Bill C-13 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (single event sport betting)

This enactment amends paragraph 207(4)‍(b) of the Criminal Code to make it lawful for the government of a province or territory, or a licensed person or entity, to conduct and manage in the province or territory a lottery scheme that involves betting on a race — other than a horse-race — or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to two points of order raised in the previous sitting week by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes with respect to the consideration of Bill C-2, the strong borders act, in the context of Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

Both members allege that Bill C-2 cannot proceed, on the basis that Bill C-12, which has been passed by the House, represents a similar question.

As the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes stated in his intervention, with respect to the rule governing a similar question:

This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session. Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill [or motion]...then the other similar or identical...[motion] may not be proceeded with.

However, this does not address what constitutes a substantially similar question.

On February 18, 2021, the Speaker ruled on this matter in the case of Bill C-13 and Bill C-218. He stated:

This makes clear that if...[both] bills are similar, without being substantially...[similar], both may be placed on notice, introduced and given first reading, and both could even be debated at second reading, provided that the House has not taken a decision with respect to either of them.

He went on to state:

In adopting Bill C-218 at second reading, the House has agreed to the principle of the bill and consequently has agreed to repealing the portion of the Criminal Code that deals with sports betting.... In fact, the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study. As a consequence, the Chair has difficulty seeing how the House could now move forward with Bill C-13 after it has adopted the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C-13 seeks to amend.

This is the clearest ruling that identifies what constitutes a substantially similar question. The precedent just mentioned, however, is not in any way analogous to the situation with Bill C-12 and Bill C-2. Bill C-12 has a much narrower scope than Bill C-2.

In fact, of the parts contained in Bill C-2, the following parts were not included in Bill C-12.

Part 4 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an act of Parliament. It also amends the act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters.

Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more.

Part 14 modernizes certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public. It also amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public.

Part 15 of Bill C-2 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, which establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that act to collect and use an individual's personal information where the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency, and the collection and use are for the purpose of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.

Members, and the Speaker, will note that there are many more elements and, by virtue of these additional measures, a much broader scope in Bill C-2. Since Bill C-2 has not come to a vote at second reading, there is no procedural obstacle to the progression of Bill C-12 in the House. I will return to this issue in a few moments.

Moreover, the rule that governs what constitutes a substantially similar bill or motion is that the motion or bill must seek to accomplish the same objective by the same means. This is the basis of the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, on sports betting.

Since Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do not seek to accomplish the same objectives by the same means, the rule governing substantially similar bills does not apply. If this rule was as strict as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes allege, then it would have been impossible for the House to consider 15 opposition day motions from the Conservative Party on the carbon tax in the previous Parliament. Alas, the rule is not interpreted in the manner they suggest.

Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do contain some similar elements, but there is a great deal of difference in their composition. Therefore, the question on either of these two bills would be a substantially different question upon which the House would make decisions.

There have been points of order in the past that the same question rule applied where it clearly did not. For example, some budget implementation bills contained items of Private Members' Business that had been voted on at second reading. This did not prevent the budget bills from advancing.

In conclusion, the substantially similar question rule has been applied by Speakers with restraint and has only been invoked in specific situations where the two items were substantially similar in the objectives they sought to achieve in a very similar, if not identical, manner.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further.

On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day.

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion.

He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session.

The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions.

In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context.

Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends.

What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply.

In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties.

The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code.

By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course.

The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19.

Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different.

The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323.

Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them.

Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation

The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process.

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner.

Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time.

I thank all members for their attention.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.

I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.

The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.

Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.

Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.

Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).

With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.

The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.

As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.

The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.

The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.

The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.

The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.

In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.

In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.

On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.

Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.

Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.

The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.

Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:

The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.

As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”

I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.

In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.

While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:

Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.

One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.

The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:

...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....

This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”

In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-218.

I had the privilege of listening to my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood when the bill was introduced and during the first round of speeches. I found his remarks very informative. I am taking the opportunity to speak today, but I do not pretend in any way that I will be able to teach the House as much he did.

Bill C-218 is actually quite simple. It consists of three clauses: one for the title of the act, one for its coming into force and one that proposes to replace a Criminal Code paragraph that currently excludes, from the definition of lottery, “bookmaking, pool selling or the making or recording of bets, including bets made through the agency of a pool or pari-mutuel system, on any race or fight, or on a single sporting event or athletic contest”. This would in effect decriminalize what is known as single event betting, which usually involves sporting events.

This bill kind of reminds me of a cat, not because it winds up sleeping on a shelf like a cat, which is what sometimes happens to certain committee recommendations that certain governments shelve, but because it has had several lives, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier.

During the 40th Parliament, NDP MP Joe Comartin's Bill C-267 was never called for debate, unfortunately. During the 41st Parliament, NDP MP Joe Comartin once again introduced the bill, this time as Bill C-290, and it progressed a little farther and was passed at third reading without a recorded division. Back then, the current member for Winnipeg North spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party. Bill C-290 then died in the Senate.

During the 42nd Parliament, the NDP member for Windsor West introduced the bill. Unfortunately, it was defeated at second reading by Liberal and Conservative votes. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, voted unanimously in favour of the bill.

At the time, one of the arguments for killing this bill was that decriminalizing single sports betting might lead to cheating. That is like saying that leaving sports betting in the hands of organized crime would ensure that cheating does not happen. It is a weak argument, to say the least. Criminalizing something does not make it disappear. It just drives it underground. That is why this bill seeks to take sports betting out of the hands of organized crime.

In the 43rd Parliament, that version of the bill was passed at second reading with only 15 votes against it. Given that the government has introduced Bill C-13, which is substantively similar to this bill, we can expect Bill C-218 to make it to the Senate this time.

There are several advantages to decriminalizing single sports betting. One is that it would protect gamblers. Allowing the mafia to control sports betting opens the door to things like loansharking.

I will echo my colleagues who mentioned the case of the young man in Laval who ended his life in December 2019. He was only 18. The coroner's inquest showed that the man's suicide was tied to an $80,000 debt that he racked up on the Internet, on a gambling site that was run by the Montreal mafia.

According to an article written at the time, the young man gambled online. To access the site, users entered their name and password on the homepage, at which point they could bet on the results of all sorts of professional sporting events, and even on the results of the U.S. presidential election.

According to our research, the name of the site is registered to a corporation in Panama. This site has been hosted on a server in Costa Rica since March 2015 but did not become active until a year later. Using network management tool MyIP.ms, we can see that the corporation that owns the server hosts roughly 75 other online gambling sites. The site ranks 58th in number of visitors with roughly 200 daily visitors. We learned that the Montreal mafia's sports betting was run by a manager and working under him is an assistant and some bookies, in other words, recruiters. The bookies are responsible for the gamblers they recruit. The interest rate for paying off debt climbs by 3% to 5% per week. We are talking about mafia control and loan sharking. In this case, we are talking about people who lost their home because of online sports betting. What is more, there is no way to protect minors, who can easily access these sites.

If the ownership of these sites could be publicly disclosed, particularly by Crown corporations like Loto-Québec, it would mean that we could also expect more money to be injected into the fight against pathological gambling. Crown corporations also contribute in other ways. They give back to society. For example, Loto-Québec sponsors many events, owns and acquires public assets, and funds cultural events. Society will therefore benefit if we take sports betting out of the hands of organized crime.

Another advantage is that we would be be taking money away from organized crime. During an investigation conducted in Quebec as part of Operation Colisée, an expert estimated that, between December 2004 and December 2005, the Rizzuto clan took in approximately $27 million a year from illegal sports betting. We can expect that amount to be even higher now. By taking this revenue away from organized crime, we would be preventing criminals from diversifying their operations. For example, after a major drug seizure, organized crime can turn to illegal betting to survive. By cutting off this source of income, we are hurting organized crime.

Another advantage that my colleagues have mentioned is that governments could see an increase in revenue from decriminalizing single sports betting. Deloitte has pointed out that within five years of decriminalization, Canada's revenues could go from $500 million to as much as $28 billion, which is a handsome sum.

In the U.S., the industry grew after our neighbours to the south legalized it in response to Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. More than 25 U.S. states now allow sports betting.

Decriminalization could lead to competition. For example, the casinos in Detroit, Michigan, would be in direct competition with those in the riding of the member for Windsor West. Quebec would be no exception, since New York state has legalized sports betting. Gambling establishments in Plattsburgh, which is less than 90 minutes from the U.S. border, could end up competing with Loto-Québec once the border reopens.

In conclusion, beyond all these advantages, we must not forget the gamblers themselves. In talking with my colleagues, I realize that there is interest in sports betting. Many of my colleagues would very likely be happy to be able to make bets legally, if they could do so without contributing to companies that send their income to tax havens without paying tax. Lastly, they could place bets using French-language platforms.

For all these good reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be pleased to support Bill C-218. We hope that this time, the cat will not have to use up its nine lives.

Single Event Sports Betting

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, yet again I rise in the chamber to discuss single event sports betting, as the chamber voted overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-218, which would permit each province to determine how to regulate legal betting so revenues can flow, jobs can be created and the billions of dollars feeding organized crime, bookies and offshore operators can end. The bill was originally proposed by NDP MP Joe Comartin, and later me, and I was pleased to withdraw it to permit the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood to join the efforts, and he has done good work.

This decades-plus adventure has been an exhilarating tale. Indeed, it passed in the House before dying in the Senate, but now some members, including the Prime Minister, have changed their vote. That is not a weakness, but a strength, speaking to the urgency of fixing the problem. Among the drama has been the recent government bill, Bill C-13, introduced with some doing victory laps, with chest thumping, high-fives and slapping backs, yet the government scuttled its own efforts, having never brought it to the floor for debate. Ironically, I defended the government, as I think the Minister of Justice deserves credit for drafting good legislation.

As we go forward, I want to thank the members who supported the bill, including unanimously from the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, and the Liberals and Conservatives who did not. I remain open to helping to work on this issue.

I thank David Cassidy and Ken Lewenza from Unifor 44, Mayor Dilkens, and Eddie Francis, Rakesh Naidu and Matt Marchand for being on this journey.

Criminal Code—Speaker's Ruling

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due respect, I do not understand my colleagues. This is not a question of privilege. This is not a debate. It is a simple question for clarification that was asked of you: If Bill C-228 was adopted, could Bill C-13 continue? That is it. There is no debate. It does not affect anyone else. It was just to know whether if one were adopted, could the other continue? It was a direct question, and you answered, and that is it. There is no debate around this. It is an answer to a question.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Following the order raised earlier today, I would like to make a statement on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to single-event sports betting and its similarity to Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sports betting, standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. As members are aware, both bills seek to amend the same provision of the Criminal Code as it relates to single sports betting.

While Bill C-13 was introduced in the House on November 26, 2020, and has yet to be called for debate by the government, the general provisions surrounding single sports betting have in fact not only been debated in the House during consideration of Bill C-218, but a decision was made yesterday by the House on the general principle of allowing all single sports betting, and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes.

Both Bill C-218 and Bill C-13 seek to amend the same paragraph of the Criminal Code as it pertains to sports betting. Bill C-218 repeals paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code in its entirety, to make it lawful to conduct and manage a lottery scheme that involves betting on a race, a fight or a single sporting event. As for Bill C-13, it conserves the paragraph, but seeks to amend it to make single sports betting lawful, except for bets on a horse race.

The rule of anticipation, which prohibits the same question from being decided twice by the House within the same session, is explained in the following manner at page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken of the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with.

This makes clear that if two bills are similar, without being substantially the same, both may be placed on notice, introduced and given first reading, and both could even be debated at second reading, provided that the House has not taken a decision with respect to either of them.

Given the decision of the House yesterday afternoon, the question therefore before the House is, following the adoption of Bill C-218 at second reading, should Bill C-13 be permitted to proceed further in the legislative process?

In adopting Bill C-218 at second reading, the House has agreed to the principle of the bill and consequently has agreed to repealing the portion of the Criminal Code that deals with sports betting. While there are examples where the House has repealed sections of an act already amended by another bill adopted by the House in the same session, this is not exactly the situation before us today. Instead, since Bill C-218 seeks to completely repeal paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, it seems to the Chair that it would not be possible for Bill C-13 to continue in the legislative process, as it would seek to amend a paragraph of the Criminal Code that would no longer exist upon adoption of Bill C-218. In fact, the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study. As a consequence, the Chair has difficulty seeing how the House could now move forward with Bill C-13 after it has adopted the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C-13 seeks to amend.

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with. As was mentioned during the intervention yesterday, as well as previously by the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, members who wish to further review or amend the provisions included in Bill C-218 should follow the proceedings and take part in discussions during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I thank all members for their attention.

Criminal Code

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to provide input on a decision that was asked of the Speaker earlier today. I will make my intervention short, and I thank the Speaker for the indulgence.

I rise today to provide input on a matter that was raised by the member for Kingston and the Islands this morning and further discussed by the official opposition House leader. I would like to discuss the significant and meaningful difference between Bill C-218 and Bill C-13.

First, the member for Kingston and the Islands, when he spoke in the House on Wednesday, February 17, stated:

We also proposed to engage the provinces, territories, indigenous communities and organizations that have expressed an interest in discussing how gambling is regulated. We believe Bill C-13 is substantively different from Bill C-218, as it includes a horse racing provision and achieves its objectives through different means.

I agree with this statement. The government member is correct and is stating the facts. The bills are substantially different. This was found in an analysis conducted by the subject matter experts at the Library of Parliament in a section of a research report comparing Bill C-13 and Bill C-218.

The report looks at how Bill C-218 would repeal paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code in its entirety. The consequence would appear to be that betting on a single sport event or athlete contest would then be permitted, since those activities would no longer be excluded from the definition of “lottery scheme”, but so would be betting on other types of activities referred to in that paragraph, notably all types of races.

By way of contrast, Bill C-13 would amend paragraph 207(4)(b), rather than repealing it, so that the following activities would continue not to be permitted lottery schemes: “bookmaking, pool selling or the making or recording of bets, including bets made through the agency of a pool or pari-mutuel system, on any horse-race”.

In other words, Bill C-13 would continue to exclude betting on horse racing as a type of lottery scheme the provinces could engage in. The governmental materials issued on Bill C-13 confirm the explanation that the regulation of single event sports betting would be up to the discretion of each province and territory, with the exception of horse racing, which would remain regulated and supervised by the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency.

As the experts have pointed out, there are very significant differences in both bills.

Next I would like to discuss the process. The place to decide which of these significantly different bills merits further progress is in a relevant committee, which would examine both bills in detail, hear from stakeholders and make considered determinations. The committee would then vote on these bills and resolve which one should proceed to third reading.

I trust the legislative process of the House. The procedures, evaluations and safeguards are built-in. We should trust it and allow members to carry out their duties as legislators, which will result in the most robust and thorough bill.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, you have been put in this situation. This mismanagement of Bill C-13 has caused delays. It has been debated constantly, and taken on and off the calendar, which has created confusion and concern, and has led to these unnecessary circumstances.

Business workers and communities have been waiting long enough to have this substantial issue addressed. I have had the privilege of being a member of this chamber since 2002. During all these years, I have witnessed that the tradition of the House, when it is uncertain, is for the Speaker to allow the debate and the process to continue. I hope we can uphold this time-honoured practice.

I appreciate the indulgence of the House today in allowing me to speak to this issue. I did not want to want to intervene in the momentum of the debate today, but I had to, given what the government has done.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government asked for unanimous consent to withdraw Bill C-13, which is still on the Order Paper, at second reading.

This request was made in response to Bill C-218 being passed at second reading. Since both bills propose similar amendments to the Criminal Code, it makes sense to withdraw one bill and move forward with the other.

Unanimous consent was denied, which means that not all members agreed.

A point of order was raised today to ask the Speaker to rule on the matter of the rule of anticipation, which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. While Bosc and Gagnon supports this argument, it also claims, “past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

The sponsor of Bill C-218 has indicated to the Speaker and to me that he wants to weigh in on this important point of order since it involves his bill. He plans to do so as soon as the House resumes tomorrow.

Bill C-13 cannot be called for debate today since, as we know, opposition motions on allotted days take precedence over all other business. In addition, except for today, the government has the prerogative to schedule this bill any day it wants, and last I looked, it has other bills to debate, including the bill to implement the economic statement, normally a priority bill for a government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to respect the member's right to defend his bill and make his own representations regarding the rule of anticipation before you make your ruling on this matter.

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Yesterday, the House voted on Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sports betting, at second reading. The government has also introduced a bill on the same issue: Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, single event sport betting.

Page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, respecting the rule of anticipation, states, “If a decision is taken on the first bill”—as was the case with Bill C-218—“then the other”—in this case, Bill C-13—“may not be proceeded with.”

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if you could please inform the House of the impact the second-reading vote on Bill C-218 has on Bill C-13.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, the order for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code (single event sport betting), standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, be discharged and the bill be withdrawn from the Order Paper.

Expropriation Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the point of order has been discussed with the opposition House leader, who I see nodding his head, so if I could continue, I will be no more than 30 to 45 seconds.

We also proposed to engage the provinces, territories, indigenous communities and organizations that have expressed an interest in discussing how gambling is regulated. We believe Bill C-13 is substantively different from Bill C-218, as it includes a horse racing provision and achieves its objectives through different means.

Having said that, the government acknowledges that Bill C-218 came to a vote first and that the horse racing amendments can be moved at committee. Given our strong support for single sport betting, we have therefore decided that, in the interest of moving forward with the legislation in the most efficient manner possible, the government will now focus its energy on supporting Bill C-218 and seek to make the important amendments regarding the horse racing provision at committee.

Therefore, if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, the order for second reading in reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code (single event sport betting), standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn from the Order Paper.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, as a result of the vote we just had in the House on the second reading of Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sports betting. The government is firmly in favour of single sports betting. This is why on November 26 of last year we introduced Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to single event sport betting. We also supported unanimous consent motions to pass Bill C-13 at all stages in December. We were disappointed it did not pass.

We took action to decriminalize single event sport betting in Canada so these activities take place in a safe and regulated environment, while supporting good well-paying jobs for Canadians. We also proposed—

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to conclude debate at second reading on Bill C-218, the safe and regulated sports betting act.

First, I want to thank all the members from all parties who have risen today to support this important legislation. It is not often we get members from the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and the Bloc all rising in favour of a given initiative, but that is what we have this afternoon.

This Sunday is the biggest sport betting event of the year. It is the 55th Super Bowl. Millions of dollars will be wagered in Canada on everything from the win to the props, the point spread and then the coin toss and so on. Unfortunately, almost all that money will be going to offshore websites and criminal organizations. However, we can change that.

By passing Bill C-218, we can ensure that going forward, profits from sports wagering is put back into our communities, into health care, education, problem gambling programs, youth sports and other important services rather than the pockets of offshore companies or even criminals.

In December, the government introduced its own legislation to achieve the same goal as Bill C-218, and I supported that legislation. In fact, I told the Minister of Justice months before that he should adopt my bill as government legislation so we could get it through the process as quickly as possible. I did not care if my name was on the bill as long as the much-needed change was made in Parliament. Eventually, the minister finally took me up on my suggestion and introduced Bill C-13.

To show my good faith and desire to work with the minister and the government to get this single-event sports betting legalized, I traded down in the order of precedence to give the government a fair chance to bring its legislation forward. Unfortunately, though, the introduction of the government's bill has not sped up the process. In fact, if anything, it has slowed it down. Twice now the government has cancelled debate on Bill C-13 at the last second in favour of other legislation.

I get it. The government has priorities and there are other important pieces of legislation before the House. However, if the government cannot make Bill C-13 a priority, then it does not have to. The Liberals can support Bill C-218 and all the work can be done during the Private Members' Business instead of during government business. It is true that there will be some slight differences between my bill and the government's legislation, however, I am confident that those differences can be addressed at the justice committee and that amendments could be made if needed. I am sure that the justice committee can make the right decision on this.

Let us get the legislation passed at second reading, sent to committee, amended if necessary, and then back to the House so we can get it to the Senate. The legalization of single-event sports betting clearly has support from members of all parties and the government clearly realizes that we should legalize it. Let us not play politics; let us get this job done.

Sunday is the biggest betting day in the country and we are missing out on millions of dollars for our communities.

I want to thank all parties again for their support of legalized single-event sports betting. There is a little difference, as I mentioned, between Bill C-218 and Bill C-13, but let us pass the private member's bill that will come forward in the next two weeks and then we can have the discussion at the justice committee. We are open to the amendments. We realize the horse racing industry has issues.

It is a great privilege to bring the bill forward. As mentioned before, others from the NDP also brought it forward. Together in the House of Commons this will be for the betterment of the country if we can pass Bill C-218.