The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Housakos, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sorensen, for the third reading of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 5:19 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 21, 2024, at 2 p.m.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I note that this is at day 15, so I adjourn for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the second reading of Bill S-274, An Act to establish National Thanadelthur Day.

Hon. Bev Busson: Would Senator Kutcher take a question?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I will continue from where I left off previously in support of Bill S-269, as brought forward by Senator Deacon from Ontario. I’ll focus on the potential harms that this bill may be able to, in part, mitigate — the public health challenge of problematic gambling. I’ll focus on the developmental cohort in which problematic gambling often begins, and that is young people.

Last winter, I was watching a National Hockey League, or NHL, game with some of my grandsons. In between the fragments of vigorous play, we were treated to a deluge of advertising for online sports betting. Indeed, it seemed that the amount of time provided for exhorting the virtues of online sports betting may have been close to equal to the amount of time provided for watching the entire game.

During one of the many commercials that promoted online gambling, one of my grandsons exclaimed that he wanted to place a bet so that he could win tons and tons of money. That led to a conversation about what gambling is, the odds of winning and losing, recreational enjoyment of making a wager and the catastrophic impacts on the lives of some people who become problem gamblers.

After we finished our chat, and following some considered contemplation, my grandson inquired, “Why would Auston Matthews say it was good if it was not good?”

Indeed, colleagues, that was a question that I could not answer without delving into the realm of speculation and the siren lure of lucre, so I simply said, “I don’t know.”

Colleagues, as children grow up, they need heroes. They take their inspiration from heroes. Their heroes are often celebrities, and these heroes become their role models. We can only hope that their heroes are living up to the faith that our young people are putting in them.

Senators, here I would like to clarify the difference between recreational wagering and problem gambling. Had my far-out seatmate Senator Boehm and I hung loose in our teens, we may have considered it gas to drop some bread on a wager on, for example, whether our principal wore a toupée or not. It would have been a bummer to lose, but that kind of teen innocence is not what I am speaking about here.

Gambling becomes a problem when it negatively affects a person’s daily activities, mental and physical health and relationships, and impacts their academic or vocational pursuits. The research evidence — some of which was cited by Senator Deacon — alerts us to the fact that problem gambling has its origins in the decade following the onset of puberty.

While it onsets there, it often persists into adulthood, and its pernicious effects are seen both during these years and in the decades following the transition out of adolescence. We know that adolescents — as a group — may be at a higher risk of developing many different negative life-impacting behaviours, such as gambling. Indeed, according to Gambling, Gaming and Technology Use — formerly known as the Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario — young people aged 10 to 24 years old have higher rates of problem gambling than adults.

Problem gambling can create substantive negative impacts in young people, and it becomes established in this age group with its negative impacts continuing into their futures.

Who are these young people who are most at risk? Well, honourable senators, we have a pretty good idea of who they are. In a comprehensive, population-based study of over 2,500 teenagers — published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction in 2022 — Edmond and colleagues found that problem gamblers at age 20 had a history of hyperactivity, conduct problems, being high sensation seeking and an external locus of control. They were more likely to have mothers who had problems with gambling, reported less parental supervision and had higher social media usage. Indeed, even for moderate-risk/problem gambling, it was associated with regular cigarette smoking, high levels of illicit drug use and the problematic use of alcohol.

Other research supports these findings, and the profile of the adolescent gambler shows a vulnerable population in which problem gambling is added to a host of other challenges. These include the personality traits of impulsivity and sensation seeking; psychological factors, such as low self-worth, depression and anxiety; and family factors, such as having a parent who is a problem gambler.

Just as all young people are not at equal risk for developing problem gambling, different types of gambling also impact the risk for developing problem gambling. Data from the Canadian Youth Gambling Survey showed that over 40% of adolescents in their sample had gambled in the past three months, and, concerningly, those young people who gambled online scored high in problem gambling severity compared to those engaged in land-based gambling. It’s the online version that is the problematic one.

Consequently, colleagues, the profile that emerges is one of a teenager who is already at risk for a negative life trajectory becoming a target for online gambling advertising. By creating an environment that increases the exposure of all teenagers to messages that encourage online gambling, we are taking a toll on those who are struggling. It’s the same as kicking someone who is already down.

However, these concerns become even more substantial if we turn the question around and ask, “What is problem gambling in adolescence associated with?” In other words, it’s not what factors increase the risk for problem gambling, but what does problem gambling increase the risk of for those youth who do gamble?

The scientific literature has spelled this out for us: Problem gambling in adolescence is associated with substance abuse problems; mental health problems; criminal activities; school difficulties, including truancy; financial problems; disrupted family relationships; and increased suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

Now we turn to the following: What can we do about it? We know that young people are highly affected by peer pressure and celebrity role modelling. We know that what friends are doing impacts all of us — young people even more so. Although the science is robust on this understanding, all of us in this chamber who have ever parented a teenager, or who have ever been a teenager themselves, can attest to this reality from personal experience. Celebrities can have substantial impact on young people, both positive and negative.

When celebrities become role models for young people, groups of teens can engage together in friendship circles to emulate, aspire to be like, take advice from or even idolize a celebrity. When a celebrity endorses a product or activity, young people who look up to that celebrity can be influenced by those endorsements.

Additionally, a teen who is part of a peer group that gives adulation or respect to a celebrity will be more likely to participate in what that celebrity endorses than one whose peer group is not so inclined. Although there are a variety of characteristics that may make certain types of advertising impactful on youth, it is clear that young people are engaged by advertising that appeals to them, such as making activities seem trendy, fun, glamorous and exciting, or — to my colleague Senator Boehm in his adolescence — groovy.

The impact of lifestyle advertising on teenage behaviour is a good example of this. When celebrity or lifestyle advertising is consumed by teenagers, there can be significant impacts on their behaviour — positive or negative.

Online gambling advertising that uses celebrity or lifestyle advertising can have a negative impact on teens, including increasing the risk for developing problem gambling. Therefore, as a public health truism, limiting exposure to negative or toxic inputs can have a positive impact on health and mental health outcomes. Therefore, limiting teen access to online gambling advertisements — that use celebrity endorsement or lifestyle glamorization — should be used as a public health intervention to decrease the risk for the development of problem gambling.

Monaghan and colleagues at the University of Sydney in Australia — who have extensively studied the complex interaction between advertising and gambling behaviour in young people — are quite clear on this point, as they state, “. . . regulations are needed to ensure advertisements for gambling products do not target or unduly influence children and adolescents.”

Gambling advertising is not only an influence on entry into gambling for young people, but it can also be an influence in supporting their addiction once that pattern of behaviour has been established.

Colleagues, this bill is important, as it has the potential to be part of the solution to mitigating the prevalence and the negative impact of problem gambling in teenagers, and in adults as well. This public health problem will require other interventions. These will include — but not be limited to — education; early identification and treatment; and enforcement of legislation and regulations.

Honourable senators, we can help with this public health challenge, and it is imperative that we take this opportunity to do so. I am asking you to vote to send this bill to committee, where it can be critically studied so that its impact might be of benefit not only to those who we do not personally know, but to those who we know only too well.

Recently, I told two of my preteen grandkids that I was going to be speaking about problem gambling and teenagers, and I asked them if there was something that they would like me to say on their behalf. So, this is from Avery:

Kids, don’t gamble. You could lose or get money, but it is more likely that you will lose money. Your parents will get so annoyed.

And this is from Oliver: “Kids, it’s a bad addiction. You can lose all your money now and when you’re older.”

Sage advice.

I, for one, would appreciate not having Auston Matthews, Connor McDavid and Wayne Gretzky encouraging my grandchildren and their friends to gamble.

I end my speech today by appealing to all those celebrities who are heroes to our young people, asking them to exercise caution and their best judgment when it comes to which products and activities they endorse. They are very powerful moulders of young minds, and to quote Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Thank you. Wela’lioq.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak in support of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

I would like to thank Senator Marty Deacon for introducing this important piece of legislation and acknowledge the interventions of previous speakers during the second reading debate. I will not repeat what has already been said; rather, I will focus on the potential harms that this bill might, in part, be able to mitigate: those of the public health challenge of problematic gambling.

I will focus on the developmental cohort in which problematic gambling often begins: young people.

Last winter, I was watching an NHL hockey game with some of my grandsons. In between the fragments of vigorous play, we were treated to a deluge of advertising for online sports betting. Indeed, it seemed that the amount of time provided for exhorting the virtues of online sports betting might have been close to equal to that for watching the game.

During one of the many commercials promoting online gambling, one of my grandsons exclaimed that he wanted to place a bet so that he could win “tons and tons of money.” That led to a conversation about what gambling was, the odds of winning and losing, the recreational enjoyment of making a wager and the catastrophic impacts on the lives of some people who become problem gamblers. After we finished our chat, and following some considered contemplation, my grandson inquired, “Why would Auston Matthews say it was good if it was not good?”

Indeed, colleagues, that was a question I could not answer without getting into the realm of speculation and the siren lure of lucre, so I simply said, “I don’t know the answer to that.”

Colleagues, as kids grow up, they need heroes. They take their inspiration from heroes. Their heroes are often celebrities and can become their role models.

[Translation]

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Senator Deacon’s Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

Colleagues may remember the reservations that Senator White, our former colleague, and I had with Bill C-218 dealing with single-event sports betting. At that time, and even now, I feel that we jumped on board too quickly because of tight timelines.

Bill C-218 could have seriously benefited from more consultation and research. In developing a proper and safe single‑event sports betting regime, it needs to come with supports to dissuade problem gamblers and those vulnerable to becoming them. One might argue that those supports are primarily a provincial responsibility, but a conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories would have been prudent to ensure supports existed before single-event sports betting was legalized.

That brings me to Bill S-269 before us today. This is the type of sober second thought needed when discussing a bill that makes sports betting easier and more addictive. These are the type of supports needed for those most affected and most vulnerable to gambling. I commend Senator Deacon for her efforts in this regard, and Senator Cotter for his contributions as well. Senator Deacon and Senator Cotter succinctly defined for us the purpose of the bill, and what it hopes to accomplish, so I will simply paraphrase as a reminder.

Beginning with the second part of the bill is the requirement of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to review its regulations and policies to assess their effectiveness in reducing any harms due to the proliferation of advertising for sports betting. From the federal perspective, this is a good tool to apply in order to reduce the harms of this type of gambling.

The first part of the bill is the development of a national framework on advertising for sports betting. Framework and strategy bills are important, especially with multi-jurisdictional laws, because it brings the much-needed conversations together. The bill before us would bring the federal government together with the provincial and territorial governments, the Indigenous community and other relevant stakeholders, such as gaming regulators and those within sports ethics.

These conversations are crucial to develop a whole-of-Canada approach to tackling the issue of sports betting. Developing baseline regulations, with the agreement of the provinces and territories, would create a consistent, manageable and predictable regime, which would enable better tracking of information and statistics surrounding sports betting and its consequences. This is about setting national standards to help curb the addictions that gambling can cause, and avoiding a piecemeal approach wherever possible.

We have seen the Ontario government move to restrict the use of athletes and other celebrities in advertising for sports betting, which will come into effect at the end of February. Current hockey icons such as Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews — and the Great One, Wayne Gretzky — have appeared in such ads since single-event sports betting was legalized. It generally isn’t our adults whom these advertisements are appealing to, but to our vulnerable youth.

These players are seen as idols to them, and something that should be emulated. What I see is multi-millionaires promoting unhealthy, addictive habits that are primarily directed at youth. I think it’s safe to presume that these already wealthy figures are making even more money by doing these ads — I expect their price tags aren’t cheap. This is just a snapshot into the profits that can be made from single-event sports betting in Ontario — that the NHL elites can be bought to promote.

While this is a worthwhile step for the province to take — and I expect that all provinces will look to do the same — it is a very small step. Removing star appeal from sports betting advertising won’t necessarily curb the advertising itself, which is a massive part of the issue.

Some potential solutions have been raised by previous speakers to Bill S-269: no advertising before, during or after sports matches; no advertising at times when our youth would be significant parts of the audiences; and no advertising in sports arenas or on players’ uniforms.

This last point is contained within Recommendation 47 from the 2020 House of Lords report entitled Gambling Harm — Time for Action, which reads:

Gambling operators should no longer be allowed to advertise on the shirts of sports teams or any other part of their kit. There should be no gambling advertising in or near any sports grounds or sports venues, including sports programmes.

This report contains other important recommendations to consider for our purposes today. Recommendation 52 says:

Advertisements which are objectively seen as offering inducements to people to start or to continue gambling, or which create a sense of urgency about placing bets, should be banned. . . .

Recommendation 46 is more wide-reaching and explains that:

The Government should commission independent research to establish the links between gambling advertising and gambling-related harm for both adults and children.

Research should also be done here in Canada for a made-at-home approach to preventing sports betting-related harms.

If we look to other countries, we are seeing progress that Canada can emulate. Colleagues, work is already being done elsewhere, so let’s incorporate it into our thinking, as well as what fits into our own framework. For example, Spain, Italy and Belgium have already banned nearly all gambling ads, and the Netherlands effected a new ban on untargeted online gambling advertisements just this past July.

Canada and its provinces can investigate the details of these bans to see what may work here. Because there is over one suicide a day in Britain due to gambling-related harms, as of 2020, they put a stop to betting companies accepting credit cards. Access to credit was obviously putting people further into debt due to their addictions and perpetuating their problems. This is also something worth considering in a Canadian context.

None of these possible solutions can be administered in a vacuum. As with treating any addiction, a holistic approach is necessary to make headway because it is such a complex issue. Another option that could be considered in national framework discussions is a government-funded advertising campaign covering television, radio, social media and other messaging fora speaking to the harms of gambling. We currently see this type of messaging here in Ontario concerning the harms of cannabis, including cannabis-impaired driving.

Something else that could be raised with the provinces is a funding formula to support research, education — such as the public awareness campaign mentioned above — and treatment services for harmful gambling. This formula could be based around the proceeds created through government-funded sports betting ventures. As we know, the sports betting industry is one that creates billions of dollars in revenue annually, with estimates by the Canadian Gaming Association of $1.4 billion per year in Ontario alone.

In fact, according to a report from iGaming Ontario, a subsidiary of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, sports betting netted over $35 billion in total wagers during the market’s first year from more than 1.6 million active player accounts.

As we passed a law to allow for single-event sports betting before the provinces were ready for it, in my assertion, we’re now playing a game of catch-up. The proliferation of advertising for sports betting was not far-fetched since there wasn’t any regulation around it. The floodgates were opened, allowing for the situation we find ourselves in today.

It is incumbent upon the provinces, with perhaps some support from the federal government, to provide funding to ensure that Bill C-218 doesn’t create a generation of problem gamblers and a system without supports for those who are addicted. Bill S-269 is a critical piece of legislation to ensure these conversations happen and holistic solutions are found.

Senators, when I spoke to Bill C-218, I said that if we’re going to bring single-event sports betting into the light, we should do so with our eyes open. Well, now we have the opportunity to open our eyes. I thank Senator Deacon for her leadership on this file. I unreservedly and enthusiastically support the purpose of Bill S-269 and its study at committee. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, for the second reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-269. Senator Woo was kind enough to point out to me that the live audience for this speech has dwindled to three, but I’m especially pleased that they have hung in here for it.

Two days ago, Senator Marty Deacon laid out the motivation for this bill and the direction it proposes for the regulation of the advertising and promotion of sports betting in Canada. She also spoke extensively about the structure of the bill and its intended objectives. I wish to lend my support to the bill and fully endorse her remarks.

In the interest of trying to make my own comments useful, I will divide my remarks into three parts. To add a bit of spice, maybe for Senator Dalphond, I will try my best to keep your interest by giving each section of my remarks a catchy title.

The first section, reflecting on how we got here initially, is entitled, “How I may have committed crimes before coming to the Senate.” The second section is entitled, somewhat enigmatically, “The elephant,” and the third section is entitled, “What do we do when we come to a fork in the road?”

Here goes — “How I may have committed crimes before coming to the Senate.” I’m kind of hopeful that parliamentary privilege applies to these remarks.

For over a decade before I came to the Senate, I used to teach a course at the law school in Saskatoon and sometimes at Dalhousie University in Halifax entitled, “Sports and the Law.” Students in this course wrote major research papers, and nearly every year, someone opted to write a paper on sports betting and the criminal law of Canada. What I learned from those papers was a bit troubling.

When I’m in Saskatoon on Sunday evenings, we commonly have family dinners. My various nephews attend, and it was not uncommon for family members, including me, to discuss various sports teams and the likely outcomes of the games, prospectively. The purpose of these discussions was for them to make judgments on the teams that they would bet on in those games. Well, what I learned from reading my students’ sports betting papers, at least up until 2021, was this: My nephews were betting on sports games individually and, in doing so, were committing criminal offences. It could be argued, I guess, that my discussing it with them and offering my relatively uninformed opinions amounted to aiding and abetting these crimes — essentially, if I may say so, aiding and abetting betting.

It struck me in those years — and as the motivation of my support for Bill C-218, sponsored in 2021 in this chamber by Senator Wells and passed in that year — that while you might disapprove of betting in any form, it hardly rises to the level of committing a criminal offence to bet on a single sports outcome. Indeed, until the adoption of that bill in 2021, we had the unbelievably incongruous situation where if you bet on three games at once, you were engaged in a perfectly legal activity, but if you bet on one single game, you were committing a crime.

As Senator Deacon noted, that bill brought into the sunlight the issue of sports betting. It achieved at least four positive things: It created a legitimate industry away from the grey or black markets of sports betting; it at least made possible effective regulation of this industry; it brought revenues to public government; and it made possible the adoption of strategies to identify those at risk from sports gambling and to direct revenues to help ameliorate those risks.

I continue to support that initiative — the decriminalization of single-event sports betting. As you know, there was a good deal of background associated with the adoption of that bill, and, as Senator Deacon pointed out, the passing of that bill opened up a whole range of sports-betting opportunities and also, it turns out, an onslaught of advertising and promotion of sports betting. The latter, of course, is the focus of this bill.

But for my part, a confession: I had anticipated we would see a good deal of advertising by betting platforms to attract people to join their websites and place bets through them. It’s not surprising that this would take place since the profitability of betting platforms relies, to a certain degree, on small margins earned through a significant number of bettors placing a significant number of bets. What I had not anticipated — and I think this is also true in England — was the degree to which we have been inundated with advertising to encourage us not just to join the betting platforms but to place bets on ever so many outcomes — and even components of outcomes — to the point where the things that one could bet on have become ridiculous and, in some cases, problematic. The promotion of betting has become overwhelming and, in some cases, offensive.

I read an article last spring about a particular sports broadcaster putting out an apology to this effect: It apologized to viewers for having cut away from a sports-betting ad to return to the live action. The apology was a spoof, but it essentially makes the point I’m trying to make here.

Senator Deacon outlined well the challenges and risks that excessive amounts of sports betting and advertising have generated for us. Now we have the public policy challenge of appropriately reining in this plethora of betting promotion, which brings me to the next section, “The elephant.”

There’s an old story that circulates in the legal field, and it goes like this: Four students — a Canadian, a Brit, a German and an Italian — are taking a writing course. The instructor gives them an assignment, which is to write an essay on the subject of “the elephant.” Having written their essays, they come back to class, and the instructor asks each for the title of their essay. The British student’s response — it could have been a young Tony Dean — is, “The role of the elephant in the history of the British Empire.” The German student — it could have been a young Peter Boehm — said, “How to build a bigger and better elephant.” The Italian student — perhaps a young Tony Loffreda — called his essay, “The love life of the elephant.” The Canadian student — and here I am coming to my point; it could have been a young, nerdy Brent Cotter — titled his essay, “The elephant: a federal or provincial responsibility?”

You might be wondering what that punchline has to do with this bill. Let me get to that point.

Sports betting, and particularly the promotion of sports betting, is a topic like that of the elephant story: its topic is a mishmash of federal and provincial jurisdictions. Senator Dalphond identified this in his dialogue with Senator Deacon on Tuesday. On the subject of sports betting, the federal government has the power to criminalize that activity — which it did for a very long time, until 2021. It could include sports betting as a form of gaming, which it did in the 1980s, and legally transfer the oversight of it to provinces. It delegated authority to the provinces, who undertook the management of gaming, including sports betting. Additionally, Ottawa can regulate communications with respect to sports betting, which are conducted under the regulatory authority of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC.

The result of all of this essentially constitutional line drawing is that Ottawa has some meaningful authority over sports betting, but much of the regulation of gaming, including sports betting, is in the hands of the provinces. This explains why at least one part of the “gaming elephant,” if I can call it that, is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and why, for example, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario announced that it would no longer be possible for sports-betting agencies to use celebrities in their ads. Similarly, British Columbia’s gaming regulator has taken steps to attach conditions to licences issued to sports betting agencies, which seeks to have a moderating effect on some of the issues that are concerning so many.

As I will mention in the final section of my remarks, there are things that provincial gaming authorities can and should do beyond what has happened so far that are within their and not Ottawa’s authority. But some parts of the gaming elephant are within federal jurisdiction.

Finally, the third section of my remarks: what to do when we come to the fork in the road. Some of you, hearing that phrase, might think of Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken,” but I would like to refer you to someone else. I commend to you today the consideration of a line from another great poet, Yogi Berra, who said — some of you will say it with me here — “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!” The fork in the road for me hints at the options for both the federal and provincial regulatory engagements on this issue. The advice, as you can tell from that great poet and constitutional expert Yogi Berra, is take both regulatory forks in the road.

How to get there: There are two federal asks in this bill. One is to direct the CRTC to develop appropriate constraints on advertising and promotion of sports betting in the areas where they possess federal regulatory jurisdiction. The other, led by federal cabinet ministers through widespread consultation, is the development of a national strategy to rein in the advertising and promotion of sports betting across the jurisdictional divide. This must be a wide-ranging project, for example, as Senator Marty Deacon noted, since research has informed us of the risks for vulnerable gamblers and young people, and those risks do not know jurisdictional boundaries.

Some examples of that, as she mentioned, are no advertising just before, during or after sports games; limits or bans on celebrities and athletes as promoters of gambling; no advertising during periods when young people are significant parts of audiences; and no presentation of ads in sports arenas or on players’ uniforms. Various European countries have undertaken variations of this. These approaches are set out in an excellent recent paper on the issue developed by a group led by former mayor of Toronto John Sewell and Dr. Bruce Kidd, a distinguished former Olympian and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. My own research has captured a range of opportunities that are possible as well.

Dealing with the preservation of the integrity of sports, I will just make this one point: This wide-ranging national strategy should and could include an examination of the categories of sports that ought not to be allowed to be bet on, particularly where the athletes themselves are more susceptible to being bribed to throw or fix a game outcome. For example — and this has happened in other jurisdictions — the strategy could include the elimination of betting on amateur sports; no betting on college sports, as a number of U.S. states adopted when they received the authority in 2019 to regulate sports betting; and no betting on Olympic sports, a point that a number of proponents on this issue, including Dr. Kidd, have championed.

The reason for this needed national strategy is that many options are within provincial jurisdiction, a fork in the road that needs to be taken as well but that Ottawa can catalyze.

A broad cross-section of Canadian society wants action, from the deeply concerned parent about whom Senator Deacon spoke on Tuesday to the tens of thousands of viewers — it feels to me like I have heard from all of them — annoyed by the advertising onslaught, to those who have seen first-hand what addiction in any form can do to the lives and families of the vulnerable, to those who have given their lives and careers to sport and who worry that the object of their passion is being besmirched and its essence diminished, to sports ethics organizations like the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, who worry that their commitment to healthy, safe, ethical athletic activity is being excessively and dangerously commercialized. Senator Marty Deacon’s bill gives us the opportunity to martial our resources — not to destroy an industry but to get it on the right path, a wisely nationally regulated path.

I support this bill and encourage you to do the same. Thank you very much.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would the senator take a question?

[English]

Senator M. Deacon: Yes.

[Translation]

Hon. Denise Batters: Would Senator Deacon take a question?

Senator M. Deacon: Certainly.

Hon. Marty Deacon 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.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marty Deacon introduced Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

(Bill read first time.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Deacon (Ontario), bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Deacon (Ontario), bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[Translation]