common data and a central place, absolutely. As you know, we get quite a bit more data now than we had six months ago. As a reminder, in that bill, there are three asks, and that second recommendation — that third one — is about getting behind this and getting a sense of what the story really is across the country and intergovernmental support.
My next question is to Ms. Hayes. I’m the sponsor of the bill, and you said it’s really important that the Heritage Minister be included, and they are in the bill. Your point is bang on. I’m happy to know at this point that position is there.
But I do want to ask you a question that deals with online advertising space. We’ve heard it suggested that since we can’t regulate what ads are online, a framework might not be worth pursuing in that domain, especially since we’re looking to protect children and youth, and they’re mainly online. But a model that we can look to is the CRTC’s code for broadcast advertising of alcoholic beverages. It doesn’t cover the online space, but as far as I know, social media sites are not really littered with ads for alcoholic beverages that flaunt that code, with celebrities telling you a drink will make you more attractive, to use an extreme example. That’s an extreme example.
It’s my understanding the CRTC code is a de facto online code for alcohol advertisers. Is it not fair to assume that legitimate gambling companies, registered in Canada to operate legally would respect any CRTC direction as alcohol companies do?
Ms. Hayes: Honestly, that’s outside the purview of my expertise on the issue. But I would say that ensuring that there isn’t content that is accessible to children that is potentially an ad put out by a sports betting company — let’s say by an influencer or another form of online content that is engaging in sports betting — is something that could and should be addressed in the framework. So any type of content that might not necessarily be an explicit ad bought on Google, Meta or some other social media platform to explicitly advertise a sports betting platform or app, does not take away from the fact that young people are accessing content that may still encourage them to potentially download an app or visit a website where they can continue doing that type of online gaming.
Mr. Simpson: Another perspective is consumer protection — things you can and can’t do as part of advertising. If you’re advertising directly to consumers or are in some way inducing behaviour that is harmful, that may come under that purview.
Second, Statistics Canada used to keep national data on gambling until they were defunded in 2011, so perhaps putting it back with them is an option to consider.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. I’ll ask Mr. Young a question, if you don’t mind.
Ontario — I think it was the end of February or in the spring — recently banned athletes from appearing in ads. Despite this, athletes like Connor McDavid, as an example, are still appearing in ads for betting companies as long as they include messages in some kind of way about betting responsibly or responsible betting.
I see this as a bit of a loophole. He’s still a spokesperson for a particular company in this instance, and I’m wondering what your thoughts are on that in this whole advertising, almost grooming process.
Mr. Young: They’re still branded ads, so the take-home message to youth or others who see them is gambling and the celebrity — then to say doing it responsibly. To be honest, one thing that is important to note is the whole idea of responsible gambling. When it was originally proposed a long time ago, it also included the responsibility of the operators as well, but it’s been turned into an individual responsibility.
One of the problems with it is that it can be very stigmatizing, because if you’re not responsible, you’re irresponsible. The other part of it too is that it’s a very convenient approach to be able to say, we’re going to inundate you with ads and opportunities to gamble. Now just do it responsibly, and you’re going to be okay.
There are many problems with multiple layers to that solution.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Thank you to the sponsor. I am supportive of this bill, and I understand that all of our witnesses are saying that they’re supportive, and they wish it could go further. I understand the limitations.
I had to speak to a young man as a stakeholder. I needed to speak to him because he had expertise about technology. This was some time ago. We were meeting online, and the conversation led to him revealing his gambling addiction. He was a very young person. It was stunning how vulnerable and devastated he was by this, and that he would reveal it to a stranger. It felt like a cry for help, and I was not sure what to do with that.
I want to come to your points about data, Mr. Young. You were talking about wanting more data. Who would collect this data? Who would fund the research that we clearly need to go further, to be able to prove to people that we need to be spending more on treatment? Who would coordinate that? What is needed? I need you to lean into that a bit.
Mr. Young: It’s a great question. First of all, it needs to be an impartial third-party group, somebody like Statistics Canada, another public health agency of Canada or some group that can be trusted.
In terms of funding it, it could be that, as has been suggested around the table, that a proportion of revenues could be funnelled to an entity to conduct that work. The other thing is that to do this kind of monitoring surveillance properly, we don’t only want to do self-report surveys, which is traditionally what has been done, but we want to contact coroners to find out how many completed suicides may have been gambling-involved, how many bankruptcies may have been gambling-involved, and there’s even relationship dissolution; there are other kinds of issues, such as treatment demand.
We do this with other substances. We do this with opioids: We look at opioid toxicity deaths. There is a template for how we do this. It’s just that we’re not doing it for gambling.
Because of a lot of the conflicts of interest within the gambling someplace, often, surveys looking at the prevalence of gambling harm are being done by the same entities that are also providing gambling opportunities to Canadians. That’s not ideal.
Senator Clement: To the representative of Cardus, I want to be something hopeful. You said that some messages work and some don’t. How do you know they work? Do you have evidence that they work, and how did you gather that evidence? I’m thinking about data. How do we prove to people that we need to be looking at this more thoroughly?
Mr. Dijkema: There have been studies. Our paper surveyed studies that had been done on the efficacy of responsible gambling messaging, and what we do know about what doesn’t work, is what Senator Deacon was concerned about: Connor McDavid, who is a hockey hero, saying, know your limit — that type of thing. There are things shown through studies that work and have been proven effective. Typically, the most effective ones provide clear calls to action and clear understanding of consequences. Instead of alluding to Mr. Young’s concern about saying, well, am I responsible by doing this, it will say something objective, like, if you are spending this much money, you are likely to have a problem. If you are going to spend beyond this much money, you should shut down at this time.
There are plenty of studies, which we cite them in our paper, which I believe the committee has, that show what works and what doesn’t, and that was our third recommendation, that if we can’t do all of this, we can at least require them to do advertising on responsible gambling, or recognizing the harms, just like we do with cigarettes. If you look at a cigarette package, the consequences shown — the gross pictures of tongue tumours and so on. I see no reason why we couldn’t do the same thing with this. It’s simply objective facts, and the social science shows us that people who are gambling respond to those more effectively.
I would also support Mr. Young’s comment. The Canadian Gaming Association in October when they present to you are going to say there’s this huge black market. The reality is that that evidence is unreliable. We have papers that show that that number was made up. Our point is that if the black market were so big and if that were the policy rationale for legalizing sports betting, then they shouldn’t need to advertise, and if they want to advertise, they need to at least pay for the research so that we as Canadians can understand the harms that are being done, and take steps to ensure that those harms are mitigated and reversed.
Senator Clement: One last thing, unrelated: Ms. Hayes, you have a book coming out on online voting for municipalities in Ontario. I’m looking forward to that. Thank you.
Ms. Hayes: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to everyone for being here. I want to start with Mr. Young. You talked about the numbers that you have with respect to increasing use and abuse of gambling. People are gambling more; seven percent of Canadians experience problems with gambling. That number has gone up from what you’ve said. You presented a lot of statistics. I want to understand your opinion about the bill. Is the bill going to lead to any reduction in the problems you identified? Will it reduce the incidence of gambling and/or problem gambling? Is the bill going to have an impact on the specific problems you identified? If so, how is it going to do that? How will the bill work in dealing with the problems you identified?
Mr. Young: Thank you. I think it will. I think it would move toward trying to stem an out-of-control situation. We introduce these policy changes, and I’m not sure what the policy goals were, and if there were any that were public health related. It’s unclear, both in Ontario and at the national level. Doing something to rein it in is good. I’m a researcher; I’m not a lawyer or policy analyst. Reading it is not my forte or knowing exactly how it will play out. But things like curbing or coming up with a national framework for gambling ads, looking at doing research, understanding its impact on Canadians — all of those things rang true as being important to being able to make some moves toward addressing an issue that nobody seems to be addressing right now. We’re going to wake up one day to see a bunch of harms, and data showing some harm, and not really be able to necessarily link it to gambling, but it may be linked to gambling.
This bill I think is important in trying to begin to get our arms around a situation.
Senator Dasko: With regard to reducing the incidence of gambling, how is it going to operate?
Mr. Young: If there’s a reduction in gambling advertising, that will result in a reduction in the number of people who gamble, over time, which will result in a reduction in the number of people experiencing harms.
We know that harm in a population is directly proportional to the amount of gambling that occurs in a population, just like alcohol, cannabis and other hazardous commodities. That’s the fundamental way.
Senator Dasko: So the bill will lead to a reduction in advertising?
Mr. Young: That’s where I’m outside of my expertise. I’m assuming it will, but I’m not a lawyer and I’m not a policy analyst. From a research perspective, that’s the assumption. If it reduces advertising, it should reduce gambling, and it should reduce harm.
Mr. Dijkema: There is evidence for that. If I may, footnote 43 in our paper actually cites a systematic review of the literature on the links between advertising and advertising policies and actual gambling-related harms. Again, I share that with the committee, but studies are very consistent that there is a clear causal link between advertising and the dosage of advertising. The more of it, the greater it is and the more likely it is linked to harms.
There’s a big systematic study. There is also a study in the Journal of Behavioural Addictions that supports those findings, so it’s fairly well documented in the literature.
Senator Dasko: [Technical difficulties] — is going to lead to a reduction in advertising?
Mr. Dijkema: If the bill were to restrict advertising or do as we recommend, which is to get rid of it all together, it would lead to less harm, and we would be happy with that.
Senator Dasko: Mr. Dijkema, I want to dig a little deeper with respect to your comments about the gambling-prevention messages. You talked about the labelling on tobacco, the gory pictures and so on. It wasn’t just that. It was the actual television advertising, which was also quite prominent about a decade ago when the prevention messages were really getting pushed out.
What would be comparable to the tough messages on the packaging? Is there anything comparable?
I also want to make that the prevention advertising was contracted by governments. They’re the ones who did it. It wasn’t industry. It wasn’t anyone else along the line. It was actually governments who did that. They required the changes in tobacco labelling as well as ran the ads that identified the harm of tobacco. I just wonder if you can drill a bit deeper on what those messages might be.
Mr. Dijkema: Again, I am using studies to show this. They’ve done studies on what will likely affect people’s behaviour. You can put some things out there and, of course, we ignore some ads and other ads are more effective. That’s why we pay marketing companies, and that’s why there’s social science research on that.
The research shows that ads that outline the clear consequences of particular actions, or use clear language in terms of limits, are more likely to be effective. Again, I will pick on OLG because I’m from Ontario, and our study focused on sports gambling in Ontario. Their language is very vague. It’s things like, “Know your limit, play within it.” It puts the responsibility on the consumer, whereas it would be much more helpful to put an objective thing out there, that says, for instance, Canadian studies show that if you’re spending more than 1% of your income, you’re 4.7 times more likely to suffer domestic abuse or divorce or something like that.
Those numbers are real. They’re backed by Canadian data. That’s the type of advertising that needs to be done, not the vague generalities. If you’re spending more than 1% and you have an average Ontario household income, then you’re spending more than $89 per month on sports betting. That means you’re in danger of all of the harms on this list. At $233, if I’m not mistaken, the risk is three times that much.
We know harm is being done. If you’re looking for advertisements that are effective on being responsible, that’s the way to go about it.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Ms. Hayes, first, I have a general question: Is the Convention on the Rights of the Child and your general comment number 25 on children’s rights, is that an entity that one could consult or ask for consultation? Or is it something in a line of a —
Ms. Hayes: That’s certainly something you can consult. I would be happy to share it with the committee. There’s also been many civil society organizations who provide additional context and comment on both those documents. I can send that to the committee.
Senator Klyne: That would be great. Thank you for that.
I’m quite interested and pleased to hear you say you have a particular emphasis on the impacts of advertising practices and ease of access to online gambling platforms on the digital well‑being of young internet users. That’s where I, too, would kind of share the same space.
You provided one statistic in your remarks that data from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health reveals that the number of students from grades 7 to 12 who have gambled online has surged from 4% in 2019 to 15% in 2021, and this will likely increase without national safeguards.
I’d like to get my head space and this committee’s headspace into the national safeguards that we need to look at.
You also offered three suggestions to improve the bill’s approach. One is to explicitly include the Minister of Heritage, which got applause from the sponsor of the bill. You also suggest addressing or at least acknowledging the broader platform governance issues in the national framework. Third, you say we should strengthen youth protections in the bill.
Did you consider including the Responsible Gambling Council in Canada or the Canadian Gaming Association, which has all the casino members in there, including those which have online sports single-event betting? It includes the likes of the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, which has the rights to single-event sports betting in Saskatchewan and only to Saskatchewan residents. Obviously, there’s a way that it doesn’t leak outside the borders.
That goes back to the days when we leaked out too many dollars to Vegas, Alberta and further west, to B.C. casinos, but we put up a central wall here. Had you considered including those?
Now that you tell me there’s an entity, would you also include the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the general comment number 25 on children’s rights? I’m pleased to see that you think a national strategy must include stronger regulation, mandatory consultations and a broad online safety agenda to ensure the best production of young people online. There are a few questions hiding in there, but the only question is whether you considered these other entities, the Responsible Gaming Council, the Canadian Gaming Association and also this convention on a child’s rights? Would that make it a better bill?
Ms. Hayes: I certainly believe that consultation, with as many stakeholders as possible would strengthen the bill. Part of the work that I do, both at the centre and in my own academic research, has to do with policy participation and public stakeholder engagement, including, first, stakeholder engagement and mandatory consultations with all relevant stakeholders. That would absolutely strengthen the framework and the bill itself.
You could also include young people, themselves. Young people, as we heard previously, are self-admitting to gambling addiction and other interactions with gambling platforms. They might have a lot of good to say about how they have either come to develop addiction or come to interact with online platforms for sports betting.
Generally speaking, holding corporations to account for the way they impact people’s accessibility of sports betting platforms is absolutely necessary. That includes, obviously, in this case, as I mentioned with the UN general comment, any organization that has to do with child rights and protecting children online, including organizations like 5rights, Children and Screens, Fairplay and the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy. They can speak directly to the impacts of the digital environment on young people.
Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: On that note, our time is up. Thank you to all of you for testimony. I was really disturbed, to be frank, by your remarks. It’s disturbing and, as human beings, we just cannot but react to that. It is one more harm online, and there are too many of them. It is just incredible.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I remind the audience that is watching this with great interest that this is the Standing Committee of the Senate of Canada on Transport and Communications.
For our second panel this evening, the committee welcomes Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters; and Shelley White, Chief Executive Officer, Responsible Gambling Council, joining us by video conference. We welcome you both. Thank you for being with us this evening. We will first hear your opening remarks, five minutes each. We will start with Mr. Desjardins, followed by Ms. White, followed by a period of Q and A with my colleagues.
Mr. Desjardins, you have the floor.
Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present to you this evening. It is a pleasure to be back before this committee. My eye might have twitched at the mention of Bill C-11, but that’s okay; hoping for a better shot this time.
It is a pleasure to be back and representing the more than 700 stations and services that comprise the Canadian Association of Broadcasters membership. We appreciate the opportunity to share with you some insight is as to the development of this relatively new area of sports betting advertising and how our broadcaster members have done their part to engage responsibly.
To begin, it is important to remember the reason single-game sports betting was legalized in Canada. Regulated sports betting markets help to drastically reduce grey and black markets and enhance player protection. It took this activity out of the shadows where nefarious actors could prey on Canadians. Advertising has a vital role to play in shifting Canadians from grey and black market betting sources to legal and regulated sports books.
At the same time, broadcasters have a long history of responsible advertising. Our members recognize the responsibility to ensure that they are engaging in this new market dutifully and adhering to the already fulsome standards-based regulatory regime that oversees the market. Our members do not place gaming ads in programming that appeals primarily to minors, and they do not include calls to action such as “bet now” in advertising or sponsored mentions, and all advertisements are cleared through ThinkTV to ensure they meet the guidelines currently put in place through the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario’s ad guidelines, and they will continue to do so in markets as they subsequently launch.
We know that beyond the requirements set out by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, or AGCO, in Ontario, some of our members have established internal and voluntary limits on the number of gaming ads they accept per program hour. While we recognized the concerns over the volume of sports betting advertising at the outset of the introduction of the legalization, it is important to recognize that this is a nascent industry with new entrants attempting to establish themselves. Moreover, within the well-regulated new system in Ontario, sportsbooks are not allowed to provide promotional inducements to new customers, as they already do in other markets, especially the United States. As such, they are focusing more on raising brand awareness.
To some extent, this is not unlike advertising at the dawn of the dot-com boom. A new market that emerged, seemingly from nowhere, that seemed ubiquitous in the moment but that in time normalized. What we have seen in terms of advertising over the last two years is not representative of what we anticipate going forward. Our members have told us that they are already seeing reductions in the amount of ad time that’s being sought by these businesses.
Moreover, the early research shows that while awareness of sports betting is growing, the number of active betters is remaining at historical levels, which means the primary effect of the advertising is moving betters out of the grey and black market and into the regulated market.
To address the proposed legislation before you, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, believes that it is premature and an unnecessary overreach into the work being undertaken by provincial regulators. As we know, in Canada, many things that begin in optimism end in federalism. Having multiple layers of regulatory frameworks in this area will create confusion and not allow provincial regulators to make the changes that they deem necessary as they see the evolution of the market in their own jurisdictions.
Indeed, we are seeing other provinces in addition to Ontario come online with legalized sports betting. We believe the best approach is to allow the provincial authorities to work together and to learn from each other, rather than imposing a regulatory framework on them.
Finally, I would like to encourage the Senate not to undertake action in this area as a public policy proxy for relitigating the legalization discussion. The benefits of legalizing sports betting and creating a regulated market for it was discussed and debated previously. This newly regulated market requires a responsible advertising regime and one that would focus on obscuring or banning advertising risks negating the benefits of the legalized market.
Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
I turn the floor over to Ms. White.
Shelley White, Chief Executive Officer, Responsible Gambling Council: Good evening, honourable senators.
On behalf of the Responsible Gambling Council, or RGC, I would like to thank you for the invitation to provide you with our perspective on Bill S-269.
Tonight I’m speaking to you from Portugal, where I’m speaking at a gambling industry conference about responsible gambling as well as the intersection between Environmental, Social and Governance criteria, or ESG, and Responsible Gambling, or RG, and how the industry can increase its commitment to social responsibility to society.
For over 40 years, RGC has served as a Canadian non-profit, charitable organization whose purpose is to prevent gambling harms and reduce their impact. We do this in a 360-degree way, working with all key stakeholders who have an impact on this. We work business-to-business, or B2B, as well as business-to-consumer, or B2C. We work with the industry to provide them with research, training, accreditation and thought leadership, and we work with the public to provide them with prevention, education, information and programs to ensure they have the information they need in order to understand the risks and how to prevent them.
Canada is regarded as a leader in responsible gambling, and we are proud to be part of this. Since 2019, RGC has worked with the Ontario Government, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, and iGaming Ontario on consumer protection policies and strategies leading up to the expansion of the regulated market.
We are now working with other jurisdictions in Canada, such as Alberta, on consumer protection plans, as they seek to expand regulation in their markets.
Since the introduction of single event sports betting and the expansion of regulated online gambling in Ontario, as we know, we’ve all seen an increase in gambling advertising across all forms of mass media from TV and billboards to radio, social media and online advertising. Research on direct impacts of gambling marketing and advertising has highlighted that increased exposure to these ads can normalize the act of gambling while also decreasing the understanding of the overall risk involved.
Not only have these studies indicated that exposure to advertising normalizes gambling but can also result in increased risk of the likelihood to gamble, which can lead to possible gambling harms.
We know that there are certain populations who are more susceptible to harms from gambling, including youth, young adults and certain at-risk populations, such as those with pre‑existing mental health conditions. Youth and young adults are at an increased risk of gambling harms. It has been shown that their gambling participation typically increases during adolescence and peaks in young adulthood when the risks of gambling harms are also increased. Youth and young adults are also more susceptible to financial incentive and cognitive biases, which may result in increased gambling harms. The regulation of gambling marketing and advertising is of particular concern due to the impact it can have on vulnerable populations, such as youth and young adults. It is with these vulnerable populations in mind that I speak to you today.
RGC believes that it is imperative that there be evidence-informed and clear marketing and advertising standards and guidelines in place to help reduce the impact of advertising and promotions on vulnerable populations. We believe that consumer safeguards are a shared priority, and a strong national framework would foster collaboration and action from all provincial governments, regulators, operators, sports leagues and other stakeholders. All stakeholders must play their respective roles to ensure the correct guardrails are in place to protect those who are at higher risk of experiencing gambling harms.
We must ensure regulations are in place to protect youth and young adults from gambling marketing and advertising that would appeal to a younger demographic, such as the use of licensed characters, celebrities and social media influencers.
All forms of gambling marketing and advertising need to be included in the guidelines. We must consider the impacts of digital advertising, social marketing, microtargeting and other emerging platforms. The proposed framework must ensure that there are regulations in place for individuals to easily opt out of promotional emails as well as data collection.
In order to provide additional protection to our most vulnerable populations, the use of age gating must be a requirement to restrict access to minors. Guidelines should be reviewed annually to ensure they are in line with new and emerging forms of gambling and advertising and strengthened as required.
Provincial regulators must closely monitor operator marketing and advertising to ensure the regulations are being followed and must take action when they are not being implemented.
The Chair: Ms. White, if you could wrap up the opening remarks, because we are a little bit short on time this evening.
Ms. White: Certainly. Investments must be made by gambling operators into responsible gambling research and evaluations, public-facing prevention education campaigns, as well as training. We must take a collaborative, holistic approach to the sharing of information, promotion of research and continuation of evolving prevention education programs.
In closing, honourable senators, a robust framework for marketing and advertising standards will help us to ensure that the correct safeguards are in place and that those who are vulnerable are protected. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Mr. Desjardins, it is nice to have you back with us. I know as well as you how difficult the last few years have been for Canadian broadcasters to find revenues. I wonder if you could give us a sense of how important gambling advertising has been to the bottom line of your stations?
Mr. Desjardins: I probably wouldn’t be able to give you a clear figure.
Senator Simons: I’m not looking for a dollar figure.
Mr. Desjardins: It has been a significant influx of revenue to broadcasters in a moment when their revenues were severely challenged.
Now, advertising markets can be cyclical, and as I mentioned earlier, there was at the dot-com boom at one point. There are things that come around, and they do cycle in. This is a very specific point in time, I believe, which is that it is at the introduction phase of this market into Canada, and so I think that we recognize the fact that it is going to retrench somewhat, and we are already seeing indications of that.
It is certainly not a long-term, strategic piece to the advertising business, but it is a significant piece at the moment, especially for certain services.
Senator Simons: In some ways, young people don’t spend a lot of time watching conventional, linear television. It is the people who are at the age of senators who see TV advertising, to be honest, in the main.
It would be so much simpler to regulate broadcasters because they can do it under the CRTC. Would it be unfair to put restrictions on what you can advertise when it will be so much harder to regulate and restrict what is happening online?
Mr. Desjardins: There are a number of instances already where the Government of Canada has been unable to regulate online activities in the way that they regulate linear, traditional broadcasting activities. So to engage in something where we just want to get them off of Hockey Night in Canada, but whatever happens online, well, so be it. I don’t think that’s a coherent way forward. It would be easy, but I don’t think it would be necessarily effective.
Senator Simons: Here is a question, just to be a little devil’s advocate, to the logic of the legislation. We’ve heard a lot about how dangerous this advertising is, but no one has really spoken to what is driving a lot of this which is that it is so annoying. I think that people got outraged by things like the Stanley Cup run. I am not the target market. I had never seen or heard one of these ads until the Edmonton Oilers made their cup run. Then there were the ads and I thought, wow, not only are these sad public policy, but they are extremely aggravating.
To what extent do you think people’s reactions to this are coming, not from a moralistic or public policy position, but just that they are aggravated by the repetition of these very classless ads?
Mr. Desjardins: I’m not sure I can go along with everything that was said there, but I will say that, as I outlined, it is a new market. It is very different. If you were to take pick-up truck ads off the air for six months and then reintroduce them at the same levels, people would say, “My god, there are so many pick-up truck ads on the air.” The thing is the novelty of it, the newness, and a bit of a shock to people not used to seeing those. There is a bit of a reaction to that. But I don’t think that we can create public policy to satisfy people’s particular sensibilities.
Advertising is still very important. We had long discussions over the last four years about the importance of Canadian content and Canadian news.
Senator Simons: We sure did.
Mr. Desjardins: We sure did, and boy are we ever. The point is that the lifeblood of all of that is advertising.
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Desjardins: And that advertising, if we continue to find reasons to ban it or to regulate because it offends people’s sensibilities, then we are going to have a much poorer nation with much more content coming from outside of Canada.
Senator Simons: Thanks very much.
Senator M. Deacon: I will try to squeeze in three quick questions and do it back and forth. Mr. Desjardins, thank you for being here. Alberta recently indicated its intention to follow Ontario’s footsteps and allow private operators into the provincial markets with the influx of ads inevitably to follow.
How can broadcasters navigate the ad space if Alberta’s advertising regulations differ from those in Ontario? I know on Bell cable you can time shift allowing viewers to watch different events from across the country. But what about ads in the rink or on the Canadian Football League, or CFL, jerseys for gambling companies that are legal to bet in one jurisdiction but not the other? Can you blur them out based on the region? What happens?
Mr. Desjardins: No, I don’t think that you can, no more than you can blur or ban the advertisements that are coming in from American programming.
But I do think that there is, to begin with, a good set of standards that have been established by the AGCO in Ontario. That will likely provide a head start for other provinces that come online. Ultimately, the advertising gets cleared — and I believe that you are speaking to somebody from ThinkTV in the coming weeks. They will be able to clear that advertising in a way that adheres to those rules.
Senator M. Deacon: With that in mind, if we are heading down a path where it may be that provinces are allowing some private betting in those jurisdictions, I think about alcohol. We have one national ad standard for alcohol. Would it not be helpful for broadcasters if there were one set of gambling ads from coast to coast to coast?
Mr. Desjardins: The market is still developing, and I think that it is still in the provincial jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, not the worst idea to have the provinces build on what one another has established at the time of having this market open and for them to be able to either improve upon the standards and whatnot. At this point, imposing a national standard is likely premature.
Senator M. Deacon: Okay. Let’s go to Sunday night. I have not forgotten about you either, Ms. White. I will come up and ask you to finish off something here.
I’m looking at this Sunday night as an example and talking about sports. This weekend, there was a segment on Sunday night NFL football, and it cut from the NBC feed to the TSN studio. There were two individuals there, one a former player discussing betting odds for things like who will score the first touchdown, this segment sponsored by Fan Duel, with a logo you certainly could not miss. Would that logo with that signage not constitute advertising as blatant as it can be?
Mr. Desjardins: I believe it is sponsored content. So yes, it would be within that programming. I don’t think that is out of line with what is done in other jurisdictions. It’s certainly something that you will see if you watch, say, the American feed of a college football game or whatnot on Saturdays. You’ll see that sort of thing done.
Senator M. Deacon: It might get complicated by the TSN feed as a national broadcast, and only in Ontario at this moment, you can legally bet with FanDuel. Why should they be allowed to advertise across the country when other jurisdictions, perhaps fearing gambling addictions for their populations, have chosen not to open up their markets? I know it’s early and it’s baby stages, but this is important in our long-term thinking.
Mr. Desjardins: In the evening, it’s late for me, with apologies.
The fact is that if someone from one of these other jurisdictions sees that sort of advertising, they still cannot go and access those apps unless they are a resident of Ontario, which is standard. I hear what you’re saying. I do know that, ultimately, people aren’t able to access those apps if they’re not from this jurisdiction in Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Ms. White, with what you’ve heard so far, are there any comments that you’d like to add that we haven’t touched on but are also from your experiential basis?
Ms. White: Sure. We would agree that there needs to be a better balance in terms of advertising than there currently is. There are far too many ads, and they are both annoying as well could be potentially harmful to vulnerable populations. I think this is something that we certainly need to take a look at.
Also, as part of that better balance, ensure that there are more responsible gambling ads in the marketplace. We have actually worked with ThinkTV to create public service announcements two years in a row that are responsible gambling advertisements.
One of the differentiators for us to consider is that it is legal for licensed operators to advertise. One of the benefits of licensed operators being able to advertise is that the public will know which operators are licensed versus the unlicensed black market, which is an extremely important differentiator.
In terms of the national framework, I would like to make the point that the benefit of the national framework is it would provide each of the provinces with consistent guidelines in terms of gambling, marketing and advertising.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you to both of our witnesses today. As I see it, the arguments are kind of now is not the time to regulate because it’s new. The other side would be that it is new, so now is the time to regulate; start regulating now rather than when everything is developed.
If we look at the overall issue of advertising, we look at the possibility of having federal regulations in one of two types or both focusing on advertising. Ms. White, I think you’re also talking about a framework that would apply to other forms of advertising.
Certainly, when we get to advertising regulations by province, if it’s done by the provincial regulator of gambling, we will end up with 10 or 13 different kinds of regulations. Given that media is national — certainly online is available both nationally and internationally — you’re going to get many different things going on. It seems to me, given that we’re entering this new world, that now would be a good time to get things in order rather than wait several years down the road and see what happens.
I’ll ask Mr. Desjardins to start, and then I’d like Ms. White to comment, please.
Mr. Desjardins: Yes. Just recognizing the provincial jurisdiction over this area, I think it would be best if the provinces came to the federal government as opposed to the federal government imposing onto the provinces. I do think that by virtue of the fact that you would have them coming in sequentially, they would likely not attempt to reinvent the wheel each time but try to perfect the wheel with each opportunity to touch on this.
In terms of getting ahead of the market before the market is even open in the provinces, I’m not sure that there’s necessarily value to that. But again, leave it to the provincial regulators to make that outreach among themselves and potentially to the federal government.
Senator Cardozo: You have a lot more faith in provincial synchronicity than I’ve ever observed, but that’s just a comment.
Ms. White, your thoughts?
Ms. White: Given the research that I cited earlier in my remarks and given the vulnerable populations that are at risk, our position is that we support the implementation of a national framework. The benefit is that it could provide consistent guidance to each of the provinces as they develop their gambling, marketing and advertising regulatory standards, bearing in mind standards that would provide responsible gambling.
Senator Cardozo: I can see the federal government defining standards for broadcasting because broadcasting is in the federal jurisdiction, but I can’t see the federal government telling the gambling authorities across the country how to do it.
Ms. White: Yes, I understand that gambling is a provincial responsibility, so I think by virtue of the fact that the broadcasters would have this national framework, that would certainly provide each of the provinces with valuable guidelines with respect to leading practices for gambling, marketing and advertising.
Senator Cardozo: That would be for broadcasters, and you wouldn’t regulate or wouldn’t try to regulate the internet side of things?
Ms. White: Oh, no. I indicated in my remarks that it would be important that the framework apply to all channels that are used for communicating with the public and players with respect to gambling.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll ask my question in French.
Ms. White, you’re part of an association that, I gather, monitors broadcasters and the situation online. To provide a little insight into the sports betting industry, how do you rate the broadcasters represented by Mr. Desjardins when it comes to sports betting advertising? In your opinion, does what we see on television—I don’t watch sports, so I can’t judge—amount to a normal and harmless amount of advertising? Is it too much? Or maybe there shouldn’t be any advertising during games?
I would like your assessment. We received Mr. Desjardins’s assessment, which seems to say that you’re following the rules, that things are going well and that you’re responsible. Do you feel the same way, Ms. White?
[English]
Ms. White: Senator, I will do my very best to answer all of your questions. I may not be able to answer all of them.
From our experience in terms of working with ThinkTV, we have found that they understand the concerns about the increase in the amount of advertising, and there’s actually been some measures taken by broadcasters in this new sports season to reduce the number of gambling ads.
Second, as I mentioned, they’ve also invested and are partnering with us to enable us to create responsible gambling ads and have provided us with time allocations to broadcast those responsible gambling ads, which has added up to millions of dollars of broadcast time, which we greatly appreciate. We know those ads are having an impact based on the number of impressions and feedback that we are getting as we measure and evaluate the quality of those ads.
The challenge is we have 48 operators in Ontario and they are all competing for market share. We know that, based on what is happening in other jurisdictions where they opened up the online market, it is common that there is an increase in the amount of advertising. There is also an increase in the number of individuals who are playing online. Eventually, over time, this is going to decrease as it becomes less novel.
Having said that, we also believe very strongly at RGC that it is extremely important, as was mentioned by members of the previous panel, that we consider the unique risks gambling ads have for youth and young adults, and that there are measures taken to prevent those risks.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do any broadcasters work with the Responsible Gambling Council? Do you run advertisements urging responsible gambling? Yes, there’s advertising, but is there anything else? Are other broadcasters doing the same at Think TV, in an attempt to curb harm?
Mr. Desjardins: Think TV is an organization that helps assess whether advertising can be put on the air. The whole process is carried out through Think TV, which my members are also involved in. I know that they’re working on this. I don’t know exactly what proportion of advertising talks about responsible betting. We hear that more calls are being made to these help lines. In my opinion, this shows that people are more up to speed on betting-related services and resources. More people are willing to use these resources. Before, we didn’t hear about these resources. In a way, this shows how the advertisements can be balanced.
[English]
Senator Dasko: My question is for Mr. Desjardins. Nice to see you back.
Do you think this bill is going to reduce advertising of the subject matter, sports betting? Do you actually believe it is going to do that?
Mr. Desjardins: When I look at the language within the bill, I believe that is the goal of the bill, is to reduce and restrict the amount of gambling advertising. Whatever else is said around the framework that, I think, is ultimately the goal.
I would take a step back and take a look at cannabis. Cannabis came up a couple of times in our discussion here. The cannabis advertising regime that came out through the legalization was very restrictive, and one of the challenges that we’ve had over the last five years is the fact that not enough people are moving off the black and grey market in cannabis to the legitimate market. I would say that is, in part, because advertising plays a role to move people off of those markets into the legit, legalized and regulated market.
What I would say is that there are people who are using advertising as a proxy fight for re-criminalization or bringing it back to a level of prohibition. Ultimately, there isn’t anything that demonstrates that the outcomes that people are desiring are going to be served by limiting advertising.
Senator Dasko: We certainly heard from the previous panel that there is a relationship between advertising and incidence of gambling, so that relationship does exist. I want to stick with the framework for a minute.
The question was: Is it going to limit, restrict or cut back on advertising? But is it not possible — given the provincial jurisdiction in this area and since provinces have to be consulted — that provinces will just push back and say, well, we want to do it our way, and Ontario is going to develop this, Alberta is maybe going to adopt it, and another province will pick it up or do their own thing, which they can do because of the jurisdiction in this area? There doesn’t need to be a national identical regulation. It could be a provincial patchwork as many other things are.
Mr. Desjardins: And I think that’s why our instinct, especially as this is developing and a provincial responsibility, is rather than to impose something from the federal level to let the provinces decide among themselves if they wish to develop a joint or a federal framework. But to have multiple frameworks on top of one another would lead to confusion and wouldn’t allow the provinces to be as effective as they want to, to reflect their own community standards.
Senator Dasko: In your view, they can push back, correct or, no?
Mr. Desjardins: Well, if you impose a federal standard, then it would limit the degree to which a province could push back.
Senator Dasko: Right. So the feds could impose something?
Mr. Desjardins: Yes, potentially.
Senator Dasko: Yes, okay. Thank you.
The Chair: I’d like to thank our witnesses for being with us and taking our questions and adding to our study.
(The committee adjourned.)