Moved second reading of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

Before I speak to this bill, I would like to take a moment to say “hello” and “welcome back” to all of our colleagues and staff in the Senate, and give a very special welcome to our two new senators. We are thrilled that you and your families are here.

The past three months have been hard for many Canadians, and I don’t doubt that many in this chamber have people in their lives who have been affected by floods and wildfires. I have witnessed some very damaged terrain, both in Canada and internationally, during Senate travel. Today, it is great to get to the very important work we all need to do.

Regarding this legislation, I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Cotter, who is a significant partner in this bill and has been readily available to offer his counsel on the topic it addresses. Two years ago, colleagues, when I and a majority in this chamber voted to pass Bill C-218, which legalized single sports betting, we were wading into unknown. I was hesitant to vote for the bill. My main reason for voting in favour was to get illicit gambling activity into the light of day.

We’ve seen how much revenue it has made in the first two years in Ontario alone. This money was leaving Canada or going into criminal elements, sometimes with dangerous consequences, and in that sense, the bill has succeeded where I thought it would. I had a hope that by making single-game betting legal, we’d see some work to address its harms as well. That has not happened. I did not anticipate the level of promotion that we are seeing, potentially creating a generation of problem gamblers.

Do I regret my vote? I still do not — not yet, anyway. We can still correct our course, which is what I am trying to do today with this legislation.

We have the benefit of looking at other countries. In fact, I met with leaders in this space from the U.K. a few weeks ago. We can learn from them in an efficient way. Provinces are just now beginning to consider how they want to approach this. Many of you will, no doubt, welcome the news that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario recently announced some regulations on sports-betting advertising. For reasons that I will touch on here and expand on later, while I welcome this news, it does not go far enough. We need national standards in place that these betting companies must follow so each Canadian is afforded the same protections regardless of which province they live in.

This summer, I spent time listening to colleagues from here and the other place; to families from coast to coast to coast; to Indigenous leaders; and to regulators in Canada, the United States and the U.K., and I have never been more convinced that we need the government to act on this matter — and now.

The fact is, colleagues, most Canadians are concerned that there is far too much sports-betting promotion. A recent Ipsos poll found that 63% of us are tired of the number of gambling ads we are seeing. If you watched the Leafs-Panthers series in the second round of the NHL playoffs this year, you were subjected to the treat of nine minutes of sports betting advertising over the course of the game, and that’s not even taking into account the betting advice that we see during the intermission panels, who now give tips on betting odds along with their game analysis. Spare a thought for the poor soul who decides to jump on social media during the game as well, where the flood of gambling promotion knows no end.

This is all more than being just an irritation or distraction. These promotions have very serious, evidence-based negative consequences. Whereas a problem gambler could avoid the casino or the PROLINE counter in the past, they are now inundated with temptation when they sit down at home simply to watch a game. This presents a major challenge for those who are struggling with gambling addiction.

We have done all we can to assist those who want to quit smoking. An alcoholic is not quite as fortunate, but recognizing the harms, we have put ample restrictions on beer and liquor advertising, and thanks to work like that of our colleague Senator Brazeau, we may soon have food-label warnings as well. A problem gambler, however, cannot look at the screen these days without being encouraged to gamble.

I would like to share one short message I received from a father in July after I introduced this legislation. It reads:

I have a 7-year-old boy, he is quite athletic, and quite intelligent. A sporty and smart kid that I no longer allow to watch sports on TV. Oh, he just loves the Blue Jays and the Habs. But the endless barrage of ads became problematic. Initially when he asked about the ads, I tried to take a logical approach to him and explain the math side of this. It seemed like a neat idea. He got it. But the TV was turned off for the final time when he asked if he could bet his own money. To be clear, I am not a gambler, he has never seen me gamble. I don’t even do any silly bets with him and even though I explained it to him very plainly, he wanted to still see if he could win money. The TV is now off.

My assumption, colleagues, is that this is a battle being fought in living rooms across the country. Compounding matters is it has never been easier to bet. One swipe and two taps of your smartphone are often all it takes to put money down on trying to predict any number of outcomes in a game you are watching. I have watched children under the age of 10 do this. It doesn’t take a psychology major — though I suspect we will hear from one soon enough — to see why this is a problem, and will only exacerbate the problem gambling we see here in Canada already, because the research shows we are headed in the wrong direction.

Statistics Canada reported in 2022 that two thirds of Canadians aged 15 or older reported gambling in the past year. Let me repeat this: two thirds. While only 1.6% of these gamblers were at moderate to severe risk of problems related to gambling, that’s still 304,000 Canadians who are at risk.

While gambling tends to be higher amongst higher-income households, lower-income households are more than twice as likely to have a family member at moderate to severe risk for a gambling addiction. Importantly, Indigenous people reported higher rates of gambling in the past year than other demographics, and those that did gamble were three times more likely to be at moderate to severe risk for gambling problems.

Crucially, the ads we see today are particularly appealing to young Canadians. The industry says they go above and beyond to not appeal to children, but they had to be told to remove celebrities from their ads, and even with this, the research shows this barrage of advertising will still heavily influence our young Canadians.

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

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

I quote as well a recent interview of Raffaello Rossi, a lecturer in marketing at the University of Bristol, who recently conducted a survey of young Britons on their reaction to gambling ads. He found when he compared children aged 11 to 17 to those 18 and over, it was the children that had the much more positive emotions and responses to those gambling ads compared to adults, adding “. . . indeed, adults even kind of hated it on average.”

So here we find ourselves in a similar situation. Betting companies are running advertisements for a product that can only be used by adults but are instead widely appealing to children. Where will this lead? Gambling becomes to them as much a part of sport as sitting down and cheering for their favourite team or even competing themselves. And you can be certain that when they are able to place a bet themselves, be it with their parent’s credit card or their own, they most certainly will.

You don’t have to take my word for it, though, as we need only look again to the United Kingdom to see where this will lead. In 2005, the U.K. legalized single-game sports betting and, like us, placed little to no restrictions on advertising. Today, as a result, it is estimated that a third of a million people in the U.K. are problem gamblers, 55,000 of them children. For each problem gambler, it has been found that six other people suffer from some form of collateral damage, such as the break-up of families, crime, loss of employment or loss of homes. Tragically, on average, a problem gambler commits suicide every day.

Recognizing this and thanks in large part to the report done by the House of Lords that I just quoted from, the U.K. is beginning to correct this oversight. Last year, they banned celebrities and athletes from appearing in gambling ads. Gambling ads will not air until after 9 p.m., and no longer will they see betting companies adorning the jersey of their favourite footballer. It is not just the U.K. taking such measures. Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have all recently introduced strict regulations on gambling advertising, some banning ads entirely.

Colleagues, it’s clear where this is going. Canada is not the international exception here, and it is foolish to gamble with the health and well-being of Canadians when we already know what the outcome will be. It makes absolutely no sense to wait for these problems to arise and then react to them, at which point tens of thousands of Canadians’ lives will have been devastated through problem gambling. We have the tools to prevent this in the here and now and that is why I am standing here in this chamber bringing this legislation forward.

What the bill does is require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop a national framework on the advertising of sports betting. I remind you that the bill is divided into three requests. The minister must first identify measures to regulate the advertising of sports betting in Canada, such as by limiting or banning the participation of celebrities and athletes; restricting the use of non-broadcast advertising; or limiting the number, scope or location of such advertisements.

Second, the minister must identify measures to promote research and intergovernmental information sharing in relation to the prevention and the diagnosis of minors involved in problematic gambling activities, and to support measures for those who are impacted by it.

Third, the minister must set out national standards for the prevention and diagnosis of problematic gambling and addiction, and for support measures for those who are impacted by it.

In doing this, the Minister of Canadian Heritage must consult with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry; the Minister of Justice; the Minister of Health; the Minister of Employment and Social Development; the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Indigenous Services; and any other ministers who, in the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s opinion, have relevant responsibilities.

Representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, including those responsible for consumer affairs, health, mental health and addictions, must be consulted. The relevant stakeholders must also be consulted, including self-advocates; service providers; and representatives from the medical and research communities, and from organizations within the advertising and gambling industries that the minister considers to have relevant experience related to problematic gambling activities and the role of advertising pertaining to gambling activities. Indigenous communities and organizations with Indigenous leadership must be consulted, as well as any other person or entity that the minister considers appropriate or relevant.

Lastly, this legislation refers to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, as well. Clause 6 of Bill S-269 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 advertising for sports betting.

The CRTC 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 — who, in turn, 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.

Admittedly, colleagues, this framework does not go as far as I would like; I know that many of you have voiced that to me. Initially, like many Canadians, I wanted to see a full ban on gambling advertisements. Fortunately, we live in a country where you can’t silence someone because you do not like what they are saying. Limitations of Charter rights are considered constitutional only if they constitute reasonable limits justifiable in a just and democratic society.

I remind this chamber that it took successive governments nearly 20 years of court battles and multiple legislative attempts to put in place restrictions around the promotion of tobacco. I am not so bold as to assume that I can do the same thing here with gambling promotion, nor do I think that it is reasonable to try.

Gambling, however, does represent a very real and reasonable concern for some who are forced to watch these advertisements — and, like restrictions around alcohol, such promotion needs, at the very least, some limitations on what they can say and do. For example, some of the prohibitions placed on alcohol advertising through the CRTC’s Code for Broadcast Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages — think about that — include not allowing commercial messages to:

. . . attempt to influence non-drinkers of any age to drink or to purchase alcoholic beverages . . . .

. . . contain an endorsement of the product, personally or by implication, either directly or indirectly, by any person, character or group who is or is likely to be a role model for minors because of a past or present position of public trust, special achievement in any field of endeavour, association with charities and/or advocacy activities benefiting children, reputation or exposure in the mass media . . . .

And, lastly, for my purposes, advertisements shall not:

. . . refer to the feeling and effect caused by alcohol consumption or show or convey the impression, by behaviour or comportment, that the people depicted in the message are under the influence of alcohol . . . .

There is much to learn.

The betting industry will tell you they are taking reasonable steps to be responsible, of course. In one interview, the president and CEO of the Canadian Gaming Association replied to accusations of targeting minors by saying:

. . . gaming companies don’t target minors. That’s not something from a customer base that we’re interested in having. And we do go to great lengths to ensure that the advertising does meet the regulatory standards. There’s standards in place already for the use of celebrities and athletes in the current standards suggesting that they do not primarily appeal to minors.

Colleagues, at the time of this quote, there were little or no standards in place — or I wouldn’t be standing in front of you here today. The industry could very well believe they are taking the appropriate steps, but the research overwhelmingly states that athletes and celebrities appeal to minors almost exclusively, and yet they still choose to take this approach.

In terms of promoting the benefits of gambling — as if there are any — the industry would tell you that they do not make claims that encourage gambling. The evidence tells you differently; one need only to watch a gambling advertisement to see that this is not true. To the contrary, despite their immense talent, I find it very hard to believe that Wayne Gretzky and Auston Matthews are good at gambling.

On this last point, colleagues, unlike roulette or scratch cards, sports betting gives the illusion of control over an outcome. It is why anyone who has watched Sportsnet or TSN lately has been inundated with betting odds within segments of their favourite program. Viewers are given “can’t-miss bets” on who will score the first goal or touchdown of a game. Why wouldn’t they promote this?

Rogers and Bell, who own Sportsnet and TSN respectively, have made no secret of the revenue potential around sports betting, and have either partnered with gambling companies or started their own. To quote a Rogers job posting from 2020 regarding the role of the director of sports gaming:

This is a unique opportunity to be at the centre of Rogers Media and Sportsnet’s bold strategy of integrating Sports Betting into some of our core consumer offerings and to help us engage with our fans in new and exciting ways.

These companies have shareholders to answer to, so Canadians will continue to be encouraged to lose money to this billion‑dollar industry. In Ontario alone, the Canadian Gaming Association estimates that the sports betting market is about $1.4 billion annually.

Colleagues, you’ve noticed that Ontario’s statistics are prevalent in this research, and this is for a reason. I mentioned at the beginning of these remarks that Bill C-218 off-loaded this issue onto provinces. In fact, even though Canadians from coast to coast to coast are being inundated with such advertising, it is only Ontario that has opened up to private companies taking bets. This is not a widely known fact, colleagues, and it has led to a confusing state of affairs.

Recent polling has found that many Canadians across the country think that both the government and private betting companies are permitted to operate in their province, including 39% of British Columbians, 27% of Atlantic Canadians and 42% of Albertans. This has not gone unnoticed by regulators in those provinces.

It is also why I do not think that the regulations recently announced by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, or AGCO, will move the needle as much as that needle needs to be moved. In August, the AGCO stated that, as of February 2024, celebrities and athletes will no longer be allowed to appear in advertisements for betting companies. This, of course, is a step in the right direction, but only a small one. It does nothing to limit the sheer number of advertisements to which Canadians are being exposed. It mentioned nothing about the in-segment betting programs that are being presented by well-known commentators — some of whom are ex-athletes.

Again, it will do nothing to keep these Ontario-based advertisements out of other provinces, which is a big part of the problem. In Alberta, for instance, the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission, or AGLC, has explicitly said:

The only legal sports bets in the province of Alberta today are either found through what we offer on PlayAlberta.ca or what is offered on Western Canada Lottery Sport Select brand.

They added, “It’s illegal for somebody to be offering bets to Albertans that are not regulated.”

But the reality is that Canadians outside of Ontario are being targeted with these advertisements, and there’s no real penalty for placing a bet with them.

According to the Vice President of Gaming at the AGLC, the fault here lies squarely on federal agencies and broadcasters themselves for showing advertisements for sites that are not regulated outside of Ontario.

This is a countrywide problem, colleagues, which requires a countrywide solution. That is why I am putting this forward here today. I believe that right now we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to regulate such advertising across the country. I’m encouraged by the moves from Ontario in regulating these ads, but a patchwork of jurisdictional regulations will do nothing to protect Canadians so long as one province has lower standards than another.

As I have mentioned, nationally, Canada bans all ads for tobacco and cannabis and places restrictions on how alcohol can be promoted. It makes no sense that the promotion of gambling, which has ruined countless lives and will continue to do so apace, should be held to a lower standard.

We have heard from a number of experts that the steady stream of advertising has the potential to create a generation of problem gamblers, and I believe that it is time for the federal government to take the lead here and work with the provinces so that all Canadians can receive the same level of protection from the coercive and corrosive effects of the ads we are seeing today, regardless of what province or territory they live in.

Colleagues, an issue I will not expand upon today — there is not the time — but hopefully will be given some focus at committee is the work also being done globally that demonstrates the direct relationship between the legalizing of single-game sports betting, the potential impact of advertising and competition manipulation. Yes, senators, young athletes — they could live down the street from you — who do not know better can be groomed to become part of this advertising and gambling cycle. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, or CCES, has been all over this and is working with sport to ensure our Canadian athletes do not fall victim to this. As I’m sure you are aware, the CCES mandate includes a focus on the prevention of competition manipulation in sport, particularly as it relates to gambling. The advertising becomes a big part of that equation.

I will close today with some comments on these ads and this industry. When I voted to legalize single-game sports betting, I did so with a heavy heart. It was already happening and I thought we could see some good by putting it into the mainstream to take criminal and overseas elements out of it. It was better, I thought, for Canadians to place bets with Canadian companies who abide by Canadian law. I still believe this, but just because I voted for this industry does not mean I have to like it. I did not foresee the degree of onslaught of promotion that would come from it.

More than ever, Canadians are being encouraged to take a financial risk when doing something as simple as sitting down in their living room to take in their favourite sport. This is not like movies or a video game where you pay a set amount for entertainment, either. “The house always wins” is a well-trodden phrase that has proven itself correct time and time again. Why else would these companies be sinking billions of dollars into advertising if they weren’t going to recoup those costs off of the backs of Canadians? It’s not the responsible gambler who wants to make a boring game a little more interesting that they are making the money off of — it’s the problem ones, the ones who come back again and again to try to make that winning bet.

It ruins lives. It’s predatory in its nature. I think it’s reasonable to put some limitations on this. Let’s do it now so like those who placed a bad bet, we do not regret it. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Certainly.

Thank you for that question, Senator Batters.

For several months, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has come out to say, “Listen, we want to tighten this up; we’re not happy with what is happening in Ontario.” So they have set a date in the new year, in February, and they are looking at some pieces. One is about ensuring celebrities are no longer in front of the screen. There are standards that define what celebrities are.

On some other pieces that I would say are considerations, but not to the degree that I’m referring to in this bill, there are two things: It’s the “what” and the “who” that Ontario is considering. “Who” means that I want to make sure we know, whether I’m living in Tuktoyaktuk, Prince Rupert or Halifax, that the standard is common and the expectation is really clear, which is a national jurisdictional piece. Looking at some of the other pieces, what about the time of day? There is a concept called five before and five after in some countries — and Canada could consider this — where you can’t do any advertising five minutes before a competition starts until five minutes after a competition is over.

There are a lot of pieces that have not been considered at this moment in the Ontario package but could be considered in a national framework that just tightens it up. We’re not cancelling gambling; we’re inquiring as to what makes sense to pull in the reins in every part of this country on the advertising. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you for the question, Senator Dalphond.

When we’re looking at this national framework, it would go to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. If you read through the bill, as you indicated you are doing right now, there will be work done with the CRTC also, and other partners.

I can’t guess. I can’t even look into the crystal ball to see how far the framework will be recommended in a jurisdiction, but those are the two big important pieces that I elaborate on in the bill.