Canada's Sports Betting Ad Bill Clears Committee With Softer Duties

Bill S-211 has left the Commons heritage committee with a longer deadline, looser consultation duties and no in-game advertising ban. It requires a framework, not a ban, and the Senate would still have to accept the changes.

• The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage passed Bill S-211 on 3 November with amendments, on division and without a recorded vote, according to InGame
• The bill requires a national framework on sports betting advertising and a regulator's review, and has never contained the blanket ban described in our September 2025 report
• Reported Liberal amendments double the framework deadline to two years, replace "national standards" with "clinical guidelines" and turn "must" consult into "may"
• A Conservative proposal to require a ban on in-game betting advertising failed, as did every other Conservative amendment
• No date is set for the next House stage, and Canada's Ontario and Alberta governments are reported to oppose the bill

The Committee Sent an Amended S-211 Back to the House

The committee's 3 November meeting was set for officials' evidence and clause-by-clause review of the bill, sponsored by Senator Marty Deacon and Liberal MP Bardish Chagger. On 4 November LEGISinfo still listed it at committee, and neither the amended text nor the minutes had been published, so the changes below are as InGame reported them.

A Framework, Not a Ban

The version passed by the Senate on 21 October 2025 requires the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop a national framework. It must identify measures "with a view to restricting the use of such advertising", including limits on the number, scope or location of adverts and limits or a ban on celebrity and athlete participation, and set national standards on preventing and diagnosing harmful gambling. That text sets a report within one year of coming into force, and an implementation report within five years after that. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) must review its own rules and report within a year of royal assent.

Our 2025 report called this a complete ban on all sports betting advertising. That was wrong: the first-reading text contains no such ban, and the Senate committee reported it unamended. Deacon's preference is another matter: "I'd love a full ban on advertising," she told MPs, according to The Wire Report.

What Changed in Committee

Only Liberal amendments passed, InGame said. The report moves from one year to two, and publication from 10 to 15 days after tabling. "Minister" no longer means the Minister of Canadian Heritage but a "member or members of the King's Privy Council for Canada". "National standards" becomes "clinical guidelines", "must" consult becomes "may", and six named ministers give way to "anyone the Minister wishes".

Conservative MP Andrew Lawton's in-game ban failed after Liberal MP Fares Al Soud said such detail would "reduce the flexibility" of the framework. Amy Awad, a Canadian Heritage director general, said omitting it would not rule it out: "Broad language allows for anything to be put in." Scott Hutton, the CRTC's secretary general, said the agency regulates broadcast advertising, not billboards or transit.

Who Stands Where

The House passed second reading 291 to 28 on 22 April, backed by Liberals, the NDP and most Conservatives, The Wire Report said. The Bloc Québécois objects on provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Gaming Association's brief says the bill "would encroach" on that jurisdiction, and that Alberta and Ontario "have formally communicated" their opposition to Ottawa. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the bill assumes a regulatory gap without showing one, InGame reported. Think tank Cardus sought a full ban or one during live broadcasts, and RG reported that a dozen mental health groups and 28 addiction researchers sought national action.

"Final Vote" Overstates How Close This Is to Law

An amended bill still faces report stage and third reading, and the Senate passed a different text. Under House procedure a bill needs every stage in both Houses before royal assent, so the Senate would need to accept the changes. InGame counted 23 House sittings before the 11 December adjournment, and RG noted that a similar bill, S-269, passed the Senate in 2024 and went no further. Royal assent would start only a two-year clock on a report, a plan and not a rule.

The Amendments Trade Force for Room

The reported changes make S-211 easier to pass, but that is no industry win. The association asked for a non-interference clause and a mandatory provincial roundtable, and neither is reported to have passed; if "may" covers the whole consultation clause, provinces could lose a statutory seat. Awad's remark also keeps an in-game ban available later.

The Evidence Fight Moves to the Framework

The association says advertising steers players to licensed sites, citing Ipsos research that 91.1% of Ontario's online gamblers use them. Deacon cites a CBC and University of Bristol count of 3,000 gambling messages across seven playoff games, and a study found Ontario gambling-disorder emergency visits nearly doubled after its market opened. Alberta's new market raises the stakes. Hutton's limit matters too: a framework reaches licensed brands far more easily than offshore sites online.

S-211 has survived committee by asking less of Ottawa. Whether it restricts a single advert will depend on a framework nobody has yet written.