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

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.

I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications and their chair, Senator Smith, for expediting this bill by going straight to clause-by-clause consideration. I hope that was both a reflection of the fact that the bill is a carbon copy of Bill S-269, which had cleared the Senate in the last Parliament, and also an acknowledgement that this is a problem that is not going to get better on its own — that this legislation is needed now.

I would also like to thank the prior iteration of the Transport Committee and their chair, Senator Housakos, for their thorough study on Bill S-269, which no doubt gave today’s committee the confidence that due diligence had been done and that it was reasonable to go straight to clause-by-clause consideration.

As I have done in my prior comments on this legislation, I’ll remind my colleagues how we reached this place. As many of you will recall, in 2021 Parliament passed Bill C-218, which amended the Criminal Code by removing the longstanding prohibition on betting on the outcome of any “. . . race . . . or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest.” It removed one line from the Criminal Code that made reference to single sports betting. In effect, that permitted provinces to allow for single sports betting in their own jurisdictions.

That is interesting because the ads we see permeating every phone and television screen across the country are all from Ontario, the only province where private companies are allowed to operate. To date, every other province or territory only allows for single sports betting through their own lottery corporations. Yet, I have heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that they are growing tired of, and increasingly concerned about, seeing these Ontario-based ads.

As a result, in June 2023 I introduced Bill S-269, which was able to clear the Senate at third reading in June last year but died on the Order Paper in the House when Parliament was prorogued. As with Bill S-269, the bill before us today, Bill S-211, would do a number of things if passed.

It would compel the government to work with cabinet, provinces and other stakeholders to identify measures to regulate the advertising of game sports betting in Canada, such as by limiting or banning the participation of celebrities and athletes, restricting the use of non-broadcast advertising or by limiting the number, scope or location of such advertisements; identify measures to promote research and intergovernmental information-sharing in relation to the prevention and diagnosis of minors involved in problematic gambling activities and provide support measures for those who are impacted by it; and set out national standards for the prevention and diagnosis of problematic gambling and addiction and provide support measures for those who are impacted by it. Those are worth noting, because this is a bill that has three or four key areas that we are quite concerned about.

It would also task the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, with reviewing its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of advertising of sports event betting.

Colleagues, on its own, this legislation would not ban gambling ads outright. While that is what I would love to see, I do appreciate there are Charter implications in that, and I believe that if I had sought a complete ban through this legislation, it would certainly have had a much rougher ride. As the saying goes, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” If the government decides that a full ban is warranted after this bill becomes law, or even before, I would not be happier, but that will be for them to decide.

Short of a full ban, there are avenues the government can take in crafting a national framework. One example is a whistle-to-whistle ban, which would ban broadcast ads for betting companies both five minutes before and five minutes after an event takes place. It is my hope that would include sponsored intermissions and half-time segments that see talking heads give betting odds instead of the game analyses we’re accustomed to. This aspect has received more attention over the past year. Some of it was very subtle last night during the Blue Jays game.

Other options include a ban on ads in arenas or fields where children and youth frequent; a ban on in-game promotions within the apps themselves, which entice players to gamble by offering house money to bet with if they sign up; and a ban on all gambling ads during the time of day when children and youth are more likely to see them.

As a reminder, not too long ago, to gamble meant to put on your winter coat, leave your home and go to a casino, something I will elaborate on a bit later.

Many other countries, like the U.K., Australia and Germany, have implemented these and other policies to some degree. We have learned a lot. Italy has banned ads outright. Admittedly, for all these jurisdictions, it remains a work in progress.

Just last week, the University of Bristol found that during just one Premier League match, viewers were subject to 5,000 visible gambling advertisements — this despite a self-imposed whistle-to-whistle ban by the industry, but one that did not cover other forms of visible advertising, such as shirt sponsorships, pitch-side hoardings and logos on stadium structures. It’s all a work in progress, but the take-away here is that other jurisdictions are at least doing something. And why? Because they legalized single-event sports betting before we did, and they are also reckoning with the outcomes.

As I’ve mentioned at second reading and other comments on this issue, we have good benefit of foresight here. We can see where this is headed, but we’re deciding to steer straight toward that iceberg anyway if we do nothing.

The lay of the land in Canada as it exists is somewhat of a Wild West — no disrespect for the Wild West, by the way. As I mentioned so far, it is only Ontario that has opened its market to private gambling, through its regulated iGaming market. And yet, these ads are seen from coast to coast to coast.

As we heard at committee for Bill S-269, this might in fact be illegal. It should bother every jurisdiction that has not loosened its market that its own population is being encouraged to place bets with companies that legally they cannot bet with. If they had held back on privatizing because of a more cautious approach, then why should their populations be bombarded with ads from the one province that has decided to open the floodgates? This is at least one thing a national framework would undoubtedly address, and address well.

As it is, protections from gambling ads nationally will only be to the level of the lowest common denominator. The internet and even traditional cable care little for provincial and territorial boundaries, and all Canadians deserve the same degree of protection from gambling promotion and its associated harms.

And what do these harms look like? A recent report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, or CCSA, stated that the sheer volume of ads Canadians are being subject to normalizes the behaviour, leading people to think of betting as an integral part of sports and, by extension, healthy and safe. Even in Ontario, where celebrities and athletes were banned from promotions, there are some workarounds. These individuals can appear in what purport to be public service ads, put out by the companies that encourage you to “bet within your limits.” This is almost worse because it still affiliates an athlete with a brand, but also tells people that as long as you know your limits, this is a safe and healthy practice.

The CCSA report also found that the type of gambling being promoted — the single-event betting and “in-play” betting — is associated with a greater risk of harm and that it promotes increased gambling intensity, frequency and expenditure. What’s more, single-event sports betting promotes an illusion of control. Whereas slot machines and roulette are on their face games of chance, shows and websites dissecting betting lines and games convince the participant in sports betting that a degree of knowledge will give them an edge. Who will hit a home run? Who will get the most receiving yards? Who will score on a power play? All these and so much more are things you can bet on during a game.

As the last and most concerning point, the report found that exposure to gambling promotion earlier in life is associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing gambling harm and developing gambling problems later in life, such as family issues, loss of employment and even suicide. However, to be clear, all populations are vulnerable. This affects all age groups. We’re focusing on young folks, particularly young men, but nobody is immune at any moment in time.

I have said it before that young people are most at risk, but really, colleagues, it is almost exclusively young men who are most predisposed to the harms of gambling promotion and addiction. I have heard from countless fathers who are writing to me and contacting me because they are scared to see their teenage sons gain an interest in gambling, that the line between sports betting and the sports themselves is being blurred to the point of not existing.

One such father, Dr. Shawn Kelly, came to my attention when he co-authored a recent Canadian Medical Association Journal opinion piece about the ubiquity of gambling ads, their harms and our failure as a country to respond adequately. Dr. Kelly, a pediatrician and adolescent addiction medicine specialist here in Ottawa, was kind enough to come to the Senate to discuss this matter two weeks ago with my ISG colleagues. You will recall seeing him when he was recognized in the gallery.

Outside of his comments on general trends and consequences, some of which I have already mentioned, he also shared personal details, like how in his practice he is meeting children, some as young as 14, who are struggling with gambling behaviours. He said that prior to 2021, this was almost unheard of, but it is becoming a commonplace occurrence now in his practice, and parents didn’t even notice the problem until there were financial losses, school avoidance or emotional crisis. I visited schools, and it was not uncommon for me to see someone vaping in one hand and gambling with their phone in the other.

He also mentioned that this crisis hit home, literally, when his 7-year-old son asked him while watching hockey highlights, “Dad, what’s the difference between over-under and plus/minus?”

Colleagues, the harms from gambling promotion are particularly insidious because of the vehicle by which the addiction occurs. There is a natural friction between consumers and purveyors of other vice industries like alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. One has to see an ad and physically go somewhere to acquire these items. There is at least a lag or delay between promotion and engagement. With gambling, the promotion and engagement are seamless and can happen within seconds of being on your smartphone.

The sorts of addiction we have with our phones and social media, which we have all been guilty of at one time or another, apply directly to gambling habits as well. Let me quote from a recent article I came across in the American Institute for Boys and Men:

Beyond easier access, much of the increase in online gambling is due to the fact that gambling companies have engineered their games to be ever more difficult to resist. They feature the same behavioural nudges and dopamine delivery mechanisms as social media platforms. These are not your grandparents’ slot machines.

Every part of a gambling app is designed to be fun, easy to use, and hard to quit. After a cursory age-verification process . . . bettors can deposit money as easily as buying anything else online. The apps have their own version of the endless scroll, with a constantly updating menu of things to bet on. . . .

. . . “Imagine being a gambling addict and always having a slot machine in your pocket except you also need that slot machine to stay in touch with friends/family, to get jobs and contact coworkers, for banking, for navigation.”. . .

This author goes on to state that in the U.S., compared to states that did not legalize online gambling and single-event sports betting, states that have legal online gambling:

. . . have seen an increase in bankruptcies and auto loan delinquencies, a reduction in credit scores, as well as reduced savings and investment in low-income households . . . .

Colleagues, as this is the fourth time I’ve risen to speak on this subject in this chamber, I’ve noticed a trend in some of the questions that are asked around this topic, and I’ll try to address those here.

The first and most common question is this: Where is the revenue from online gambling going? Specifically, is it going to support public programs meant to address gambling addiction and its associated mental health effects? In each province, revenue from provincial lottery corporations or the tax revenues from private betting go into each province’s consolidated revenue fund.

To determine how much of that revenue is going to addiction programs, you would have to look up their respective budgets, look to see what is going into the public health spending and then see how much money came in from these revenues. The report that I mentioned earlier found that funding for gambling harm prevention and reduction by public health, non-profit and other organizations has largely been neglected, as a multitude of social issues compete for limited public health funds.

Furthermore, the report found that funding for research on gambling-related harms in Canada falls desperately short of meeting this moment. So, I can say with some confidence that no, gambling revenues are not being earmarked to go to programs that combat gambling addictions or to study their societal effects; hence, that is also included in this bill.

The other question I often hear is this: What would scaling back the advertising mean for broadcasters and sports leagues that rely on the revenues it brings in? This is more anecdotal on my end, but as far as the broadcasters go, I think they’ll be just fine. Broadcasting in Canada is largely run by three corporations, which, given the recent slate of mergers and acquisitions we have seen in the news these last few years, have pretty healthy bottom lines. One company even owns the team all of Canada is rooting for at the moment.

I don’t believe we need to risk the mental health and well‑being of a growing cohort of Canadians to ensure that the revenue stream from sports betting advertising to these telecoms continues undiminished.

As for the sports leagues, the North American big four — the NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB — will survive if these ads are scaled back. They are not being banned; they are being scaled back.

I appreciate that this is largely up to the U.S. to handle, given that’s where the majority of these teams are located and broadcast from, but there is a push in the States to scale back these ads as well.

And it goes without saying that now is not the time to throw up our hands in defeat because the U.S. is doing something. One concern that is exclusively Canadian — the Canadian Football League, or CFL — does give me some pause. I can’t say definitively that removing a good portion of gambling promotion revenue from this league would not hurt its bottom line. But, as I’ve explained, this promotion to the degree we have seen causes a great deal of harm. Where do we draw the line?

CFL teams cannot adorn their helmets or fields with tobacco ads, cannabis ads or promotions for adult websites. Why should betting sites be the exception? This is especially true when gambling addiction has empirically been proven to be just as, if not more, harmful than two of the three examples I have shared with you.

Honourable senators, this is a problem we bear responsibility for. I include myself in this, as I voted for Bill C-218. Sending the bill before us to the floor of the other place will go a long way in trying to make this right, and I truly hope we can do that soon.

As a senator, this is important to correct. As a Canadian who has coached and led teams from the grassroots to Olympic, Commonwealth and Pan American Games, I have witnessed first-hand what sport, the power of sport and the opportunity of sport can be.

I have participated in outreach and mentored in many countries where I have witnessed the joy of young people being given very basic equipment and facilities that allow them to learn and lead through sport. That is what sport should be and what we should celebrate. We hear directly that these lines are being blurred.

As this is hopefully — for me and for you — the last time I rise in the chamber to discuss this issue, I would like to give thanks. I’ve already mentioned my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, both in this Parliament and the last, who passed this bill unamended.

As the critic of both former Bill S-269 and the bill before us today, Senator Housakos rose to give two speeches in support in the eloquent and knowledgeable way that he is so good at.

I thank Senator Saint-Germain who questioned Minister Guilbeault on this very topic when he was here a few weeks back. And I also thank Senator Downe who has spoken in favour of this bill at every opportunity, and, as you saw today, he is publicly calling on the government to implement a full ban.

I signed onto this call myself because, as I mentioned, although this bill does not seek to go for a full ban, if the government decides to take it upon itself to do that, I would be happy.

Outside of this chamber, I would like to thank Dr. Kelly, whom I’ve quoted today, and Dr. Bruce Kidd who reached out to me in the early days of this bill and has started his own public campaign through his BanAdsForGambling website.

And I also thank our former colleague, dear Senator Cotter; he was my lawyer and my mentor, and he was integral to us learning so much about the Charter and the Supreme Court’s previous rulings as well as the crafting of former Bill S-269 and, thus, the bill that is before us today.

Honourable senators, it’s great to be back in this chamber after some time away healing from surgery. I have missed you. It’s been an honour to work with all of you on this important issue. When the time comes, please vote to send this bill on its way to the other place. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)