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.

[William Ford, President, Racetracks of Canada Inc.]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Bill Ford, and I'm here today on behalf of Racetracks of Canada. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Racetracks of Canada is a national organization representing over 40 racetracks across the country. Some are large like Woodbine in Toronto, but the majority are smaller seasonal tracks that play vital roles in their respective communities, many of which are in rural Canada.

Before turning to my substantive comments, I would like to provide some key statistics from a 2019 Jockey Club of Canada report on the Canada-wide economic impact of horse racing and breeding: $2.9 billion in value-added GDP; 56,000 full-time equivalent jobs; $2.1 billion in wages and salaries; and $1.2 billion in tax revenues to all levels of government.

I'm not here today to speak out against the sports betting bill. Over the last several months, our industry has stated its support for the legalization of fixed odds, single-event sports wagering in Canada. The horse-racing industry is particularly well suited to speak to the benefits of legal and properly regulated wagering in Canada. Black and grey markets benefit nobody.

However, it is vitally important that the legislative process considers the unintended consequences should the horse-racing industry not be protected.

Today, the horse-racing industry's business model is supported by parimutuel wagering. Section 204 of the Criminal Code establishes the parimutuel wagering system on horse racing when regulated and approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Under the ministry, the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, commonly referred to as the CPMA, has been set up as the industry's regulator.

The parimutuel system works as the house takeout is used to sustain the industry through payments to participants. Further, to obtain a parimutuel betting permit from the CPMA, a racing association must show that it has an agreement in place with its local horse people's group. This ensures that all stakeholders are invested in the parimutuel model.

Private member's bill C-218 as currently drafted could allow provincial lottery schemes and other licensed organizations to offer fixed-odds betting on horse racing. This could be done without any contributions back to the industry.

Bill C-13, which was another bill recently introduced by the federal government to legalize fixed-odds single-event sports wagering, included language that would prohibit any organization from accepting a fixed-odds wager on horse racing, ultimately protecting the industry from the risk highlighted earlier. We are strongly asking for the same protection in Bill C-218. Our industry and stakeholders need it.

That said, we can see the writing on the wall. The legalization of single-event sports betting will see the influx of massive foreign companies and leagues entering the Canadian wagering market. Competition will be severe, and racing will see market share shrink over time. It could potentially result in the closure of some tracks, which are already on the brink of financial non-viability, and the loss of thousands of jobs.

To that end, we are also requesting that historical horse racing be legalized. Historical horse racing is a parimutuel gaming product where individuals can place a wager on the outcome of races that have occurred in the past. Historical horse racing is currently prohibited by the Criminal Code, despite its being a proven and legal product in many jurisdictions.

With a simple change to the Criminal Code to allow for bets to be taken on an event that has taken place in the past, historical horse racing could be quickly introduced into the market, and would provide the entire horse-racing industry with a substantial and much-needed new revenue stream. This stream would be particularly beneficial to the smaller tracks that only run seasonally for a few weeks a year.

The industry has been speaking to the CPMA for years about the possibility of introducing historical horse racing to Canada. The CPMA has stated it is prepared to regulate it as a parimutuel wagering should the Criminal Code be amended.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, the horse-racing industry and Racetracks of Canada are supportive of the legalization of sports betting in Canada. However, it cannot be at the expense of a well-established industry that supports thousands of jobs and is the lifeblood of many rural communities.

Done correctly, single-event sports betting can create new jobs for Canadians and generate new revenues for the government all while protecting another industry, the horse-racing industry.

Thank you.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair; and thank you to all the witnesses for a lot of informative testimony.

I'm going to start with Mr. Dias.

Jerry, it's always good to see you. Thank you for what you are doing with Unifor. There are many Unifor members in my riding of Parkdale-High Park and I've always appreciated the leadership you've shown.

I want to ask you, just at the outset, about something that is percolating in the background, which is the horse racing industry. In the other iteration of this bill, which is a government bill, Bill C-13, there is a carve-out for horse racing. We understand from a lot of horse racing witnesses who are about to come before us that they're keen to see a carve-out, because they want to protect those jobs at those racetracks.

I'm in Toronto, close to Woodbine. Can you tell me about those workplaces and your sense of how we protect those jobs? I'm not sure whether they're unionized by Unifor, or if they're unionized at all, but from your perspective, how do we protect those workers?

[Michael Ellison]

I suppose I can answer that question.

Under either of the bills that are before the House, Bill C-218 or Bill C-13, we don't have a way to say that all illegal betting would be brought into a legal market.

[Michael Ellison]

There are two potential impacts, I suppose.

One is that allowing single-event sports betting on hockey games, let's say, could still attract the betting audience away from horse racing. That is one possibility. It might be a low possibility, but it is one to consider.

The second is that it doesn't have perhaps a large impact. The other impact is that provinces and territories, by legalizing single-event sports betting in the manner that this bill and Bill C-13 propose—by targeting this paragraph of the Criminal Code—would let provinces and territories set up schemes for any kind of sporting event. That would also include horse racing. If a province then took action after legalization, they could set up, for example, fixed-odds betting on horse racing, or their own parimutuel system on horse racing, or any other form of betting that they can dream of, really, and that would directly compete with the system that the CPMA runs.

I'd be happy to elaborate.

[Michael Ellison]

The main difference is that, of course, Bill C-218 has a complete repeal of the paragraph. Bill C-13 would maintain most of the language. It would remove all of the references, other than that we would insert a reference essentially under that bill to horse racing. It completely excludes any system of betting on horse races from provincial and territorial authority. That would very clearly maintain the long-standing role of the CPMA, while opening up all other forms of single-event sports betting or betting at athletic contests or fights—anything of that nature—for the PTs. They could regulate any of those products as they see fit.

I hope that answers your question—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. I hope, Madam Chair, I don't lose my time. I'll be really quick to try to catch up.

Just with regards to C-13 and C-218, the Speaker ruled that they're the same. I was just questioning Ms. Foss with regards to the sustainability of her program. This is the germane part between the two. Could you provide your professional commentary on the differences of the bills, and on if we amended it, and it still doesn't solve our problem?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Maybe I can move to you, Mr. Ellison, with regard to that. You distinguished the difference between Bill C-13 and Bill C-218. Can you talk a little bit about that change there? I had argued to keep both bills going. The Speaker ruled that they're the same.

What's your reflection on that? Could you provide your professional opinion on that?

[Michael Ellison, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your invitation to appear in relation to Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sports betting. I'm pleased to appear before the committee in my capacity as counsel within the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice.

Today I'm joined, as noted, by my colleague Carole Morency, who is senior general counsel and director general of the criminal law policy section.

I'd like to take this opportunity to offer some brief comments on Bill C-218 and the structure of the gaming and betting provisions of the Criminal Code and to discuss the differences between Bill C-218 and Bill C-13.

Bill C-218 proposes to decriminalize single-event sports betting by permitting provinces and territories to offer games or betting products concerning the outcome of a single sporting event, if they choose to do so, as what's called permissible lottery schemes under the Criminal Code.

Under Bill C-218, decriminalization would be achieved by repealing a single paragraph within the Criminal Code that currently excludes single-event sports betting from the definition of what is a provincial or territorial lottery scheme. This paragraph, along with the rest of the gaming and betting provisions, is located in part VII of the Criminal Code. The general structure of these provisions can be broken down in the following manner.

First, all gaming and betting activities are prohibited by default in Canadian law. From this general prohibition on gaming and betting, we find two carve-outs or exceptions, if you want to call them that, for legal gaming and betting.

The first carve-out or exception is the federal system of parimutuel betting on horse racing that my colleague from the CPMA just described. While many aspects of the horse racing industry are indeed regulated by the provinces and the territories, the actual parimutuel system of betting is regulated by the CPMA. As was just noted, it's a special operating agency within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Now, the second carve-out from the general prohibition on gaming and betting is in the form of the provincial and territorial lottery schemes. This carve-out has been in place since 1969-70; it permits provinces and territories to offer a very broad range of games that involve elements of chance or betting products.

We refer in the Criminal Code to provinces and territories “conducting and managing” these lottery schemes, and in fact this is very similar to regulating these lottery schemes. However, in limited circumstances the provinces and territories may also license other entities to operate lottery schemes. Typically we see this in the form of charitable lotteries. These charitable lotteries would be licensed by the provinces and territories.

This brings us back to Bill C-218. Subsection 207 (4) of the Criminal Code defines permissible lottery schemes. We find there the definition of what a “lottery scheme” is. So long as provincial and territorial authorities regulate gaming products within this definition, they are legal activities.

While the definition is broad, Parliament has maintained certain exclusions to this definition, and these exclusions in effect make specific activities once again subject to the general prohibition and therefore illegal.

The exclusion from the definition of a permissible lottery scheme that is the subject of Bill C-218 is found in paragraph 207 (4)(b) of the Criminal Code. This paragraph prohibits the provinces and territories from offering betting products on single-event sporting events. Repealing this paragraph would therefore leave the provinces and territories unrestricted in their ability to offer gaming and betting products that they consider appropriate for races, fights, single-sport events or athletic contests.

Bill C-13, in contrast, retains some of the language found in this paragraph and introduces the term “horse race”. The effect is that Bill C-13,, unlike Bill C-218, would retain the federal role of regulating systems of betting on horse racing across the country. Presently, in this paragraph, the terms “race” and “single-sport events” operate to prohibit provincial and territorial activity in this field.

Those are my comments, and I think my five minutes have just run out.

I'd like to thank you again, Madam Chair and everybody, for the invitation to my colleague and me.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

As I understand it, you could be satisfied with the amendment that Bill C-13 is proposing but you prefer it to be repealed entirely. Your position is that your Bill C-218 is the one we should pass. Is that correct?

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

You've never recovered from it. You have an empty arena in Quebec City, and here you are asking questions about Bill C-13 when we need the Québec Nordiques, who in their demise went to Colorado, to fill the Colisée de Québec.

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

Yes. Last Thursday in the House of Commons, the government withdrew their Bill C-13. It was similar to mine. It had a couple of amendments dealing with horse racing, the protection of the horse-racing industry, and the parimutuels. I would be open to those amendments in the justice committee.

I am surprised at you, because you lost a professional hockey team in your province in the Québec Nordiques.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Waugh, it is no secret to anyone that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of your bill.

We in the Bloc Québécois also feel that there are a number of reasons to leave the governments of Quebec and the provinces to manage this industry and use the profits that it generates as they see fit. We are on the same wavelength in that respect.

Could you quickly explain to us the difference between Bill C-13 and Bill C-218? We understand that Bill C-218 would repeal the paragraph in question completely, whereas the proposal in Bill C-13 is to keep the provision as it applies to horseracing.

If Bill C-13 is passed, would you be satisfied? Does our choice have to be to completely remove the paragraph in its entirety?

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 off-shore 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, 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 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, Liberal, 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.