THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 7, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising; and in camera to examine and report on copper wire theft and its impacts on the telecommunications industry in Canada.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Larry Smith. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Mohamed: Farah Mohamed, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Danièle Henkel from Quebec, replacing Senator Hay.
[English]
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
We will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. This is a little bit of housekeeping. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to an argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.
Boy, that was tough.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. I got that. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? I see no one is moving that.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: I apologize for not doing more in French until now. With the considerable number of things we needed to do, it is easier for someone like me to do this in English. I apologize for that.
[English]
Thank you very much, senators. Let’s use the gavel one more time here.
(The committee continued in camera.)