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

She said: Honourable senators, first, congratulations to my colleague Senator Boyer this evening on the very profound news.

I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting. I had the privilege of being a member of the Transport and Communications Committee looking at this bill, and I want to thank members of the steering committee for bringing forward so many expert witnesses. Thanks to our chair and deputy chair for facilitating some fascinating discussions. I would also like to thank the other members of the committee for their thoughtful questions, as well as for allowing me to be a part of one of the fastest clause-by-clause considerations I’ve ever been a part of. Hopefully, this will be a positive sign.

As I did during my second-reading speech, I do want to give a bit of background. We have had many new senators arrive, and it is important to remember what brought us here.

In 2021, 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 sport event or athletic contest. The passage of this bill was introduced by Conservatives and was many years in the making. Prior iterations included Bill C-290, introduced in 2011, which made it to third reading in the Senate before the Parliament was prorogued in the fall of 2013.

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

Why so many efforts to make single-event sports betting legal? The argument was this was happening anyway in the illicit underground markets, many of which were offshore, so why not regulate it and bring it into the light of day with tax revenue within Canada? 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. That was what was happening inside the Senate.

My life outside the Senate was also informing me. In my international work, I had been exposed to the dark side of sport, in amateur sport. That was match-fixing, which we now 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, is a huge business and also has a presence in Canada.

When I became as senator, 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, or IOC, on a sport integrity program, and on Canadian soil 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 doping. During that time, I also learned 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 could on this.

As a result of Bill C-218 being passed, the prohibition was removed. It was left to the provinces to determine if they would open their markets to private betting companies. In 2021, Ontario did so and opened its iGaming market. It remains the only province to do so thus far, though Alberta seems to be on the cusp of doing so.

One unintended consequence of all of this — we’re not seeing, perhaps, the degree of consequence — was, of course, the ads. We’ve all seen them. Canadians across the country have seen them. According to Raffaello Rossi, a lecturer in marketing at the University of Bristol who appeared before our committee, research he conducted with CBC found that viewers are subject to three gambling ads a minute when watching sports on network TV. This did not go unnoticed by Canadians, and it didn’t take long for them to get sick and tired of them. A survey conducted by the Maru Group in February 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.

Many betting companies post ads on their social media feeds. These are directed primarily at children and youth, many of whom are underage. The underlying message of these ads is that betting is an integral part of sports, which, as a strong supporter of sport, I find offensive.

At first, these ads were egregious. Hockey legends and celebrities continuously flashed across the screens of anyone who dared sit in their living room to watch a game. Encouragingly, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario introduced further regulations in 2023, including the prohibition of athletes or celebrities in these ads, but there was a huge caveat — they could still appear if the ad has a message of “responsible gaming.”

As one witness put to us at committee, “They’re still branded ads . . . .” He continued, saying:

 . . . 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.

But the responsible gaming messages are usually buried in small type at the bottom of ads and present none of the well-documented risks of gambling addiction. Evidence shows instead, colleagues, that explicitly advertising the risks like we see on cigarette packages is much more effective. There are best practices out there, but we have not yet seen them here.

We also have the matter of the entire country being subject to the whims of advertising from just one province. I remind you that thus far, single-game sports betting with the companies whose ads you are seeing is only legal in Ontario. This creates a lot of problems. Will Hill, Executive Director of the Canadian Lottery Coalition, told our committee:

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.

In the meantime, what is to stop them, after being nudged by an ad, from going to the very illicit market this was set up to combat? The ads also cause harm to youth and other vulnerable populations, which I will outline later. Why should lax regulations in one province subject the rest of the country to these ads when their own provinces have decided, quite rightly, they can be harmful?

This brings us to Bill S-269 and why I introduced it.

Let’s start with what this legislation won’t do. It will not ban gambling ads completely. After a great deal — many months — of consultation with the Law Clerk’s office, reviewing cases and listening to constitutional experts like our colleague Senator Cotter, it was decided that the harm of gambling ads may not reach the threshold of harm that we see in cigarettes, which, after decades of court battles, are effectively banned from advertising. That’s the bar a ban would have to clear before the Supreme Court. And while a ban was my initial aspiration and approach, we decided it was prudent here to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

What this bill would do instead is require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop a national framework on the advertising of sports betting. The minister must:

. . . identify measures to regulate the advertising of sports betting 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;

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

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, 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, 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 and expertise related to harmful gambling activities and the role of advertising pertaining to gambling activities;

Indigenous communities and organizations with predominantly Indigenous leadership; and

any other person or entity that the Minister considers appropriate.

Lastly, this legislation also refers to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. 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 advertising of sports betting.

When we look at accountability, it 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, which in turn must cause the report to be tabled in each house of Parliament within the first 15 days on which the house is sitting after the day on which they receive the report.

It makes your head spin at this time of day, I’m sure.

In doing this, this legislation seeks to put some guardrails around these sports betting ads because, as we all know, gambling can cause great harm to individuals and society. International research, which is ahead of us, shows conclusively that the single most effective tool to limit the harm from sports betting and other forms of gambling is limiting the ads.

The vast majority of sports betting happens in the palm of your hand, and, as we heard from the Mental Health Commission of Canada, online gambling is immensely problematic. Online gambling is more common among people who gamble frequently, and, for some, this form of gambling can significantly contribute to gambling problems. In fact, gambling online may be the single strongest risk factor for developing a gambling disorder. There’s a causal relationship between exposure to gambling advertising and a more positive image of gambling, as well as intentions to gamble and actual gambling activity. Children and youth, as well as those already experiencing gambling problems, are especially vulnerable and susceptible to these effects.

For the problematic gambler, the recidivism rate is over 90%. Once addicted, it’s almost impossible to stop. An alcoholic can avoid the bar, but for a gambling addict, the simple act of sitting down to watch a hockey game exposes him or her, as we’ve heard, to advertisements and encouragements to gamble up to three times a minute. With a recidivism rate of 90%, the temptation would likely prove too much.

Gambling harms can have grave consequences. There is, of course, the affordability aspect. Cardus, a Canadian think tank that appeared before committee, found that, in Ontario, the average betting account spends $283 a month on betting. If it is just one account per player, which is unlikely, 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, which is not more than 1% of the pre-tax household income.

Research has shown 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; and 3.9 times more likely to experience emotional or psychological harm, depression, anxiety and so on.

There’s also harm to the economy. Recent research in the U.S. shows that households in states where gambling was legalized saw significantly reduced savings, as well as lower investments in assets like stocks that are generally considered more financially sound.

We did hear comments during committee about the low rates of those impacted and whether this bill was sweeping a little bit too far. But a small proportion of a large number is still a large number of people. In Canada, even with StatCan’s pre-legalization estimate of 1.6% of gamblers at moderate to high risk of gambling disorders, that is still 304,000 people. International estimates are much higher. According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, each individual dealing with a gambling addiction impacts, on average, eight people around them — their siblings, partners, children, family, et cetera.

Concerningly, since 2019, the rates of problem gambling have gone up. For example, Matthew Young of Greo Evidence Insights told the committee that 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 that 7% of Canadians met the criteria for problem gambling. This represents an increase of more than 1,000% since 2018. We received some of that data last Thursday evening; it’s pretty recent data.

Rates of problem gambling were even higher among younger Canadians aged 18 to 34 years old, reaching 15%. What’s worse, colleagues, is that gambling rates have gone up in our children. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health says that the number of students in Grades 7 to 12 who have gambled online has increased from 4% in 2019 to 15% in 2021. Walk into a high school. Walk around the back of a high school. This is not hidden.

These kids may or may not be betting on regulated sites, but that is also the secondary effect of all the ads we’re seeing: the normalization of gambling as a part of sport. For a generation of youth growing up who are watching their favourite athletes playing their favourite games, betting and gambling will be interwoven into the very way they experience and enjoy sport. What would normally be joy for an Oilers fan when seeing Connor McDavid score the winning goal could be spoiled because his lineman didn’t score instead, as the fan’s prop bet had predicted. The compunction to bet disembodies sport. It robs sport of its proper cultural associations.

This phenomenon was no more apparent than during these past Summer Olympics. If you watched them on TV, you were no doubt inundated with ads for a betting company. I took the opportunity to see what one could bet on. It was anything, colleagues. Every Olympic event was offered as a possibility to make or lose a quick buck; this is wrong. As betting becomes so ingrained in sport through sponsorship deals and ads, and even the very logos on some uniforms, it will permeate the spirit and intent of competition.

Sport can be very powerful. It can instill many positive values. It helps young people build skills for life, but it can’t do that if it offers more opportunities to cheat, or if it increases abuse. Increasingly, athletes are threatened and harassed online for not meeting the expectations of one bettor or another. To combat that ugliness and the harm to college athletes, the NCAA in the United States recently called for a ban on so-called prop bets — those are bets within a game — on all of its games.

As an Olympic leader, I find the possibility of harm to the amateur level, like the Olympics, and the permitting of regular promotion to be, quite frankly, disgusting. These amateur athletes don’t have the same platform as professionals. Many are young. Chinese skateboarder Zheng Haohao was 11 years old when she entered the park bowl at Place de la Concorde in Paris this summer, for instance. Let’s act before the harm can extend to athletes like her.

At committee, we, of course, heard some limitations that this legislation could have. We know, for instance, that the online space is harder to regulate. Advertising on social media can be targeted toward the most vulnerable, but I don’t think we can completely discredit the effect of regulations on traditional modes of advertising. Research done by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, as recently as 2023 found that while we know broadcast television viewing has declined in recent years, Canadian youth aged 2 years old to 11 years old and aged 12 years old to 17 years old still watch an average of 12.8 hours and 12.4 hours respectively of conventional television per week.

When we look closer at online sports streaming, we see that the Canadian broadcasting rights of the big four sports leagues in North America are owned by Rogers and Bell. Together, they make up roughly 70% of the online sports streaming landscape through Sportsnet and TSN respectively. These online streams typically mirror what is seen on the cable TV channels, right down to the ads.

Also, colleagues, we heard in committee from ThinkTV who said that the sportsbook companies are, admirably, already clearing their online ads with them to make sure they align with television broadcast standards. We’ve already seen this in practice historically with beer and spirits companies who typically don’t make a separate set of ads for the online space. They conform to their responsibilities under the CRTC’s code for broadcast advertising of alcoholic beverages.

Senators, only those who have vested interests in sports betting and gambling — the betting companies, the advertisers and the broadcasters, and we even received letters from the CFL and NHL — oppose this legislation. Broadcasters who have enjoyed an influx of cash from these ads are, of course, hesitant to see ads further regulated, arguing these brands need to establish themselves and will naturally decrease their promotion over time.

I take issue with this, of course. We are not banning ads completely for the reasons I’ve already gone over this evening. This is an industry that took in $2.4 billion in revenues last year. Surely, they can afford to pay for creative ads that fit within a more reasonable and responsible approach — ads that take into consideration the protections as much as the profits.

One argument that did not sit well with me was that we need to conduct more research to see if these ads are actually harmful, and that we should let it play out before we try to rein it in. That, colleagues, is just too risky. A great deal of harm will be done if we take this approach because we know where this is going.

Other countries who have had single-sport betting and subsequent advertising for longer than we have are now moving to come down very hard on advertising and promotion. In response to excessive gambling marketing, various European countries have recently almost entirely banned marketing. That includes Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Poland and, as of this year, Ukraine.

Lord Michael Grade, who chaired a House of Lords committee on problem gambling, was kind enough to share the U.K. experience with our committee. He told us:

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

And that, colleagues, is what I am trying to address here with the legislation before us. I can’t say for sure what this framework will look like if it passes, but with the case history we see, I trust we will see more reasonable limits placed on these ads, informed by existing research and best practices. After all, Canadians are begging for this, so the political will is there, at all levels of government, to get it right.

Before I finish here, colleagues, I’d like to thank Dr. Bruce Kidd from the University of Toronto and the Campaign to Ban Ads for Gambling, whose advocacy on behalf of our youth is so strong. His life’s work has been indispensable in raising awareness not just for this legislation, but laying out the extent of the problem we are facing right now. I also want to thank my colleague Senator Cotter, who came aboard early in the drafting of this legislation and has advocated for it in committee and in this chamber.

I’d like to thank my staff and the law clerks who did excellent work, particularly at the front end when we were mucking around to see how this bill would work best. They helped so much to craft what we have before us today and what I believe happens to be an important piece of legislation.

There are many experts to acknowledge and thank, but today I think of the hundreds of informal conversations I have had with families, long letters of the stories of the impact of gambling on young people, dads of young boys who are lost at what to do next and no longer know their sons. Many of them are watching this third reading speech this evening.

Today I ask on behalf of so many for your support and to vote for this bill. As senators, this is our work: sober second thought. We supported, by numbers, a single sport-betting bill. There was a problem with negative implications. We need to fix it quickly. Please help me get this one step closer and back to the other place so we can get this right, and soon.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Thank you for the question. It’s a good one. We talked about that at the committee level and with other countries. We have what we call “traditional media” that we’re talking about in this bill; we have domestic apps that our young people in particular have exposure to; and then we have what you’re alluding to, which one could actually say is regulated, not regulated, international, unknown. That’s where these conversations happen — trying to get a deeper understanding with our partners in gaming, both domestically and internationally, on how they’re managing it and handling it, some of the things we can do and what we cannot control. You don’t want to fix one problem and create another. I think that’s what you’re alluding to, but there seems to be some information and strategies that we can learn from some countries that are a few years ahead of us on this.

Thank you for that. It’s an excellent point. We were questioning that in committee with some of our witnesses, and that becomes what is it we can do to control that. Some of the piece was talking about how you use access with a credit card — there are a bunch of parameters as you go in and go on. Some countries, some companies are saying, “We’re all over this, and we have some ways in which we can screen young people out.” Young people are who we’re trying to focus on here.

There was even a discussion of debit versus credit, some of the steps they have to go through online. That conversation is fluid right now. It’s live right now. What can be done? You know the target of the bill is advertising, but I see that your concern is about some of the implications. Those are the real conversations, and our partners are saying, “We’ve got this. We’re trying to show responsible gambling from the companies.” They’re working on some levers they can use to tighten the reins on who’s getting online and on these apps.

It’s to be acknowledged, and I know it’s a work in progress. When the government is putting a framework together, you heard me talk about one, two and three in the consultation. That number two is going to be where they’ll be working with international bodies.