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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved that Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

I would like to begin by thanking Senator Marty Deacon for her dedication in crafting the bill, alongside her colleagues in the Senate, who unanimously voted to send the bill forward to us in the House. Senator Deacon is a Canadian 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.

Sports betting is legal in Canada, yet constituents in Waterloo, as well as constituents across multiple provinces and territories, have shared concerns regarding the abundance of advertisements, which now often overshadow the sport itself.

I have witnessed the joy of young people being given very basic equipment and facilities that allow them to learn and lead through sport. This is what sport should be. However, we are hearing directly from Canadians that the lines are being blurred. This is a problem we all bear some responsibility for. I include myself in this, as I voted in the 43rd Parliament for Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting.

Members will recall that, in 2021, Parliament passed Bill C-218, which amended the Criminal Code by removing the long-standing prohibition on betting on the outcomes of “a race...or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest.” It removed one line from the Criminal Code that referred to single sports betting. This, in effect, permitted provinces to allow for single sports betting in their own jurisdiction.

It is interesting that the ads we see that permeate every phone and television screen across the country are all from Ontario, the one province, for now, where private companies are allowed to operate and advertise. To date, every other province or territory allows for single sports betting only through its own lottery corporation, yet I and my colleagues have heard from our constituents from coast to coast to coast that they are growing tired of and increasingly concerned by seeing advertisements pushing sports betting. Sending the bill to committee for a thorough and thoughtful study would go a long way in trying to make this right.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, for seconding the bill. I also appreciate that Bill S-211 has been joint-seconded by many colleagues spanning three political parties and seven provinces and one territory. I and many colleagues are eager to respond to the growing concerns of constituents and to determine the correct framework forward.

I will just give a reminder that less than five years ago, to gamble meant leaving one's home and going, most likely, to a casino. I will elaborate on this a little bit later.

Many other countries, such as the U.K., Australia and Germany, have implemented similar policies to some degree. Italy has banned ads outright. Admittedly, for all these jurisdictions it remains a work in progress, but the takeaway is that other jurisdictions are at least doing something about it. Why are they? It is because they legalized sports betting well before we did, and they are reckoning with the outcomes. We have the benefit of foresight here. We can see where this is heading, and we cannot stand by and let our country and its citizens steer straight toward that iceberg by doing nothing.

Gambling is not a benign form of entertainment for everyone. For a significant number of Canadians, gambling is addictive, with consequences that extend well beyond the individual to families, workplaces and communities. Problem gambling is associated with financial distress, mental health challenges, relationship breakdowns, and, in severe cases, self-harm.

Sports betting is a unique and distinct form of gambling. Its abuse is deeply intertwined with users' love of sports: an activity that is rooted in community, identity and shared passion but that masks the true nature of the harm.

Sports bettors often develop a perceived personal connection to the athletes and teams they wager on. This familiarity can create a false sense of expertise and control, leading individuals to believe they can outsmart the game and heightening their risk of larger financial losses and addiction at higher rates.

Sports betting is widely perceived as socially acceptable, even celebratory. It is framed as a way for fans to connect over their shared love of sports, making its abuse more persuasive than in traditional forms of gambling. As a result, the social acceptance, encouragement and normalization of sports betting significantly downplay its serious risks and set it apart from how other forms of traditional gambling are understood.

The digital era has expanded access to sports gambling-related harm in an unprecedented manner. Whereas individuals once had to physically travel to a casino or other betting venue, today this access follows users around, with virtual betting sites existing in the user's pocket. The sort of addiction we have with our phones and social media, which we have all been guilty of at one time or another, applies directly to gambling habits as well.

An article that was shared with me, from the American Institute for Boys and Men, states:

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

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

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

The list goes on.

Online expansion of sports gambling promotion has made access to abuse easier, while the consequences feel less severe.

Public safety is a top priority for the Government of Canada. The health and safety of Canadians is, at minimum, a shared responsibility. Canada has long recognized that addictive products require a different regulatory approach. Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and vaping products are all legal but are not treated as ordinary consumer goods. Their advertising is restricted, and their promotion and regulation are grounded in a public framework that prioritizes harm reduction, particularly for young, vulnerable people. These harms have all been treated with a national coordinated approach that has been shown to be effective.

June 29, 2026, will mark the fifth anniversary of legalizing sports betting in Canada. Enough time has now passed since the expansion for its impacts to become increasingly visible. A recent report released this past November by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that 9.1% of Canadians are classified as experiencing problem gambling. The people most affected by problem gambling harms were those who engaged primarily in online gambling, specifically young men aged 18 to 29.

The mental health harms associated with problem gambling are profound. People experiencing problem gambling were four times more likely to report anxiety and depression, four times more likely to have thought about suicide, and seven times more likely to have made a suicide plan in the past year. These findings make clear that gambling-related harm is not limited to financial loss but also constitutes a serious and growing public concern.

It is vital to recognize that national gambling statistics include only people above the age of 18. This is because research is limited to individuals who are legally permitted to gamble. Therefore, current national data does not reflect minors engaging in online sports betting, but we know that these youth exist, through the abundant sharing of stories and lived experiences that I and many colleagues are encountering.

Through consultations with the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine, my team met with clinicians and pediatricians who work directly with impacted youth. These frontline professionals reported a growing number of children and adolescents presenting with harms related to online sports gambling. These clinicians reported treating children as young as 13 years old for severe problem gambling related to online betting.

In these cases, the consequences extended beyond the individual child, placing significant emotional and financial strain on families and creating serious disruptions within the home. Pediatrician and youth mental health advocate Dr. Shawn Kelly shared that his own seven-year-old child asked about sports betting terminology after being exposed to gambling advertisements during a televised sports event in their own home. As a result, sports programming is no longer permitted in their household.

These are only a few of the accounts heard from constituents spanning the country that make clear that youth exposure to online gambling is not hypothetical; it is already producing real and harmful impacts, underscoring the urgent need for stronger protections regarding persuasive media advertisements.

When gambling-related harms occur, families are often left to carry the burden. Parents and siblings must cope with the emotional strain, financial stress and breakdowns in trust that can follow a loved one's gambling addiction.

What is especially painful for many families is the way this issue has begun to intrude on one of the few remaining shared family activities, which is watching sports together. For too many households, sports have shifted from a source of connection and joy to a source of anxiety and blatant annoyance.

The volume of betting advertisements has been so abrasive during sports games that in 2024, on average, betting ads occupied up to 21% of advertisements during broadcast games in Canada. Its proliferation across all marketing forums is overshadowing the purpose of the game itself, which is to build community around cheering a team on.

On that note, I must say, in the Olympics, go team Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

That is right.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the intent in 2021, when Parliament legalized single-game sports betting in Canada. This was achieved with the objective of bringing gambling activity out of the illegal market and into safe, regulated frameworks. The legislation granted provinces and territories authority to regulate their own sports betting markets to promote responsible gambling practices, but since its legalization, provincial and territorial approaches have been fragmented, creating gaps across Canada.

While most provinces have stuck to a public, regulated model with government oversight of the industry, Ontario, for example, has opened its market and allows private gambling companies to operate and advertise in the province. What begins as persuasive advertisements through the province can quickly and easily turn into engagements in illegal, unproductive or offshore activity.

It should bother every jurisdiction that has not loosened its market that its own populations are being encouraged to place bets with companies that legally they cannot bet with. If they have held back on privatizing because of a more cautious approach, then why should their populations be bombarded with ads from one province that has decided to open the floodgates? This is at least one thing a national framework would undoubtedly address.

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

Problem gambling is federally recognized as a public health concern and warrants the same seriousness of treatment as other harms in Canada. Like tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and vaping, gambling risks are not distributed evenly across the population. Aggressive marketing can exacerbate harm among the most vulnerable to addiction. When betting odds, celebrity endorsements and winning inducements are broadcast repeatedly during sporting events or on social media platforms watched by millions of Canadians, including an abundance of children, we are no longer talking about neutral information; we are talking about normalization and encouragement of risky behaviour that is more easily accessible than ever before.

Even in Ontario, where celebrities and athletes were recently banned from promotions, there are some workarounds. These individuals can appear in what purport to be public service ads put out by companies that encourage a person to “bet within your limits”. This is almost worse, because it still affiliates an athlete with a brand, but it also tells people that as long as they know their limits, gambling is a safe and healthy practice.

Bill S-211 recognizes this reality. Bill S-211 acknowledges a legitimate public concern in protecting Canadians who are most vulnerable to the proliferation of advertisement in recent years. It calls for a unified approach across Canada to close the gaps in advertising abuse to protect youth and those most vulnerable to persuasive marketing and addiction.

I hope all members will recognize the merits of having committee study this bill and that all members will engage in this discussion so that we can do our best to keep Canadians safe.

While I am on my feet, I know this week has been tough, especially because we have lost young Canadians. We owe it to these young people to make sure their future is bright and frameworks are in place that work for them. I want the communities that have been impacted to know that the people of Waterloo are with them in our thoughts and prayers, and we will continue to stand by them.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have learned in researching this bill is that a lot of these gambling sites will even offer money in order to get people to come back to the app. If someone has not used their app for a while, it will say, “Here is $10 to go gambling.”

I am wondering if this bill will address that as well.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very honest. What we are bringing forward with this Senate public bill that is now in the House is that we need to talk about this issue. We need to make sure the framework works, and that is a concern that I have also heard. What has concerned me even more is that the first time somebody is gambling online, they are being given an amount of money, so it is not going to cost them anything, but the online site will pay for it. It just reminds me of how drugs went through communities as well, so if this framework needs to address that, it is important. We need to look at jurisdiction. The committee would be able to bring in the experts to make sure that we get it right.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to take up a bill from the Senate in the House, especially when there are imperfections.

I would like to note my colleague's desire to start a public debate about an issue that affects people's health and that has significant financial implications. Obviously, this encroaches on the provincial jurisdictions and that of Quebec. I would like her to tell us about that.

Her research led her to Quebec's sports betting model. I would appreciate if she could tell the House more about that.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the question and the opportunity to have this discussion.

I think some provinces have a model that works very well, but others have some issues. I think we need to look at whether this falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories or whether it falls within the federal government's jurisdiction and whether it has a responsibility.

That is why I think we need to send this bill to committee, where we can hear from witnesses and experts and have a discussion to ensure that the federal government is doing the work it needs to do while respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I met with the Canadian Gaming Association or the advertisers in question here late last year. Their position is that the provinces already have enough regulation and that there are enough controls already to protect Canadians. What is her response to this position from the industry?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, acknowledging that there is a diversity of opinions, there are a lot of organizations that have been contacting me and Senator Marty Deacon. As well, I know the member chairs the heritage committee.

We just legalized sports betting in Canada five years ago. We are starting to see some of the concerns and impacts coming from it. My concern is that the federal government did legalize sports betting in Canada, and we have a responsibility for the health and safety of Canadians, just like the provinces and the territories do. I commend the regulations, but we are recognizing that there are different models and that certain provinces have, I would say, imposed onto the space of other provinces. Usually, when it comes to interprovincial matters, the federal government needs to play a role, so I would just like to have the conversation.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent description of this bill. It is not really talking about jurisdictions or provinces per se, but I want the member to talk about jurisdiction in terms of international borders, especially the United States. Some of the platforms the member talked about actually originate in the United States and are being advertised on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Has the government actually considered that, or is it going to wait for the bill to go to committee?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a bill could only be amended or broadened at committee, so that is where the work would be done. What I am presenting through this bill is the value and importance of having a discussion around a potential framework. I did refer to unprotected and offshore sites, so that is where the federal government probably does have some responsibilities.

We know that the intention was to give provinces and territories jurisdiction, but we are recognizing that people are getting advertising across the country, and it might be starting from one place and not in their own backyard. We ask whether that is a responsibility of the federal government, and if it is, let us do something about it. Let us make sure we have a response before more harms are caused.

The House resumed 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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. I want to thank the member for Waterloo for bringing this forward.

When the average Canadian sits down to enjoy a sports broadcast, they are inundated with a barrage of endless advertisements for sports betting sites and online casinos. For example, in Ontario, a viewer can literally not go a minute without being exposed to three gambling references during a sports broadcast.

In 2024, the CBC's Marketplace did a report with the University of Bristol. They found that over multiple NHL and NBA games, on average, 20% to 21% of the viewing time was spent being exposed to gambling advertisements. That is a massive volume of advertising.

While online gambling is legal, we know there is the potential, as with many other addictive activities, to destroy relationships, livelihoods and families. That is why I believe it is important that sports betting advertising be treated similarly to alcohol, tobacco and cannabis advertising.

We have seen the impact of the increase in sports betting advertising in Ontario. Ontario's growth in active player accounts on gambling sites has exploded over the last five years. In just two years, it went from 490,000 accounts at the beginning of 2023 to over 1.3 million by the end of 2024. The advertisements in question are clearly working to build a player market. That is obvious because of the massive increase in exposure to these online gambling practices.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction recommends that players not spend more than 1% of their pre-tax household income. In Ontario, that is about $89 a month. However, the average player in Ontario spends $283, three times the recommended amount that experts consider to be safe.

What harms are these players now being exposed to? The studies conducted by this organization, to build the guidelines around this, said that an individual who spends more than 1% of their household income is 4.3 times more likely to experience financial harm, 4.7 times more likely to experience relational harm, 3.9 times more likely to experience emotional harm and 4.4 times more likely to experience health problems related to their gambling than a low-stakes or non-gambler. These are significant risks, and the harm is relentless and unregulated.

The exposure to online gaming advertisements has caused a 265% increase in those exposed to these harms. These harms are not limited to the individual gambler either. The data on relational harm shows that high gambling causes risk to children, spouses, parents, co-workers, employers and people in a 360° relation to the gambler.

Many sports betting sites also use questionable tactics to keep gamblers coming back, like offering them free money or free credit. One Canadian man who started sports betting when he turned 18 said, “Imagine someone going for sobriety being given a free drink.... It should be illegal to give money to gamblers.”

I want to highlight a particular segment of the population that seems most at risk of experiencing the harms of online gambling and sports betting. The American Institute for Boys and Men has found that the negative financial impacts of sports betting are more pronounced for young men, especially in low-income areas.

A recent Maclean's investigation on the harms of the explosion of online gambling references Dr. Nigel Turner, a scientist at the Toronto Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where he specializes in gambling research. Dr. Turner has analyzed calls to the Ontario problem gambling helpline, and he found that when iGaming Ontario launched in 2022, calls to that helpline jumped by 30%, and they have risen every year. He notes that the demographics of callers have changed to include younger and younger people, especially young men.

On Tuesday, my colleague from York—Durham was reflecting on becoming a new father and emphasized that “Strong and healthy families are built on strong, committed and masculine fathers.” He also said, “Our kids need strong fathers and families, our communities need strong fathers and families, and our country needs strong fathers and families. I will be a champion for that.”

This is a great focus and an inspiration for young men. However, many young men are now finding themselves trapped in the addiction of gambling, of sports betting. This is destroying their relationships, families and communities. Research has shown that hazardous gambling is correlated with increased rates of anxiety and depression. Young men who engage in it are more likely to slide into a full-blown gambling addiction, and boys who frequently gamble miss classes, perform worse in school, drink more alcohol and participate in other risky behaviours at higher rates, often to cope with gambling-related stresses. These anti-social patterns compound, and the gambling sucks up their time and mental energy, which might otherwise go to developing relationships, hobbies and personal growth.

Dr. Turner warns us that we are also seeing an increase in sports betting advertising that includes celebrities. He says that this is telling young men, a population vulnerable to gambling, that it is a great thing to do and shows them someone they admire. Canada is better when we champion young men, calling on them to be builders and contributors, and to take responsibility. That is why I think this bill is a good step, and I am happy to support it.

Bill S-211 would require the minister of Canadian heritage to develop a national framework on sports betting advertising. It would also mandate the CRTC to review the regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidences of harm resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising. The CRTC already regulates advertisements to children, as well as alcohol ads, tobacco ads and marijuana ads, but I would suggest that sports betting ads be part of this as well. Bill S-211 would align gambling policy with how we treat these other activities.

In preparing for this speech, I had a chance to read the Cardus memo on the former bill, Bill S-269, as well as the report on the harms of single sport betting in Ontario. Cardus supports Bill S-211 and had recommendations to further strengthen the bill. For example, Cardus recommends to “Strengthen subsection 3(2)(a) with a view to a complete ban on sports betting advertising, instead of simply restricting its usage.” This would have a great impact on those who are vulnerable to gambling addiction, particularly on minors and boys. Alternatively, they suggest at minimum moving toward a ban on “advertising for sports betting during sports broadcasts” or requiring “the national framework to identify measures to ban advertising for in-game bets.”

Operators would remain legal and regulated, but they would no longer be permitted to aggressively market an addictive product to the general public during sports events. I would also note that the Canadian Medical Association calls for sports betting ads to be restricted during sports broadcasts. The family physician Shannon Charlebois, who is a medical editor at the Canadian Medical Association Journal, stated:

I have seen people's lives fall apart at all ages, from all walks of life, whether it's an accountant with a career behind him, or a kid who's just looking to maximize his college fund who then had lost it all within a matter of a few weeks.

She notes that, while online sports betting sites say they are only for people who are 19 and older, youth are being inundated with these advertisements that equate enjoying sports with betting.

As well, Cardus recommends adding to subsection 3(2)(b) a requirement that the measures include ways that Crown corporations could contribute financially to solving the problem of gambling addiction, to ensure that they put money into prevention and treatment, with the contributions being linked to their marketing expenses.

Research shows that there is a clear causal relationship between advertisement and increased gambling activities, so if gambling companies are going to engage and be responsible partners in advertising, they should also be part of the solution. We need to put young men, families and Canadians ahead of corporate profits.

Finally, Cardus recommends adding “a new clause under subsection 3(2) to identify measures to improve the efficacy of gambling prevention messaging.” It talked a bit about the “Know your limits, play within it” piece and how it was not necessarily effective. I think that would be a helpful suggestion. I also recommend that the committee, when it is studying this bill, talk to Dr. Nigel Turner from the University of Toronto.

For those reasons and more, I will be supporting the bill, and I urge all members to support it. With my final words, I would like to say that this is exactly the way legislation has to work in this country. We legalized sports betting a number of years back. Now we are reassessing whether that is working. I look forward to that conversation.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my support, as many other members have done, for the communities affected by the events of this week, specifically Tumbler Ridge and Kitigan Zibi.

Bill S-211 provides for the development of a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising by establishing national standards. No one will be surprised to hear me say once again that Canada is jumping headfirst into areas of jurisdiction that belong exclusively to Quebec and to the other Canadian provinces. As with many other national strategies, we in the Bloc Québécois are not at all happy about them.

I would like to remind the House of one thing: The Bloc Québécois recognizes that sports betting advertising and its effects on vulnerable groups are harmful. We also recognize that pathological gambling is a public problem that requires public authorities to address the issue in a consistent manner and to invest the necessary funds, because people are suffering because of it.

As I mentioned, each province is responsible for taking action and implementing measures to restrict sports betting advertising, as well as lottery and gaming advertising. We recognize that, for many young people and minors, sports betting advertising, which is primarily online and can feature spokespersons like athletes and celebrities who are worshipped by young people, is a problem that needs to be addressed.

However, again, it is not the federal government's responsibility. I would remind the House of the federal-provincial agreement on gaming signed in 1985. Amendments to the Criminal Code changed gaming in Canada by consolidating power in the provinces. As a result, the federal government ceded all jurisdiction over gaming to the provinces. Quebec and the provinces are the ones operating, administering and regulating legalized gambling.

It should be noted that in 2021, this Parliament passed the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, which amended the Criminal Code to make it lawful for the government of a province, or a person or entity licensed by the lieutenant governor in council of that province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in the province that involves betting on a race, other than a horse-race, or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest. I think it is clear that regulating sports betting is the responsibility of the provinces.

The way sports betting, racing, and gaming are managed today is different because each province has chosen to adapt its regulations to its own context and interpretations, and that is perfectly fine. Quebec and each of the provinces and territories have different ways of seeing things and different vulnerabilities. Any regulatory or legislative changes that aim to achieve this are welcome, because they give provinces the power to act as they see fit and the agility to act quickly.

That is what happened on the ground. The Ontario government, for example, opted for an open market. It created iGaming Ontario to regulate online gaming and issue operating licences to private companies. Quebec, on the other hand, went a different way. Through its Mise‑o‑jeu program, Loto‑Québec decided to take charge of online sports betting itself. This is a societal choice that is up to each province. Do I agree with the Ontario model? The answer is no, not especially. However, I respect that government's choice.

Quebec decided to retain control of legalized gambling through its Mise‑o‑jeu program. In 2016, acting within its public protection jurisdiction, Quebec passed a law banning unlicensed online gaming sites by requiring Internet service providers to implement systems for blocking access to them. The Superior Court struck down that Quebec law because, in its view, it infringed on an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, namely telecommunications, as well as on the Canadian Criminal Code.

What does the bill we are debating do? It does not attempt to regulate the Criminal Code of Canada or federal broadcasting legislation. However, that is where the problem lies, as illustrated by the court's ruling. That is why Quebec cannot ban unapproved online gambling sites from operating within its territory. That is why there has been an increase in the number of platforms and ads. We are not opposed to studying a bill that would address this issue, but we have reservations about the desire to establish a national framework to regulate advertising. In our view, this is another perfect example of Ottawa encroaching on a jurisdiction that is not its own.

The Act respecting the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux, which created Quebec's gaming board, contains a very interesting provision: section 23. Subsection 6 states that the board is responsible for “monitoring advertising and educational programs relating to alcoholic beverages and to activities governed by the Act respecting racing and the Act respecting lotteries and amusement machines”.

Quebec's regulations are very clear on sports betting and advertising. According to the law, a gaming and gambling company must not promote activities to minors under any circumstances. Its advertisements must portray games of chance and gambling in a responsible manner without encouraging excessive gambling. In fact, there are a lot of ads during sporting events, and that is fine. Advertising for games of chance and gambling also must not be misleading or inaccurate. For example, advertisements that promise easy winnings and give the impression that the player is certain to win are prohibited. Another very important rule is the ban on this type of advertising in traditional media during programs that are likely to be watched by minors or an impressionable young audience.

Quebec already regulates online gambling advertising. What the federal government wants to do here is tell us what to do and how to do it, once again, as though we were incapable of doing so and as though every province did not have that ability. I just demonstrated that we do. I presume the concern expressed by some members stems first and foremost from their concerns about their own provinces. This bill comes to us from the Senate, but I would advise the member sponsoring the bill to go to Ontario and advocate for a change in the rules in her province. Just because we do not have a uniform approach does not mean that a loophole exists. Not all problems can be approached in the same way in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and, I would even say, at the local level. The approaches have to be different. That is why we are talking about decentralization. That is why remote regions are asking for the tools they need to develop economically. A one-size-fits-all approach never works.

Since we are talking about sports betting, I will use sports examples to illustrate my point. Each Canadian team in the NHL has opted for a different development model. The Maple Leafs have chosen to overpay their four best players. The Oilers have decided to invest a little bit everywhere, except in a goalie. The Jets invested heavily in a goalie, but less elsewhere. The Canucks and Flames decided to rebuild. The Montreal Canadiens decided to rebuild around young players: Caufield, Suzuki, Hutson, Demidov. Each team chose a model that suits them. Each team will try to win the Stanley Cup. A team using any of the three models could make the playoffs and try to win the Stanley Cup, except perhaps the Maple Leafs. I am still a realist, after all.

Because they each have their own way of doing things, Montreal and Edmonton could make it to the Stanley Cup final and achieve the same result. At this point, it is all a matter of chance. Some of them may have other goals for the time being because they have not reached the same place yet. That is what Quebec is asking for: Let us manage our affairs as we see fit in order to achieve the goals we want to achieve.

Even if Bill S‑211 was truly intended to address public health issues, changes would have to be made to restrict the provinces from issuing private contractor licences, for example. That could reduce competition from online sports betting sites, which are all fighting for a vulnerable clientele. Where are the amendments to the excise tax, for example? Where are the funds earmarked for health and social services to help Quebec and the other provinces offer better services to those affected?

No, all that this bill proposes to do is introduce a national framework. We know how much it costs to manage a national framework program. Take the child care system, for example: It cost $50 million just to send a cheque to Quebec. How much will taxpayers spend on drafting a Canada-wide strategy? How much more will they spend to cover the different stakeholders' travel and accommodation expenses? This bill is another example of Ottawa spending money so that it can interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In closing, I nevertheless wish to underscore the importance of this evening's discussion.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill S-211 today, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting, for many of the reasons we have heard already this evening.

I am not someone who spends a lot of time watching professional sports, I will admit, but they are often on my TV when I am home with my family, and even I have noticed that sports betting ads are ubiquitous. It has become a topic of conversation in our house that people are not just watching sports anymore; they are participating with their money. They can bet on the next play of the football game they are watching or how many points a professional baseball player might make. Every few minutes, there is an ad encouraging Canadians to gamble, because watching sports seems to no longer be enough of an experience in itself.

Our sports, sports figures and teams are part of our national identity. Sports have long brought Canadians together, and now Canadians have to navigate endless gambling advertisements in order to watch a game or a competition. For many people, this presents a risky temptation.

Back in the early 2000s, when I was a journalist, I got to know a prominent Hamilton man who lost his career due to a gambling addiction. We spoke at length about this, and he introduced me to some of the men he had met at Gamblers Anonymous. All of them were people who had important careers until they lost everything due to their gambling addictions, including a lawyer who was supposed to be appointed to the Superior Court bench the same day that police were raiding his offices to find evidence that he had stolen money from clients to fuel his gambling addiction.

We did a whole long TV series about this, and these people told me how difficult it was to resist when they were routinely bombarded by advertising that compelled them to keep spending money at casinos and other gambling venues. Remember, this was back in the early 2000s. It was before the tsunami of social media and the avalanche of betting sites we have available online today.

Today the world is different. We know this. It is not just adults in the prime of their careers who are falling into destitution and despair due to addictive behaviours. Elderly people, vulnerable people and people susceptible to mental and physical harms are all being bombarded with the same sports advertising. Today children are glued to their devices. They are watching sports and, inevitably, are fed a constant stream of sports betting advertising. Gambling has become normalized as a part of sports. This is what our children are learning as they grow up.

I chair the permanent Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We recently completed a study on the impacts of social media on young people, and we heard that many online applications used by children encourage addictive behaviour. The gamification of everything means that our kids are becoming addicted to their favourite vice earlier and earlier in life. They are learning how to become addicts.

We heard this testimony from several witnesses. For example, Maude Bonenfant, the Canada Research Chair in Gaming, Technologies and Society and a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, told us that platforms use games of chance and money. They use gambling as a strategy to keep users engaged as long as possible, and the line between video games and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred, so video games are becoming more like gambling. There is more betting within video games, and the algorithms are increasingly sophisticated, with the aim of keeping kids immersed in online content through gambling.

Michael Cooper from Mental Health Research Canada told us that one addictive behaviour can be a catalyst for another addictive behaviour. For example, people who spend more than six hours online are more than twice as likely to be at high risk for alcohol and cannabis abuse and a host of other addictions. The same is true for gambling. This normalizing of gambling in everyday life can mean, according to Cooper, that our ability to regulate ourselves in the face of temptation is broken.

Today, we are inundated with enticements to gamble, particularly in sports. Bill S-211 is a first step in preserving the integrity of the sports culture in Canada, but it is also about preserving the mental health of Canadians.

Our colleague from Waterloo and other members have spoken about the former Bill C-218, the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act. This was something Parliament brought and became law in 2021, because before that, all we had was black-market bookies with ties to criminal organizations.

The bill was an attempt to put the industry under the purview of the provinces so that it had greater oversight. However, today, only Ontario in Canada authorizes third party gambling operators, as we have heard several times tonight, and sports betting operators have taken full advantage. They have purchased oodles of ad space on regional and national broadcasts, particularly on sports channels during sporting events. Some estimates say that we are subjected to three gambling ads every minute while we are watching sports on TV. We now see sports betting ads even when we are watching live. They appear on athletes' jerseys and on the boards around the ice rinks.

In Canada today, we have more than 19 million active online gamblers. This is one of our fastest-growing industries. Canada rates eighth in the world for the most money spent on gambling, about $4 billion every year.

Also, as I impressed upon this chamber earlier, children, teens and vulnerable people are also watching these games. They are talking about the experience the next day with their friends and their community. Do we really want them to think of gambling as a normal part of taking in a sporting activity, or even that a person has not really experienced a game if they have not put some money down on an outcome or player? We need to deeply consider whether we want important, healthy Canadian cultural institutions to be intertwined with the often harmful habit of gambling.

Research shows that the more we are exposed to gambling ads, the more positive our attitude becomes toward gambling, intentions to gamble become greater and gambling activities increase. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that almost one in four young people who bet online reported harms due to gambling behaviour, and that online sports betting is associated with double the risk of gambling harms compared to other forms of gambling. Also, sports betting advertising is four times more appealing to children than adults.

I learned a lot about the significant impacts that problem gamblers face when I did that news series 25 years ago: impacts on their own health, on their mental health and on their well-being, and equal impacts on their family and their loved ones. Problem gamblers are four times more likely to have anxiety and depression, and seven times as likely to have planned suicide in the past 12 months. Excessive advertising can exacerbate all of these issues, as I heard from problem gamblers, and that was a quarter century ago, long before the onslaught of the advertising we face today. Researchers say that there is a possibility of a connection between the extent of exposure to advertising and the intensity of the gambling addiction.

Bill S-211 asks the federal government to establish a national framework, regulate sports betting advertising, provide tools for the prevention and diagnosis of gambling and support those who are impacted by a harmful gambling addiction.

Canadians agree that something should be done. In 2024, a poll by Maru Group found that most Canadians have a negative attitude toward gambling ads: 75% say that we need to protect children and youth from gambling ads, 66% say that those commercials should not be allowed during live broadcasts and 59% believe in a national ban on this type of advertising. When we pair gambling with the broadcast of a game, we normalize sports betting as an integral part of the sport experience. It is not.

I will leave members with words from Bruce Kidd, a retired professor of sports policy. He wrote an article in The Globe and Mail on February 7, in which he established that about four million Canadians, the population of about Alberta, are at risk of a gambling addiction. He said:

Think about multiples of the number of people who watch a Blue Jays game in Rogers Stadium. And then think about their families. If we fail to pass Bill S-211, those will be the numbers of...people we’ll have abandoned to the careless greed of the advertisers who think they’re doing their part by saying over and over again—and disingenuously, of course—“Please gamble responsibly.”

[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.