Moved second reading of Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.

She said: Thank you, first, to Senator Kutcher for sharing your stories of Ukraine with us. It was fascinating to hear that this afternoon.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. I am, of course, disappointed to be back here at square one. This is the same bill as Bill S-269 — a bill the Senate passed on to the other place unamended just half a year ago. Many of you spoke in favour of it at the time, and while I will do my best not to rehash my earlier comments, we have met and made many new colleagues who could benefit from receiving a quick lay of the land and hearing why this legislation needs to be passed quickly to try to tackle a problem that has shown no sign of abating.

Having looked over my speech at second reading from 2023, it’s staggering how little has changed in sports betting promotion, right down to the Maple Leafs exiting the second round of the NHL playoffs at the hands of the Florida Panthers. The Leafs are getting a bit of a beating today.

Back then, anyone who watched that series on TV was privy to nine minutes of gambling ads during each game. While I don’t have the numbers for this year’s matchup, anyone who watched knows this issue is still ongoing, if not worse. In addition to the commercial breaks, viewers are encouraged to bet during intermissions, when panellists — often household names — give betting odds on who will score and when. There are also ads for various gambling brands superimposed onto the arena boards for the TV viewers.

Even those watching in person aren’t spared from the onslaught, encouraged to get their parlays in over the arena loudspeaker. This bombardment of promotion plays a direct role in putting Canadians at risk of gambling addiction.

Case in point — the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health reports a spike in calls to its gambling addiction helpline during the opening of the NHL playoffs every year since this betting was legalized.

Colleagues, given its scope and scale — and the slew of ads we face every day — it’s easy to forget that this is still a relatively recent problem. It was only in 2021 that Parliament passed Bill C-218, which amended the Criminal Code by removing the long-standing prohibition on betting on the outcome of any race or fight or on a single sports event or athletic contest. That bill was many years in the making, though. Prior iterations included Bill C-290, introduced in 2011 — 14 years ago — which made it to third reading in the Senate before Parliament was prorogued in the fall of 2013.

Two other iterations of the bill were brought forward in the House, with elections hampering the journey of one when it made it to the Senate. It’s also worth noting that the Trudeau government introduced their own single-event sports betting legislation in 2020 — you may recall Bill C-13. Given its similarities to Bill C-218, which was introduced first, the government withdrew the bill.

Why have there been so many efforts to make single-event sports betting legal? The argument was that in the illicit underground markets, many of which were offshore, this was happening anyway, so why not regulate it and bring it into the light of day? A majority of us at the time agreed and voted in favour of Bill C-218, including myself. I supported this bill and still do, so far anyway. This is because my life outside the Senate was informing me. In my international work, I had been exposed to the dark side of amateur sport.

That was match fixing, which we now all call match manipulation. The 2012 Olympics in London exposed this live on television. Athletes were told to fix matches by their coaches. This runs deep in other parts of the world; it is a huge business and also has a growing presence in Canada.

When I became a senator in 2018, I carried out an obligation to host my final world championship in Canada with 60 countries and 800 athletes. We worked with the International Olympic Committee on a sport integrity program, and on Canadian soil and with our Canadian values, an athlete could not step onto the field of play in Markham, Ontario, unless they completed the program that focused on match manipulation and anti-doping.

During that time, I also learned quite a bit about athlete grooming. Athletes are lured into manipulating matches or being part of a taker on a winning bet. I knew I had to turn over every stone I possibly could on this.

The rationale was that through legalizing single-sports betting in Canada, honest, regulated actors would be above match fixing; there’s far too much to lose if you get caught. This is an industry, after all, that made $3.2 billion in profits last year, an almost 200% increase since Ontario’s iGaming business opened just two years ago.

The saturation of ads, however, was an issue that should have been dealt with from the start. For instance, Bill C-45, the bill that legalized cannabis, had a provision that banned advertising outright. I regret something similar was not included when single-sports betting was legalized. Perhaps it was the narrow nature of Bill C-218, which simply removed a line from the Criminal Code, that deterred us from thinking bigger at the time.

In any event, much to my own regret, advertising and promotion was not addressed in any meaningful way, and we now see a sporting industry very much intertwined with gambling companies and sports broadcasters, some of which have betting companies of their own. As a result, I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that today in Canada, it is impossible to watch a sporting event without being encouraged to gamble at moments.

On this, the scientific literature demonstrates clear and consistent evidence that sports gambling advertising causes significant harm at both the individual and population levels, with particularly severe impacts on vulnerable groups, including youth.

We have learned a lot on this since the last bill was presented. Here are some examples:

A 2014 literature review conducted at the University of Gothenburg found that children have high recall of gambling advertising and brands. Children and young people were most aware of advertising linked with sports, which is seen to normalize gambling.

A 2023 study done by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that young people were more likely to bet on impulse or increase their betting after seeing these gambling ads.

A 2023 literature review conducted by the Journal of Public Health found that there is evidence of a “dose-response” effect, meaning greater advertising exposure increases participation, which leads to a greater risk of harm, with trends for this stronger among children and young people and those already at risk from current gambling activity.

As a last example, a 2025 study out of Spain reported that among individuals with a verified gambling disorder, there is a relationship between gambling advertising and gambling severity, and that regulators have an empirical basis on which to restrict the exposure to gambling advertising among these vulnerable groups.

During hearings on the former Bill S-269 at committee, we heard from numerous witnesses who referenced these studies and others. According to Raffaello Rossi, a lecturer in marketing at the University of Bristol who appeared before our committee, research that he did at the University of Bristol in partnership with the CBC found that viewers are subject to three gambling ads a minute when watching sports on television.

This has not gone unnoticed by Canadians, and it hasn’t taken long for them to get sick and tired of these ads. A survey conducted by Maru Group in February of last year found that 75% of Canadians said there is a need to protect children and youth from sports betting ads; 66% said that those commercials should not be allowed during live broadcasts; and 59% believe a nationwide ban on the ads should be implemented immediately.

We also have the matter of the entire country — the whole of Canada — being subject to the whims of advertising from just one province. I remind you, colleagues, that, thus far, single-game sports betting within the confines of a legal private sector only exists in Ontario. Ads for these private companies that you see in Alberta, British Columbia or Newfoundland are technically illegal, as those who live there cannot legally bet with them. This creates a lot of problems.

Will Hill — whom we’ve met — the executive director of the Canadian Lottery Coalition, told the committee during the study of Bill S-269 that:

When a player in a different province than Ontario sees one of these ads on Hockey Night in Canada during one of the intermissions and then goes to log on their computer, and on their sports news website of choice there’s a digital banner with an operator, they actually develop the perception that it must be legal. If I’ve seen it on TV and I see it there on my computer while I’m sitting here in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or elsewhere, if it’s coming to me, then there must be some legitimacy to it. There’s a sheen of legality and authenticity implied by advertising that goes beyond Ontario.

Colleagues, why should — arguably — permissive advertising regulations in one province subject the rest of the country to these ads when their own provinces have decided, quite rightly, that they can be harmful?

Colleagues, we know where we are and how we got here. Now let’s get into what this bill will and will not do to tackle the problem.

Let’s start with what this legislation will not do. It will not completely ban gambling ads. After a great deal — many months and probably a few more grey hairs — of consultation with the Law Clerk’s office, reviewing cases and listening to constitutional experts like our retired colleague Senator Cotter, with whom I worked closely on this bill, it was decided that the harm of gambling ads may not reach the threshold of harm that we see with cigarettes, for instance, which, after decades of court battles, were effectively banned from advertising.

That’s the bar a gambling ad would have to clear before the Supreme Court of Canada. And while a ban was my initial aspiration, approach and dream, we decided it was prudent here to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good: to ask for reasonable guardrails rather than seeking a ban that could lead to years of court battles. All the while, these companies would be free to advertise unabated and likely win the argument that a ban is an infringement on their free speech.

So what does this bill do instead? As with Bill S-269, Bill S-211 will require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop a national framework on the advertising of sports betting. The minister must:

. . . identify measures to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada, with a view to restricting the use of such advertising, limiting the number, scope or location — or a combination of these — of the advertisements or to limiting or banning the participation of celebrities and athletes in the promotion of sports betting;

Also, they must:

. . . identify measures to promote research and intergovernmental information-sharing related both to the prevention and diagnosis of minors involved in harmful gambling activities and to support measures for persons who are impacted by it; and . . .

— of course —

. . . set out national standards for the prevention and diagnosis of harmful gambling and addiction and for support measures for persons who are impacted by it.

In doing this, you must remember the minister must consult with:

. . . the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Employment and Social Development, the Minister responsible for mental health and addictions, the Minister of Indigenous Services, and any other ministers who, in the Minister’s opinion, have relevant responsibilities;

At that time, they must consult “. . . representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, including those responsible for consumer affairs, health, mental health and addictions;”

They must also consult with “relevant stakeholders —”

— and we learned about many —

— including self-advocates, service providers and representatives from the medical and research communities and from organizations within the advertising and gambling industries whom the Minister considers as having relevant experience . . . .

Last, this legislation also refers to the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

Clause 6 states that the CRTC:

. . . must review its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising.

When we look at accountability, the commission must report its conclusions and recommendations to the minister no later than the first anniversary of the day on which this act receives Royal Assent. In turn:

The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Minister receives it.

I could go on, colleagues, on the issues we will see in this country if we do not better regulate this advertising.

I could reference more research, but, in the interests of getting this bill to the next stage quickly, as is my hope, I will leave you with the words of Lord Michael Grade, a witness on Bill S-269, who chaired a House of Lords committee on problem gambling in the U.K. and was the former chair of the BBC. He told us, “With the knowledge that you — ”

— Canada —

— have of what has gone on around the world, most particularly in the U.K., Australia and other places, you would be in dereliction of duty, if I may be so bold, if you ignore this problem now that you have legalized it in the way that you have. There is a serious problem of regulation that you must address. There are many case studies and case histories that will inform and help you to draw the line between restriction and freedom to gamble. . . . you are lucky in one respect that you have all of this case law and history from around the world that will help you to make the right decisions for Canada.

That’s it, colleagues. We have the benefit of foresight here. We know the problem we are rushing headlong into. Our current approach is reactive at best and permissive at worst. We have a chance to fix something here in this chamber. We let companies find creative ways to get around provincial regulations as they appear. As other provinces allow for their own private markets, which seems inevitable, Canadians will be presented with a patchwork of regulation that will only be as good as its weakest denominator, given, as we have already seen, that the ads on the airwaves care little for provincial boundaries.

We must strike early and while the iron is hot or “hot-ish.” As we all know, there is a renewed sense of provincial and federal cooperation as we face an ever-changing geopolitical landscape. Cooperation is in the air with federal leadership at the fore. There is no better time to try and harmonize national advertising standards as there are with marijuana and alcohol. Why would we shrug our shoulders at gambling addiction, which, as I have noted, has very real individual- and societal-level harms?

We also have some international drivers to take a hard look at this policy with the upcoming G7 meeting here in Canada. The global forum on responsible gaming and gambling policy, which is part of the G7 Canada Brain Economy Summit, is scheduled to take place in Calgary on June 13 to 14 — next week.

This initiative is formally aligned with the United Nations General Assembly and with G7 Canada, G20 South Africa and the World Economic Forum Brain Economy Action Forum and priorities around brain health, human capital and economic resilience. Canada can show it can take a leadership role in this area only when it starts to deal with the scale of the problem here at home.

Colleagues, with that in mind, I would like to ask your indulgence in getting this legislation passed quickly and back into the other house so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are one step closer to protection from the proven harms of gambling promotion at the scale we are seeing it today.

Thank you.

Senator Deacon will you take a question, please?

I will.

You will know, obviously, that I was heavily involved as the sponsor in the Senate of the sports betting bill when it came here a number of years ago. I appreciate you putting forth this bill again. I like it. I think it’s necessary, but I also recognize that it is a framework and doesn’t take action on things that would go into legislation, which is currently provincial.

What are some of the measures that would you like to eventually see implemented that would provide the protections that you are seeking and that, I think we would all agree, are required?

Thank you, Senator Wells, for the important question.

We are learning domestically, internationally, and from so many parents who are beside themselves, what it is that we can look at and improve to pull the reins in tighter.

One of the suggestions is no advertising five minutes before the start of a bell or a whistle at a game and until five minutes after a game. Another piece might be the time of day: The advertising would not start until after 9 or 10 p.m. These are some of the basic pieces that would signify a start. There are other examples like that.

In the consultation process, like meeting with 43 countries in person at Lac-Leamy, we talk about this issue and what they are doing to address it. We have heard a number of suggestions and strategies.

We would love a full ban, but we don’t see it as realistic at this moment. So how do we take this and minimize the exposure? As you heard me say in my speech about the bill, some of it is the education piece. I have a spreadsheet on what has been earned in this province — what sort of money is coming out of this — to better understand where that is going to help address some of those issues and what I’m talking about today.

It’s not an easy conversation to have, because a lot of money is at stake. Companies are making money, but they are also at the table.

Would Senator Deacon take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing back this important bill. We also had the privilege of studying it a little bit together at the Transport and Communications Committee in the last Parliament.

I have to admit, I’m a little less preoccupied about the fact that single sports betting has become a nuisance for all of us that are watching a Blue Jays game or Stanley Cup game and we’re bombarded with these ads. Canadians will overcome that, I think, over time.

I am more concerned by the fact that there are many people, particularly young people, that are falling into addiction, and it’s a terrible affliction that leads to social and economic challenges.

So the question I have for you, is this bill in any way going to impact or does it threaten to impact a media that is in decline, a media that needs revenue — money — in a serious way, and they depend on these oversaturated advertising dollars to help out with what we all agree has become a challenge in the mainstream media market?

What kind of an impact will this have as well when it comes to impacting institutions like the CFL, which is so important in Canada, without the ad dollars coming in from television and radio for professional sports organization like the CFL and others? Have we looked at all those implications?

My other question, I’ll sneak it in as well, the most important one: Have we gotten any data of what percentage, what number of Canadians are actually participating in online sports betting? And I know it’s difficult, but have we gotten any data that shows what percentage fall into this terrible affliction of gambling habits and addiction?

Thank you, Senator Housakos, for the question. I will count to three on that, I think it is.

The first part you said is anecdotal about it being kind of a pain, the Jays game and these different things going on and just sort of a distraction. And I just want to stop there for one quick second and say absolutely, our demographic, it just bothers us. It’s just a pain. It’s just a distraction and you want it gone.

That younger group, I have to tell you, and this gentleman at the University of Toronto, his name is Dr. Steve Joordens, is learning about the psychology and the impact, and how this impacts one person that also impacts eight bodies around them in that younger demographic — it is really quite fascinating.

In committee or in the meetings I’ve been in, learning how this brain is functioning for younger people has been a sidebar of this learning. Those two areas, the demographic that is more mature and the young and the difference in the impact, number one.

Number two, I’m going to call it the money piece, the generation of revenue, the generation of income. I think when we talk to the folks that are the revenue makers and the conversation we have is a reminder that we’re not banning the gambling and not banning the advertising. When they’re looking at the numbers and the dent this is going to make in their revenue, this is not wiping out these organizations or influencing their bottom dollar as much as one might think.

Now, for Senator Housakos’ question, we don’t have the exact data in numbers. What we’re saying, and what we’re being told, is by what you’re looking at pulling the reins in, these companies are still going to make big bucks. And we have been talking about that both in Canada and internationally.

One of the reasons it’s a big topic — and we have 43 countries sitting in Lac-Leamy represented — is because of the upcoming World Cup. So the World Cup — football, soccer — they’re really trying to understand the impact around the world on this and what these bottom-line dollars are that you’re asking about today.

The one about data and how many Canadians, what is the percentage? We are getting in Canada, and in parts of Canada, more and more data. One of the things about proroguing has been bringing more and more data forward. The two things that have been coming forward are sort of the percentage that I talked about in the speech through the Maru study on the percentage of Canadians and the time that we’re getting the advertising showing on different mediums that are not decreasing and increasing.

So when we get into committee, I think by the time this happens, there will be four more rounds of Canadian data that makes this very compelling, that the situation is not stabilized, not declining but continuing. Thank you.

Would Senator Deacon take another question?

Yes.

First of all, I would like to say thank you very much for bringing forward this bill, again.

I think it’s very important.

I would like to follow up on some of the data that you have spoken about and ask if it could be made available.

When Diamond Tooth Gerties, the first licensed gambling hall in all of Canada, was licensed in Dawson City, Yukon, the requirement of their licence was money had to go back to the community. And my concern is following the money. Where is the money from online gambling in Canada really going? Do you have the breakdown by province, territory, jurisdiction?

I heard you buy time, that time zone is a real factor in all of this as well. So, if you have that information would you share it, please?

I will not share, line-by-line, the chart today with you, but we did spend quite a bit of time pulling together a spreadsheet on what this is from coast to coast. So you have that information available, in that respect.

The other piece that you were looking at, that data, and you were also looking at —

Where does it go?

Right, yes. And I have asked that question so many times. That’s a difficult feedback piece for us to get right now, but we have asked for it. We have what I would call some skeletal feedback from Ontario, some sort of basic feedback. But there is also an accountability piece there that needs to be much stronger.

And I would say to you, and I would be candid in saying, we talk sometimes about lack of services, support, health, activities, sport. What do we do with some of these revenues, the percentage on the revenues or the GST, whatever it is? There are some very worthwhile lanes this could be used for provincially because that’s where it is. We have to remember the jurisdictional challenge here — this is provincial — and how it could be much more transparent. That’s our challenge. We’ve asked the question, “Can you give us the return?” It’s been tough to get. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. So just to clarify, we’re looking at the advertising and money generated from advertising.

If the CFL — and maybe you know, Senator Batters, better than I do what that is on their helmet or on a hockey helmet? Clearly, there are logos all over the place. Those are logos of advertising that are going between the sponsors and that sports body, right?

These are really good questions because there are a million different business models like this. And I’ve had to maybe grow a little bit stronger shoulders because I’ve had some really interesting, informative, but also some pretty scary conversations on what this looks like from company to company and within the media.

We can say, “Oh, they shouldn’t be doing that.” Well, we have to take a close look on some of these, I’m going to call them, media conglomerates who own this company, which owns this and what they’re doing in this lane.

This is why those folks too with really different perspectives have to be part of that stakeholder consultation in pulling this framework together.