Bill S-211

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act

An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising

This enactment provides for the development of a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada and to set national standards for the prevention of risk for persons negatively impacted. It also provides for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to review its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising.

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this debate has been excellent. I have learned many things. I will start off with the joy of sports, and the member for Waterloo talked about this a bit.

I was never much of an athlete, much to the disappointment of my father who was an athlete, but the one thing I could do was watch sports. One of the greatest joys I have is either watching my daughter compete in her competitive dance or watching my son compete at hockey. He is a goaltender and is at a tournament tomorrow, so I would ask everyone to please wish him good luck. There is nothing that I enjoy doing more than watching them compete and have a great time.

What I also love to do is sit around the house, when we get that break from time to time, and watch sports with them. Seeing them enjoy watching team Canada's hockey team compete, which won five to nothing, brings joy around. My chosen NFL team is the Buffalo Bills and there is nothing better than sitting around with friends and family and crying together as they lose yet again in the divisional round. There is a purity to people competing, giving everything they can, working so very hard to get to that great moment and coming together as a team. Anyone who has worked as a team, which is what we are in the House of Commons, knows the thrill of coming together, putting someone else's interests above ours and competing to get the best possible product, or bill, and winning the game. There is a purity and a greatness to that.

I must say that the gambling around this has tainted it. Some of the other speakers also talked about this earlier with respect to the particularly vulnerable groups in this: young men and boys. If we go to a high school, we would see that nearly every teenage boy, and every teenage girl for that matter, has a phone. If we looked at what was on their phones, I can guarantee members that over 80% or 90% of them have a gambling app. That is scary because it is leading them down a path. Not everyone will go down the path where it will have a big impact on their life, but some will. What is the number of individuals who go down that path and have that challenge? What are we willing to accept in society? Is it okay if one in 10, one in 100, or one in 1,000 give up their life to a horrible gambling addiction that sucks in friends and family members as they try to support these people? What is that number?

One of the things I do when I look at legislation or at laws as we try to make the best decisions in this House, which I believe all 343 members attempt to do, is that I look at it as if we were driving to that perfect society where we all live in prosperity and abundance, where we are kind and gentle with each other and where we only have good days, and I ask if this law would get us closer to that. I am not naive. I know we will certainly not get there in my lifetime, and probably not even after that, but as a House, as legislators, we should be striving toward that goal. When I see this legislation, I say, yes, this is another step toward it, because it starts to rein in and regulate the amount of advertising.

There are a couple of issues I have with this legislation, and I hope they will be fleshed out at committee. Of course, we will be supporting it to go to committee, and we hope it will get fleshed out. The overall driving principle of this legislation to expose our children to less gambling advertising is going in a positive direction. I really do not think anyone can say no to that.

In fact, I am told that there are industries out there right now that are self-regulating and self-imposing those regulations with respect to the amount of advertising. To those folks I would say that is a great job and may they keep it up. The less government we have the better. In this case, I think there is a need for some intervention, unless of course the industry can get together and control its own house, which would be great.

I have been there, like the member, sitting and watching sports, and I do probably watch too much sports. It is just amazing; we will see, in one show, three or four different advertisements for online sports betting. We will then see them on the boards of the skating rink. We will see them in the back of the basketball stadium. We will see them in the baseball stadium, in the back. They are just absolutely everywhere. They are invasive.

Just as the government has stepped in and regulated advertisements on things like alcohol and nicotine and smoking, I think it makes sense to have a process here.

The Bloc Québécois actually raised a terrific point, in that a lot of this is provincial jurisdiction. When we look at national frameworks, the idea is good. I have no doubt about that, but I am hoping that some work can be done in committee, so that we do not just have a bureaucrat-led, one-size-fits-all solution, so that we bring in partners, so that we have agreement from the provinces, so that we have agreement from the premiers from coast to coast and so that we have agreement from industry, quite frankly.

Whether one works for a multinational or whether one works for Parliament or whether one works for a premier, the reality is that we all have children and we all want the best for those children. We need to find a solution where we have everyone working together to make sure that children are protected, as there has clearly been an excess of advertising of online betting.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that Bill S‑211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by pointing something out.

This is the 12th Senate bill to be debated in the House since the beginning of the 45th Parliament. In the Bloc Québécois's view, legislative work should be done by elected representatives. As such, members of the House of Commons should be the ones introducing bills, debating them and sending them to the Senate, which is how our system is set up. That is my opinion. I find it odd that this is now the 12th Senate bill to be debated in the House, considering that many of the elected members here have ideas for bills that we could debate, that could become law and that could, depending on one's point of view, improve society.

The order of precedence for private members' bills is determined by a draw. I may have a personal stake in this because my bill was the second last to be drawn for this Parliament. I am 258th on the list. If we continue to prioritize Senate bills, there is no chance a bill of mine will ever be studied here. I just wanted to point that out to the House before talking about Bill S‑211, which would regulate sports betting advertising.

The summary of the bill states the following: “This enactment provides for the development of a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada and to set national standards for the prevention of risk for persons negatively impacted.” It continues with the following: “It also provides for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to review its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising.” That second part is important, and I will come back to that.

The preamble states that “the proliferation of sports betting advertising and other forms of gambling activities has become pervasive in Canadian society”. That is a bit hyperbolic. It also states that “research has shown that increased exposure to advertising for gambling activities leads to increased participation in these gambling activities”.

I have worked in media and marketing for most of my life, and I can confirm that the purpose of advertising is to get people to buy more of the advertised product. It is only natural that the more advertising there is, the more people will be drawn to the product. That is how it works.

Bill S‑211 lists a number of things. Among them, it mentions “measures to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada, with a view to restricting the use of such advertising, limiting...the advertisements” and so on. It also mentions introducing measures to promote research, communication and information-sharing among the provinces related “to the prevention and diagnosis...of harmful gambling”. Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over this area, however. It further proposes establishing “national standards for the prevention of risk”. Once again, this involves the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Although we do not support Bill S-211, we do not object to the spirit or intent of this legislation. We recognize the problematic nature of sports betting advertising and its effects on vulnerable clienteles, including the risk of developing a harmful gambling problem. We also recognize that this kind of situation deserves attention.

We also agree that it is up to the government to implement measures to restrict sports betting advertising. Specifically, it is clear to me that youth and minors must be protected from illegal online gaming practices. We completely agree that it is appropriate to regulate online gaming advertising, but we categorically reject the idea that Bill S‑211 will solve a problem or that the federal government is responsible for addressing this problem. Moreover, it is our firm belief that this bill violates the federal-provincial gaming agreement, which has been in effect since 1985 and gets the job done.

It is the provinces that oversee, administer, and regulate legalized gambling. Bill S-211 reflects a desire for standardization, but I think it would be a serious step backward. The current model allows Quebec and the provinces to make choices and implement policies that align with their visions, values, and local priorities.

For example, there are differences between Quebec and Ontario. Ontario has established Ontario iGaming, an organization that regulates online gaming and issues operating licenses to private companies.

In Quebec, it is the opposite. In Quebec, the law prohibits these operators from operating, and Loto-Québec runs a program called Mise-o-jeu, which holds a monopoly on online sports betting.

Despite all that, the law still allows bettors to use foreign platforms that are not prohibited, but are not regulated either. That is where the federal government could step in. That is where the federal government could do its job, mind its own business, and regulate what happens on the Internet, because that falls within its jurisdiction.

In 2016, Quebec tried to implement a bill, Bill 74. The idea was to block unauthorized online gambling sites. The bill aimed to force Internet service providers to adopt systems that would block gambling sites operated by foreign companies. However, the case was dismissed in superior court as unconstitutional, or something like that. It encroached on the federal government's jurisdiction. That means that Quebec cannot make laws that encroach on federal jurisdictions, but the federal government is welcome to interfere in Quebec's business as it pleases. At some point, it might be better off looking after its own affairs and minding its own business. I hear a melodious voice saying that this is one more reason for independence. It was none other than my colleague from Joliette—Manawan, and I completely agree.

In short, we are by no means opposed to the federal government amending regulations and getting involved in regulating online gambling, for example by regulating platforms and standing up to the tech giants. It seems as though the federal government is afraid to take action and get involved in this matter, too. Obviously, if Ottawa decides to regulate the presence of these foreign online gaming platforms, that would have to be done in consultation with Quebec and the provinces to ensure once again that it meets the needs of those responsible for regulating online gambling, namely Quebec and the provinces.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach for all of Canada for an issue like this. The system in place has worked well since 1985. The provinces are satisfied, and so is Quebec. The federal government should not get involved. It may have good intentions, but the result is clumsy. That is why we believe that, once again, despite having good intentions to do the right thing and protect young people and vulnerable individuals from the scourge of harmful gambling, the federal government should mind its own business and leave the provinces to deal with this. The federal government should instead focus on regulating matters within its purview, namely foreign platforms and online companies that proliferate in our ecosystem without facing any consequences or regulation. To me, that is the root of the problem.

Once again, health issues such as mental health or gambling addiction are not a federal responsibility. These are matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government is going to meddle in this, and that will only complicate the process. The Bloc Québécois will therefore not support Bill S-211.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, which is the least we can do to tackle this emerging scourge in our public life, in the lives of our kids and teens and young adults, this scourge that affects and has the risk of tainting some of the most joyous activities that we take part in as a country.

It has now been five years since Bill C-218, which allows provinces and territories, through their conduct and managing responsibilities, to enable single sports betting.

Where are we now? What has happened in those five years? We have seen a massive expansion in sports betting and betting generally, gambling generally, enabled by some very potent online tools. Here are some examples of what is happening. I am going to focus my remarks especially on sports betting and the advertising components of that because I think that is the nub of the issue that is emerging at this point in time and that is causing so much public concern. It is a quiet concern at the moment, in households, in high schools, in university and college campuses, but it is starting to spread. We are starting to see the evidence of a real damaging phenomenon, which is being aided and abetted by ubiquitous advertising for online sports betting.

This is maybe a propitious time to have this conversation. We are about to have the NHL playoffs, in which three Canadian teams will be participating. We are about to enjoy and be one of the co-hosts of the FIFA championship. These are fundamentally positive experiences that unify and bring together millions of people around the world, millions of Canadians, especially young Canadians. It is especially pernicious that it is the joy of those activities that is subject to the advertising lure, not the activity itself but the betting on those activities, which I think really demands action.

Where are we in the last five years? Here is some information on young people and their online betting habits. According to a joint report by Greo Evidence Insights, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction and Mental Health Research Canada, Canadians who reported betting online in 2024 were 45 times more likely to qualify as problem gamblers than those who played the lottery exclusively. It is the toxic combination of the online tools that are available, plus the advertising lure and the great appeal of a fundamental activity that is joyous, that is resulting in some of these concerning trends.

Here is some more information from a study last month in Ontario: “The rate of young men contacting Ontario's mental health helpline for gambling-related problems has increased by more than 300 per cent after the province allowed private online gambling....The study further found that between the dawn of online gambling privatization in April 2022 and August of last year, the number of active player accounts per 100,000 people aged 15 or older increased from roughly 2,160 to more than 7,300, a 239 per cent increase.”

The stories that come out are sometimes told anonymously and sometimes told in hushed tones. There was a recent Maclean’s article about the growth of online betting and online sports betting in particular, and it very well captures how it is online sports advertising that is part of the key lure. This is a story about an anonymized man named Phil.

I quote from the Maclean's story: “Phil was a fantasy football fan and, suddenly, when he researched players and teams on TSN and other sites, his screen was covered with ads for betting platforms like FanDuel and DraftKings. His friends, with whom he’d dabbled in sports betting, were all switching to the apps. It was more exciting. They could bet not just on wins and losses—”

This was the original idea of the single sports betting.

“—but all sorts of in-game happenings: the number of touchdowns or goals, how many catches a specific player got, a coin flip. They could also bet on obscure sports, like Ping-Pong. Over the next few months, they devoted more of their time and money to betting.”

We know that online advertising. especially for online sports betting, has historically used celebrity likenesses. We are familiar with the use of Wayne Gretzky and Connor McDavid.

The Maclean's article continues: “One analysis by CBC Marketplace and the University of Bristol found that sports viewers in Ontario spent an average of 22 per cent of each game looking at gambling ads in some form, with the vast majority plastered directly on the court, play surface or rink itself. In one Raptors-Bulls broadcast, nearly 40 per cent of the game had sports-betting ads somewhere in frame.”

Sports are joyous activities. They are activities we want our children to participate in. These are people and teams we identify to our children as heroes. At the same time, we are potentially subjecting them to one of the most insidious forms of addiction, which can empty their pocketbooks and destroy their families. They are specifically targeted to young men through algorithmic means and various forms of targeting.

This is something the House cannot allow to stand. I appreciate the concerns of my colleague opposite about jurisdictional issues, but the evidence is too strong. The choice that Parliament made five years ago has, yes, resulted in the growth of an industry, but at that time, we did not have the technological power to identify and lure people in this way.

I want to share a news article from today's New York Times about a police chief in New Haven, Connecticut, who resigned abruptly after his deputies saw red flags, including missing money. He has pleaded not guilty to embezzling city money to gamble on sports. In December, he asked one of his lieutenants for a $500 loan. He took money that was to pay informants and left behind an IOU note.

Three of his deputies confronted him in January. When they gathered in his office, he explained that he was addicted to gambling. The deputies were confused. They had never seen him gambling, one said, according to an arrest warrant. The gentleman tapped his phone on a conference table and said, “It's on the app.” In a year, he had wagered about $4.46 million on DraftKings and FanDuel accounts, according to investigators. His career is over. His life is in shatters.

It is, again, the toxic combination of new technologies and the advertising that is leading to this. These are things we invite our kids to participate in. There is a toxic combination of new technologies and new marketplaces that the choice of the House five years ago opened up. It has resulted in a tsunami of advertising, celebrity figures and others to all be exposed, including outside provinces in which these marketplaces exist.

For instance, although Ontario runs the largest privatized electronic gaming marketplace, young people in provinces outside Ontario also have the potential to be exposed. We need to protect all young people and ourselves from this. We need to preserve and hold as sacred as possible the rituals and passions that make sports beautiful.

With respect to public health spaces, when it comes to online gambling and the prospect of it having an addictive quality, people conjure up restrictions on tobacco and alcohol advertising. Indeed, that is useful guidance. However, this is an even more pernicious issue, because when it comes to advertising gambling or advertising tobacco, we know that these are known vices. Sports is not a vice. Sports is a beautiful thing. We want more participation in sports. We want our young people to actually be inspired by their female and male sports heroes in professional leagues.

It is quite concerning to see the alignment in some cases between sports betting companies, the advertisers, the leagues and the teams, but we can do something about it. We can address the online advertising marketplace and other advertising marketplaces that lure people in.

A few months ago, Jim Bradley, an important person in my life and in the lives of many people in Ontario, passed away. The member for St. Catharines eulogized him very well in a member statement around the time of his passing. Jim Bradley was a lifelong defender of public health and a lifelong opponent of the expansion of gambling. The House has made a decision to honour Jim Bradley, to honour the young people we want to protect and to honour all people who are at risk of this kind of pernicious pull into an activity which can be controlled in a safe way but is not, because of the advertising and the very specific connections through online luring into unrestricted gambling on sports.

This is something we can do. The least we can do right now in the House is to pass the bill, send it to committee and give it the consideration it deserves as we take on this scourge.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.

This Senate bill, as we all know, seeks to develop a framework to regulate sports betting advertising in this country and set national standards for the prevention of risk for persons negatively impacted. It also provides for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, better known as the CRTC, to review its regulations and policies to reduce the incidence of harms resulting from sports betting advertising.

Let me speak to the heart of the matter. I spoke in the House in November 2020 in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code, single game sports betting. In that speech, I addressed the elephant in the room, which was problem gambling and addictions. As it stood at that time, there was absolutely no consumer protection or support built into the illegal sports betting systems for those struggling with gambling addictions resulting from illegal or offshore markets.

I want to remind everyone that the bill simply removed the federal restrictions, allowing provinces and territories the right to take over the single sports betting market, stemming the illegal offshore market, and to collect the tax, the profits, to use provincially instead of letting the money go to the offshore conglomerates.

In my province of Saskatchewan, I think the province has done a good job. It has shared the money with sports, recreation and culture. Alberta has done the same. Now, they are going to set up a heritage fund. Each province and territory makes its own decisions.

The bill provided provinces and territories with the ability to regulate and collect revenue, which could be used to fund mental health programs, research and addiction treatment, and it had widespread support from the provinces and territories. I should add that in the House the day we voted, the vote was 303 to 15. All parties were involved.

As members know, the regulation and administration of gambling has fallen directly in the purview of the provinces and territories since the 1985 federal agreement that transferred the rights to gaming to the provinces and territories. However, that does not preclude us from considering a federal framework in the interest of protecting vulnerable Canadians.

I am of an age to remember gambling in the shadows. It was the Irish Sweepstakes tickets. They were sold illegally in this country. I remember going into a room and someone would say to me, “Come here, I have these Irish Sweepstakes tickets.” That was back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Today, we cannot walk a block without seeing a Lotto 649 or Lotto Max sign lit up in neon. Confectioneries, gas stations, drugstores and grocery stores all have a huge variety of scratch tickets to choose from that are shiny and colourful, right in front of our eyes. If someone wins a free play, they are rewarded with flashing lights and called a winner. Everybody in the store can hear it.

Do members remember the five-minute television segments where the lottery numbers were drawn live while millions sat watching with their ticket or tickets in hand? These forms of advertising and promotion have been unchecked for decades. The television commercials, in my opinion, preyed upon vulnerable and desperate people. Anyone can buy a ticket today for a hospital home lottery, potentially winning a home, but what are the odds? The commercials seen today show a beautiful landscape and a lifestyle that most can only imagine.

In my estimation, fifty-fifty draws are the new fundraising technique. Young people are now coming door to door selling fifty-fifty tickets. We can scan the code, select how many tickets we want and then pay. We have seen the Toronto Blue Jays, especially this past year with their remarkable playoff run, reaching unheard of payouts with their fifty-fifty. Tens of millions of dollars have been raised.

It is the same thing in Western Canada with the Edmonton Oilers. They have a very successful fifty-fifty, as do a lot of teams in this country. I noticed that the Vancouver Canucks had a front page ad for a guaranteed super jackpot of $1 million in this Saturday's Vancouver Sun newspaper. We have all seen the advertising during a live game. It is non-stop, with networks even promoting the sale of tickets several times during a game.

Gaming has been around forever. This did not just start with my bill, Bill C-218. Gaming has been present for decades in this country, sometimes disguised as entertainment or as charity. Sports betting advertising, though, took the promotion to an all-time extreme. I feel that some provinces have dealt correctly with advertising, provinces such as B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I have talked to them about their concerns and about a framework. They all agree they would listen to a framework. Others, like Ontario and Alberta, want to see it wide, wide open. I have also talked to them about what they would like to see if a framework is in the offering.

We have seen advertising on NHL jerseys. We have seen professional players doing advertising about responsible gaming. There is no national consensus about how to manage the national advertising on sports. As a former sports broadcaster, I have to admit I was surprised at the barrage of ads that were running during the sporting events since the passage of Bill C-218 in 2020. The networks, which were starved for a new source of advertising revenue, in my opinion, exploited this golden opportunity to flood the airwaves with ads. What was always an accepted practice prior to the passage of Bill C-218 quickly became an avalanche of targeted, even predatory, and excessive advertising. It came at us from all sides, and I think the public was simply blindsided.

This has put the spotlight, unfortunately, on sports betting advertising, which we are here today to talk about with Bill S-211. I am supportive of putting a spotlight on addictions. I am very supportive of putting guardrails in place to protect the most vulnerable among us. However, let us not be short-sighted. This issue did not begin with sports betting ads, and it goes way beyond the sports betting ads. If we are going to take an honest look at the harms caused by gambling advertising, we must, I believe, consider all forms, like the lottos, the fifty-fifty, the hospital home lotteries and many more.

It has been five years since my bill, Bill C-218, passed, and every province and territorial jurisdiction is renewing their agreements this year with their gaming companies. I have spoken to a number of provincial counterparts about sports betting and their vision going forward. First off, I want to give a shout-out to the many provincial governments that did an exceptional job in writing their legislation for advertising. I have looked over their legislation, and for the most part, I think they got it right. They are dealing with advertising around school zones and dealing with minors, event hosting agreements, etc. It is very thoughtful and insightful legislation.

The issue of sports betting advertising lies with the rights holders of the broadcasting companies. It is expensive now when they buy the properties of the NHL, baseball, NFL and so on. It is tough to recoup their investment, so when the gaming companies saw this opportunity to exploit the market to the broadcasting companies, they were in desperate need of revenue. Let us be honest. This is why the Senate has targeted sports betting advertising. We are not the only jurisdiction in the world rethinking new ways to improve safety.

It has been 40-plus years since the federal government handed over gaming authority to the provinces. Therefore, it is time that we sit down and have a discussion about the framework.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S‑211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. This bill responds to very real concerns that have become apparent since sports betting became legalized.

My colleagues will agree that sport has a unique ability to bring people together. As a Quebecker, I grew up with the fierce rivalries and historic victories of the Montreal Canadiens. Last fall, we saw Canadians from across the country rally behind the Toronto Blue Jays during their incredible playoff run. This summer, the world will gather in Canada to celebrate the love of soccer during the FIFA World Cup.

Canadians know that sports betting advertising has become ubiquitous in sports broadcasts. No matter the sport, viewers are bombarded with ads encouraging them to get in on the action by placing a bet. Canadians of all ages are exposed to these advertisements. When a child sees their favourite athlete associated with a betting platform, it sends a clear message: Betting is part of sport. This kind of message exacerbates or even creates gambling problems among both vulnerable groups and children. It can also seriously impact the mental health of Canadians and, ultimately, the integrity of sport in Canada.

I believe it is our duty to take action to reduce these risks for the benefit of all Canadians, young and old. Bill S-211 is an excellent step towards preserving the integrity of Canada's sporting culture and Canadians' mental health in the face of sports betting advertising. It is up to us, as MPs, to ensure that this bill can bring about the positive change that lies at the heart of its objectives.

During the previous Parliament, the House passed Bill C‑218, the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Saskatoon South. The bill amended the Criminal Code to enable the provinces and territories to manage betting on races, fights and single sport events in their jurisdiction. Prior to the passage of Bill C‑218, Canadians participated in illegal betting, with no consumer protection, on offshore betting sites or with black market bookmakers with ties to organized crime. These illegal practices funnelled money out of Canadian communities and into the pockets of criminals. That money was not reinvested in communities, as is the case with revenue from legitimate, regulated lotteries.

Ontario is currently the only province that allows private gaming operators, through an agency called iGaming Ontario. Gaming companies are aggressively purchasing advertising slots on regional and national sports broadcasts. As a result, these ads are now being seen across the country, not just in Ontario.

The volume and prevalence of sports betting advertising may increase the risks for Canadians who participate in it. The role that advertising plays in influencing gambling is problematic. Studying effective measures to reduce these risks is an important issue that deserves our attention.

It is estimated that viewers watching sports see roughly three gambling ads per minute. That is on television. There are more than 19.3 million active online gamblers in Canada, making it one of the fastest-growing sectors. However, despite the fact that a regulatory framework for legalized sports betting was introduced in Bill C-218, Canada ranks eighth in the world in terms of money spent on offshore gambling, totalling approximately $4 billion per year. We need to better understand how these dynamics affect public health in order to implement measures that will reduce social harm and protect the most vulnerable from problem gambling.

This advertising is seen by sports fans of all ages, including children, as I mentioned earlier. Its pervasiveness during events, especially during sports broadcasts, makes it seem like a natural extension of the game. We know that most adults realize that these are sports-themed commercial ventures. Most of them remember a time when betting on sports was a crime, but the same cannot be said for the teenagers or children watching games with their parents. For young fans growing up in an age when their favourite athletes are appearing in ads for betting platforms, bets and contests on the sidelines of games have become a central feature of the sports experience.

Research has established a correlation between gambling advertising exposure, a more positive attitude toward gambling, increased gambling intention and increased gambling behaviour. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk of harm, in terms of both frequency and severity, especially among children, young adults and vulnerable individuals.

However, it is not just young people who are at risk. Older adults with mental health challenges or problems, such as cognitive decline, are also at increased risk of developing a gambling addiction. There is some evidence that suggests there is a link between exposure to advertising and the severity or intensity of gambling problems and other challenges. Regardless of our views on the place that sports betting should have in our society, we must recognize our responsibility to reduce the harms associated with activities like sports betting advertising, especially for vulnerable people.

Bill S-211 requires the federal government to establish a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising, provide tools for the prevention and identification of problem gambling, and support those affected by the harmful effects of gambling.

Responsible sports betting can have a place in our culture alongside a framework for informed and responsible gambling. Betting can be structured so that money is reinvested in our communities, rather than being siphoned off by criminals. It can be regulated so that vulnerable individuals and their loved ones do not face the very real health risks and other harms associated with gambling. We have an opportunity here to address this issue responsibly before sports betting is normalized through advertising in a way that fails to account for the risks associated with this activity.

Given the issues surrounding sports betting, and given the potential impact on children, young people, older people and vulnerable groups, I believe it is essential to address the issue of sports betting advertising which, as I mentioned earlier, has become ubiquitous. This bill will enable us to put up safeguards and provide information to help protect vulnerable groups, to have funds to reinvest in our communities and to ensure that sport remains a force that continues to unite our country.

We will be able to watch the 2026 FIFA World Cup together, safe in the knowledge that we are protecting our constituents.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill S-211, an act respecting the national framework on sports betting advertising.

I will begin with a simple observation. Canadians are noticing a change. Hockey games, football games, family shows, even online videos are now full of sports betting ads. What used to show up once in a while is now constant. They are tired of seeing their favourite celebrities and athletes encouraging gambling at every commercial break. For many Canadians, especially young people, these athletes and celebrities are role models. When those same public figures are used to promote gambling, it carries a level of influence that goes beyond typical advertisement.

In 2021, Parliament made the decision to legalize single-event sports betting. People were already doing it, often through unregulated sites. Bringing it into the legal system helped provinces regulate it, but since then, something else has happened: Sports betting has exploded, and Bill S-211 is trying to deal with it. At its core, this is about trying to get a better handle on this fast-growing industry.

Before we get into the contents of the bill, it is important to be clear about how things currently work. Provinces are mainly in charge of gaming, and some have stricter rules than others. They license companies, set rules and, in some cases, even operate the platforms themselves. However, advertising is different. Ads do not stop at provincial borders. We can watch the same advertisement if we are in Vancouver or Kitchener Centre. This is part of why the issue has become more noticeable. This also raises a basic question: Why is this one area of advertising so lightly regulated when so many others are tightly controlled?

We already regulate gambling differently from any other product, because it is not like other forms of advertising. This is something that can influence behaviour in ways that require extra caution. A great example that comes to mind is the limits placed on alcohol and tobacco advertisements. We have limits on when ads can run, where they appear and how they can be targeted. We need to protect our young people. It would be reasonable to ask why a similar thing would not apply here.

It is worth looking at the impact that this is having around us. In 2025, a study from the American Institute for Boys and Men found that in states with legalized sports betting, there was a clear sign of financial strain on families. Credit scores went down and more people fell into debt troubles, collections and missed payments. Bankruptcy rose by as much as 25% to 30% a few years after online betting was introduced.

It means that individuals struggling with addiction face constant triggers with very little protection. For someone working to regain control of a gambling addiction, constant exposure to these betting ads is not just background noise; it is a huge barrier on the path to recovery. It can be difficult to move forward when the same messaging appears during games, online and across multiple platforms. For those individuals, it is real. We need to recognize that constant exposure can make a difficult situation even harder.

Even beyond the statistics, there is a real impact here that we cannot afford to overlook. When gambling becomes more visible with constant exposure, it does not just affect the individual, but the entire household. Families feel the strain when money that should be going towards the mortgage or rent, groceries or savings is instead lost through gambling. It is also important to recognize that not all families feel this equally. For those already dealing with the rising cost of living or financial pressure, even small losses can have a much greater impact. In an economy where Canadians are already stretched thin, this is not a minor concern.

We also see the emotional toll this can take. It creates stress in relationships, arguments at home and, in some cases, it can cause a breakdown of trust within families. What may start as casual betting can turn into a pattern that becomes difficult to control. Unfortunately, that pressure is felt most by spouses, children and parents.

This is why exposure matters. When gambling is constantly promoted while the family is sitting down for Saturday night hockey, it normalizes behaviour and can carry big risks for households. It makes it much harder for those trying to step back from gambling to actually avoid it. For many fans, it is also changing the experience of the game itself. What used to be about the sports is increasingly tied to odds, bets and promotions.

We also know that protecting young people is a major concern here. A number of weeks ago, Dr. Shawn Kelly shared that in his practice, he is meeting children as young as 14 who are already struggling with gambling behaviours.

Dr. Kelly also shared that, even at home, his own son is starting to ask questions about the difference between over-under and plus-minus while watching hockey highlights. It is no wonder why when 21% of our sports broadcasting time is often made up of gambling advertisements. This issue is already part of our everyday conversation. When something moves from being niche to being a part of daily life so quickly, it is reasonable for us to take notice and analyze if the rules have kept pace.

At the same time, there is a broader question about responsibility. In a modern digital world, we live in a world where advertising follows people whether they are watching TV, streaming platforms or social media. The line between entertainment and promotion is becoming harder to see, especially for younger audiences. In that kind of environment, the question is not whether people should be allowed to participate in sports betting, but whether our current approach is clear, consistent and appropriate for the reality that we are seeing today.

It is also worth noting that Canada is not alone in facing this issue. Other G7 countries have already begun taking a closer look at how sports betting is advertised and the impact it can have. In some cases, they have introduced clearer national rules around when and how these ads can appear, especially during times when young people are likely to be watching. By comparison, Canada's approach remains more broken up. We rely heavily on provinces, industry standards and evolving guidelines, all without a national picture. It does not mean that those efforts are not important, but it does highlight that we may be lagging behind when it comes to having a universal understanding of the issue. This is a great way to begin closing that gap by making sure we are looking at this in a more complete way.

Conservatives believe in personal freedom. We believe that with freedom comes responsibility. Adults should be able to make their own choices, but freedom does not mean free-for-all. It does not mean flooding every sports game with gambling ads, and it does not mean ignoring the impact that this may have on families or young people. There is a clear difference between giving Canadians the freedom to make a choice and surrounding them with constant pressure to make that choice. That distinction matters.

Right now, different provinces and groups are trying different approaches. Some have rules on advertising. Industry groups are working on codes of conduct. The CRTC has also said it may align broadcasters with certain standards once they are finalized, so there is already activity happening across this country. The question is whether it is working well enough and whether it is consistent.

This is where Bill S-211 comes in. It would not ban advertising. It would not take away provincial control. Instead, it would ask for more coordination and for government to study what is actually happening. Some will say this is not enough, and others will worry that it goes too far. What it really does is ask for a clear picture of the situation and whether our current system is working as intended. We are not trying to change the entire system overnight, but to make sure we are asking the right questions and getting the full picture of what is happening. This industry is changing rapidly. The responsible thing to do would be for us to pause, review and ensure that there are safeguards in place and that they are doing what they are meant to do.

At the end of the day, this issue is not about being for or against sports betting. It is about whether the system we have today is keeping up with the reality Canadians are living in. With constant advertising and young people at higher risk of being exposed, and with families starting to feel real financial and emotional pressure, it is fair to ask whether more coordination is needed. Bill S-211 is a step toward bringing governments together, looking at the evidence and making sure that the rules reflect what is happening on the ground. Canadians expect us to take that kind of balanced, practical approach.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Waterloo has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to conclude the second reading of Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.

I would like to begin by thanking the constituents of my riding, Waterloo, as well as all those across Canada who are confirming the importance of this debate from coast to coast to coast.

Like many of my colleagues, I have heard and responded to many Canadians regarding the high volume of sports betting advertising, which is frankly destroying the simple joy of watching sports. As a reminder, this bill has been formally joint-seconded by members stretching across three political parties, who represent ridings from seven different provinces and one territory. This demonstrates sports betting advertising not as a partisan issue, but rather as a growing issue of concern that we need to address.

At the very least, the health and safety of Canadians is an area of shared jurisdiction. I invite my colleagues to support sending Bill S‑211 to committee so we can determine the appropriate role that the federal government can play while taking jurisdictional concerns into account.

While some provinces have been taking appropriate steps to combat the growing harms of sports betting and its advertising, overall their approaches have been fragmented, which has created gaps for abuse and the growth of illegal markets and addiction. We must all be able to agree that we need to rid our society of these issues. We have an opportunity to work together to determine the best approach, and committee is a great avenue for this.

It has now been five years since single-game sports betting was legalized in Canada. In this short time, the data is already showing drastic results. I recognize that all levels of government and all jurisdictions have a role to play. This Senate public bill that I have sponsored in the House aims to determine the federal government's role. We all know that the health and safety of Canadian people is a top priority for all governments, which confirms that the Government of Canada needs to take seriously a national framework on sports betting advertising by working with provincial governments, public health agencies, experts, the private sector, people with lived experiences, and so forth.

As we come to the end of second reading debate on Bill S-211, it is important to finish by reminding ourselves where the bill came from. Bill S-211 was reinvigorated by Senator Marty Deacon, a Canadian from Waterloo who has coached and led teams from the grassroots to the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games and the Pan American Games. She, like many members of the House, has witnessed first-hand what the power of sport and the opportunity of sport can be. I thank her for her leadership.

I also want to thank all my colleagues who worked on Bill S‑211 in the hallways, by email and in the House.

I want to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Northumberland—Clarke, who all spoke to Bill S‑211 in the first hour of debate on this bill at second reading in February of this year.

I also thank the member of Parliament for Drummond, the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, the member for Saskatoon South, the member for Compton—Stanstead and the member for Kitchener Centre, who spoke this evening to conclude Bill S-211's second reading.

The calibre of debate has really demonstrated the best of this place. It shows and proves that respectful debate and dialogue is possible. I call on all colleagues to move Bill S-211 forward to committee so proper conversation and scrutiny can take place on the correct path forward and to ensure that there are suitable parameters around sports betting advertising in Canada so we can return to the joy of watching sports with our loved ones.

I would be fine with passing the bill on division, but I know there are members who want to stand in this place in support of or in opposition to the bill, so later on I will be asking for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech, I am requesting a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.