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.