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.

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity, and thank you to committee members.

The effect of this amendment would be to render it identical, in effect, to Bill C-13. Like Bill C-13, this amendment to Bill C-218 would ensure that the parimutuel system of betting used by the horse-racing industry across this country would remain under the regulation of the federal Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency.

Given the testimony we have heard from the horse-racing industry, stakeholders and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, I believe it is in the best interests of the horse-racing industry to maintain the regulatory status quo. The horse-racing industry's primary source of revenue is wagering through the parimutuel system of betting. We must move to protect this revenue stream for the benefit of approximately 50,000 jobs across Canada.

While this amendment does not address the issue of historical horse racing, as raised in testimony by a number of witnesses, I do believe, Madam Chair, that it is an appropriate amendment and that, in fact, it fits within the scope of Bill C-218.

With that, Madam Chair, I will be voting to support this amendment.

Thank you.

[John Levy]

Your question makes an important point. Hopefully, there's no confusion about this.

We support an amendment to Bill C-218 so it basically follows the same approach as Bill C-13, which as written, did have protection for the horse-racing industry. My understanding is that the racing industry is fully supportive of this amendment. You could go into the specific details of it, but without going into the details, it basically protects racing to be able to operate and conduct racing the way they always have, and it didn't get caught up in Bill C-218 with an unintended consequence. It's an amendment to Bill C-218 to bring it in line with what was originally proposed for Bill C-13, which is favourable to the horsemen, and which the horsemen are in favour of and are supporting.

The second element they're talking about, which is historical racing, is an additional amendment. Quite frankly, I don't know what historical racing is. I think there were some comments.... I'm a horseman, too. I know Bill and Sandy directly. I think that may work or not, but it certainly should be debated at some future time.

For now, I think the amendment we are proposing and that's being fully supported by everybody is to bring Bill C-218 to look like Bill C-13. Get it passed. Let everybody win, having betting be a part of a licence agreement impacted by it.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. It is always important to have different perspectives on important issues like this.

My first question is for Mr. Levy. I understand from your testimony, Mr. Levy, that you believe that Bill C-218 is a good bill, but that ultimately it should be Bill C-13, since you say that horse racing should be excluded from this authorization. I clearly understood your testimony on that.

I would like to know the reason why, in your opinion, horse racing should be excluded from Bill C-218.

[John Levy]

Madam Chair, first of all, thank you for providing me with an opportunity to articulate our full support for Bill C-218 and the legalization of single-event sports betting in Canada.

I'm proud to appear before you today on behalf of theScore, a Canadian innovation success story and third-generation family business. Following in the footsteps of my father, who is a pioneer in the Canadian cable television industry, we have built theScore into a North American leader in sports media, betting and e-sports. Utilizing a technology-led, mobile-first strategy, theScore has become one of the most popular sports media apps in North America. We then capitalized on the emerging regulated sports betting opportunity in the United States and launched an innovative mobile sports book operation that is now licensed in multiple jurisdictions.

In September 2019, we debuted theScore Bet, making history by becoming the first media company to create and operate a mobile sports book in the United States, and theScore Bet is now live in four states with a growing footprint and user base. Our early entry into regulated sports betting has positioned us at the forefront of the robust industry and led to significant growth of our company. In two years our workforce has increased by more than 50% and we're actively hiring at an accelerated pace to support the rapid expansion of our sports book operation.

Canada is now poised to usher in this vibrant industry that has potential to be transformative to our economy. Sports betting has flourished in the U.S. since legalization in 2018. It's created thousands of jobs, generated additional advertising revenue for sports media platforms and sponsorship revenue for teams and leagues, and produced significant tax proceeds for the states where it's legal, all providing a highly regulated system for fans to feel comfortable placing bets on the teams and sports they love. It's clear that a similar thoughtful and modernized legal wagering framework would benefit all Canadians.

The essential component of the public policy conversation around this bill is underscored by quoting the bill's name in full: Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act. Unregulated and illegal sports gambling is rampant across our country and offers no consumer protections or tax revenues for the provinces. Sports wagering needs to be monitored and regulated with comprehensive oversight to protect the consumers.

Bill C-218 will allow the provinces to implement necessary consumer safeguards to provide for a safe and responsible sports wagering environment. These have been established by provincial and territorial governments for other forms of wagering over decades. Single event sports betting will seamlessly integrate within these regulatory frameworks already in place.

We urge the House of Commons and the Senate to pass Bill C-218 as quickly as possible. In connection with the legalization of single event sports wagering, we acknowledge the need for the horse-racing industry to be safeguarded. We note that Bill C-13, the government version of this legislation, contained language to properly address this issue, and we support an amendment to Bill C-218 that would replicate the approach of Bill C-13, thereby ensuring that the interests of the horse racing industry are protected.

Time is of the essence with the passing of this bill. These gaming revenues represent a significant boost to a recovering economy by incenting job creation and regional economic development in many communities that will see direct and immediate benefits. Until the bill is passed, consumers will continue to remain exposed as they engage with unregulated outfits. There is now widespread industry and clear cross-party support to amend this outdated federal law, and it's time we seize this opportunity.

I thank the members of the committee for their consideration and thoughtful deliberation of this bill and the opportunity to provide my perspective and recommendation.

Members of the committee, thank you very much.

[Dave Drew, Finance Committee Member, Central Ontario Standardbred Association]

Thank you and good afternoon.

I want to point out that Bill O'Donnell is one of the top drivers in North America. He was inducted into the Harness Racing Hall of Fame both in Canada and in the United States, and also inducted into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame. He has been tireless in his efforts and continues to work full time on improving racing.

In support of having legalized and regulated single sports wagering, and in order to help protect the livelihoods of approximately 50,000 Canadians who are involved in and contributing $5.6 billion to our economy every year, we are recommending two small but very important changes to Bill C-218.

A key to protecting horse racing is ensuring that provincial governments and those contracted to provide single sports wagering pay their fair and appropriate share to the horse-racing industry for the costs of breeding, raising horses, training horses and conducting races.

Currently horse racing is fully regulated and is very much integrated between the racetracks, owners, trainers, jockeys and drivers. The wagering dollars are a very significant piece of supporting horse racing by first helping support funding. The current illegal betting that is happening on horse races prevents us from earning a large piece of that revenue, so we do not want to see additional organizations set up that could put as their portfolio the racing of horses without having to support the integrated portion of that, which involves the costs of putting on races, the costs of breeding, etc.

The answer to that element is embedded in a November 26, 2020, government bill, Bill C-13. That provided a solution under paragraph 207(4)(b). The amendment that is recommended is as follows:

(b) 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; or

That includes an exemption for horse racing so that others cannot simply add horse racing onto their portfolio. It would be excluded from fixed-odds single sports wagering but would continue on under the regulated current system.

The second small but important change would be to provide historic horse racing as a parimutuel wagering product whereby people can wager on the outcome of horse races that have been held in the past. This has been implemented in Kentucky. It's been implemented in Virginia, and it has provided sources of parimutuel wagering, which help support the current horse racing business.

In order to allow for historic horse racing, the word “horse-race” in subsection 197(1) simply needs to be removed. Our recommendation regarding the word “bet” is that it be defined as follows:

bet means a bet that is placed on any contingency or event that is to take place in or out of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a bet that is placed on any contingency relating to a fight, match or sporting event that is to take place in or out of Canada save and except that, with respect to a horse-race, bet means a bet that is placed on any contingency or event in or out of Canada;

That would remedy the issue and allow historic horse racing, which we see as a vital addition to the product.

These two changes would make a significant difference to the lives of the 50,000 people who are involved in horse racing in Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to ask some questions of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

One strength of Mr. Waugh's bill, and also one strength of the government bill, the previous Bill C-13, was that it didn't force the provinces to do any particular thing. It just gave them the capability to roll out products that some of their consumers would potentially like. As well, it also gave the power to take back some products if they found some issues related to them.

Could you speak a little to that, and also to some examples about what you do for gaming? Obviously we want to keep our focus on problem gaming as it rolls out. What do you do now? How is the flexibility that's being proposed here an advantage for a province?

Each province is a little different in terms of where they're at with this. That's one thing that I think is really underplayed. It's very much an important value that we don't make anybody have to do anything, and then each province can roll out how it goes about the next stage.

[Sue Leslie, President, Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I've been in the horse-racing industry and community for more than 40 years, and I currently have the privilege of being the chair and president of the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association. I've also held various other positions across the industry.

In 2012, I also had the privilege of being chair of the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association when the industry faced a financial crisis due to the Government of Ontario's decision to end the slots at racetracks program, which at the time was the funding model used by government to support the horse-racing industry.

This one decision nearly killed the horse-racing industry. The industry seemed to be collapsing right before my eyes, and I won't go into the very sad details, including the welfare of the horses and the sheer worry of the thousands of families. Fortunately, we were able to show the government the devastation caused by this decision, and an alternative financial solution was provided.

I reference this time in our history only because while we support Bill C-218 and the legalization of sports betting, it reminds me of that devastation we faced and the potential devastation we could face again, with both horse racing and breeding, if the federal government does not include language to protect the industry, much as Bill C-13 did.

To further explain my significant concern regarding the unintended consequences the industry could face, it's important to understand that the costs associated with horse racing are substantial. This is true both for racetrack operators and for owners and breeders.

If it were permitted for an organization other than a racetrack operator to take legal, fixed-odds bets on horse racing without paying any of these substantial costs, then the business model the entire industry sits on would be completely broken.

Due to the investments made by horse owners and racetrack operators and support from the government, the horse-racing and breeding industry supports more than 50,000 jobs across the country. Many of these jobs are blue collar in rural Ontario. Most of these workers have spent their entire lives working on farms with horses and would have a difficult time finding another career should the industry be drastically reduced.

Our farmers, owners, trainers, breeders and caretakers are only a small part of the jobs and economic activity we create. We also employ veterinarians, blacksmiths, jockeys, contractors, trainers and physiotherapists. In addition, we build barns, arenas, fences and running sheds. We plough fields, we plant crops, and we buy tractors, vans and pickup trucks. We produce $5.7 billion annually in economic activity. I would say this is an industry more than worthy of protecting. I want to reiterate the $5.7 billion in economic activity and 50,000 jobs.

I've spent a fair amount of time speaking about the people and the families whose livelihoods depend on this industry. We must also consider the horses. The product is a living, breathing equine requiring 24-7 care, which is very labour intensive. If our people can't earn their living through horse racing, they will lose the income needed to take care of their livestock.

As an industry, we must do all we can to convince you that the language that protects the parimutuel bet must be reinserted into Bill C-218. If this wording is not reinstated in the bill, the horse-racing industry along with the 50,000 jobs it supports will be destroyed.

The horse-racing industry has a long and successful history of working with government and its agencies. We've established a good working relationship with the AGCO and the CPMA, which licenses racetracks and oversees the parimutuel betting. We are committed to continuing to work with both levels of government to maximize the return to government while doing the same for horse racing.

Horse racing has a proud worldwide history. Canada has produced some of the greatest race horses that have ever lived, including the great Northern Dancer.

I believe our government has a responsibility and a duty to the industry and the 50,000 Canadians who make their living in rural communities to include language in the bill to ensure a vibrant horse-racing industry alongside a brand new sports-betting industry that could become equally productive in generating jobs and economic activity.

Respectfully, this is the right thing to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[William Ford]

Yes.

I can't speak to the nuances of your House rules, but what we're very simply asking is this. Bill C-218 deleted a paragraph, and we're asking that this just be amended. It is paragraph 207(4)(b). We're asking that the language, as very specifically set out in Bill C-13, be adopted and dropped into Bill C-218.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's ironic because it was a New Jersey court case, but to think we're here because basically Nevada got a special pass because organized crime set up there to create the whole system. It's bitter irony that we're at this point in time.

I'm going to move really quickly to Mr. Ford.

You mentioned Bill C-218 and Bill C-13. The government's position on that.... We were part of...with Mr. Comartin and Mr. Hall drafting this current bill. Thanks to Mr. Waugh for taking it up.

The government bill was different from ours. I actually fought, ironically, to keep both bills alive. The government's position was that they were different. Not only did I deny them two opportunities to drop it in the House, but I spoke against it to the Speaker. The ruling has been that the two bills are too similar.

Do you have a specific amendment that you would want to have, because I think you have to convince the government of that? Even on that, the parliamentary secretary appealed to the Speaker to dismiss even my intervention on the floor of the House of Commons.

Do you have a particular remedy that you're looking for with regard to the situation that you're in?

[William Ford]

Yes.

Today, the parimutuel model wagers about $1.2 billion that is legal and goes through the CPMA. We're aware that there is a significant grey market area offshore where wagers go.

We would be very concerned if Bill C-218 came in unamended and fixed-odds wagering on horse racing were allowed. We could see that $1.2 billion totally undermined and easily cut in half. Those people who have received the licences from the various provinces would be under no obligation to pay into the system. The whole entire system could therefore collapse upon itself.

We absolutely need these protections that were in the government bill, BillC-13. With that, I think we can maintain the parimutuel system going forward.

That said, one of the things that we are telling all of our members is that you must work with your local provincial regulator. You must understand how it is going to roll out in your province and ensure that horse racing and tracks can play a meaningful role.

[Jim Lawson]

Thank you.

Currently the only backbone for the horse industry's business is parimutuel wagering. The industry operates the only legal single-event sports betting in Canada today, and it allows racetracks to earn income from legal wagers that are used to cover the substantial costs to produce our content. The parimutuel wagering also allows for profits to be shared with horse people, horse associations, breeding programs and horse aftercare programs.

As you have heard from Bill Ford of Racetracks of Canada, parimutuel wagering is a betting system in which all bets of a particular type are placed together in a pool, with payouts determined by the sharing of the pool among the winning wagerers, while fixed-odds payouts are agreed at the time a bet is made. Fixed-odds betting has mass appeal to large wagerers. The new generation of wagerers and large wagerers have grown up betting on points spread, much like you see in the National Football League.

This distinction is at the heart of the gravest risk to the Canadian horse-racing industry as your committee considers sports betting legislation. If the private member's bill, Bill C-218, is passed with its current language, it will allow others to offer fixed-odds wagering on horse racing. The horse-racing market is a zero-sum game. Horse-racing wagerers who would access fixed-odds betting will move away from the Canadian parimutuel pools. This will dramatically cannibalize the Canadian horse-racing industry's market share, and these operators would earn the revenue without contributing to the substantial costs of producing our content.

In other major sports betting jurisdictions in the world, notably Australia, fixed-odds wagering on horse racing has surpassed parimutuel wagering. In both Australia, and more recently in New Jersey, one of the first to implement and coordinate horse racing with sports betting, the government has introduced frameworks to protect the horse-racing industry.

We are requesting that private member's bill, Bill C-218, adopt language to protect the horse-racing industry. To do otherwise will ultimately destroy our industry.

Bill C-13, recently introduced by the federal government, has language to protect the industry from this risk. It is now incumbent on the government to insert its own language in the private member's bill to save an industry and the livelihoods of more than 50,000 families across this country.

[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.

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.

[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 the 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 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 (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 (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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to join the debate today on Bill C-218. To start, I would like to congratulate the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood for bringing forward for the House's consideration this bill and its important amendment to the criminal code.

I was a member of the 42nd Parliament, and during my time then I served as our party's justice critic in 2017. As part of my role, I became quite familiar with the Criminal Code and how out of date so many of its sections are and how important it is that the Criminal Code, as a very important federal statute with huge impacts on the lives of so many people, has regular reviews and revisions. To its credit, the Liberal government in the previous Parliament did try to revise many out-of-date sections, but because of the impact it has on institutions and so many individuals, it is important that we regularly review it.

That brings me to Bill C-218, because it would make a very minor, but I think important, amendment to the Criminal Code. It would amend paragraph 207(4)(b), which defines what lottery schemes are and explicitly prohibits provinces from allowing wagering on any “race or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest”.

Criminal law is an area of shared jurisdiction. The federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction in amending the Criminal Code, and of course the administration of justice is conducted by the provinces. This goes to show members that the actions of the federal Parliament can sometimes have wide-ranging consequences for provincial jurisdiction. I know in my own home province and in provinces right across the country the regulation of casinos and the different lottery corporations is very much under provincial control. Therefore, this is an area where we as a federal Parliament can have a positive impact by allowing provinces to have a bit more control over this very significant sector, one that currently, under its regulated form, employs a lot of people and provides a lot of benefits to many Canadians and communities across the country.

In recognition of what the member has done with this bill, I would be remiss if I did not also recognize my friend and colleague, the member for Windsor West, who in the previous Parliament brought forward a bill that was exactly the same as this one. That was Bill C-221. I was there on September 21, 2016, when that bill, unfortunately, was defeated in a vote of 156 to 33. It was defeated at the time because most Liberal members of Parliament voted against the bill. Here we are in the year 2021 and this is an ongoing issue. We could have resolved this back in 2016. It is a real shame that we have had to wait so many years before we are finally coming to a stage where it seems like we might have enough support to get this over the line.

I know that the member for Windsor West and his former colleague, Joe Comartin, who used to be the MP for Windsor—Tecumseh and another great New Democrat who first brought this issue to our attention back in 2010, had a lot of help in their respective ridings and from across the country. I know that the member for Windsor West is very appreciative of people like Dave Cassidy, the current president of Unifor Local 444, and the past president Ken Lewenza. Those two individuals and many others have really helped make the case for this bill, and as is often the case, it is our privilege as members of Parliament to take that strong collective community action and put it into a piece of legislation for our Parliament to consider.

I mentioned how most Liberal MPs contributed to the defeat of the previous bill back in 2016. I need to highlight that fact because we are now in a situation where we are debating this current private member's bill, but we also have a parallel bill that was introduced by the very same Liberal government in the form of Bill C-13. It was introduced on November 26 last year, but it is still stuck at first reading.

This gives rise to questions as to whether the Liberals are actually serious about this. When we come to a vote on this particular bill are they going to throw their support behind it? Are they going to slow play Bill C-13? I have heard some supportive speeches by current Liberal MPs, but we do not know where the vast majority of that caucus lies. It would be great to have some clarification on which way the Liberals are going to go this time.

With a closer examination of what Bill C-218 does, it is essentially amending the Criminal Code to give provinces the ability to allow wagers on single-event sports betting. I am certainly not an expert on this, but I think it is important to recognize that it is not only helping to modernize the Criminal Code in giving that jurisdictional responsibility to provinces, but is also a real recognition that this is a sector in the legal gaming sector that already employs so many Canadians. This sector contributes billions of dollars in tax revenues to governments of every stripe. It is one that employs thousands of Canadians.

I do not have any casinos in my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, but in the neighbouring riding of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. In the town of View Royal, there is a casino there. It is having tough times right now because of COVID-19. If we were to make this important amendment to the Criminal Code, it would help that casino and its patrons, allowing them to reap the economic benefits when we get to the recovery phase.

It is important to talk about why allowing it is so important. We know that single-event sports betting exists in both Canada and the United States. The main difference is that in Canada it is illegal by virtue of this existing part of the Criminal Code. We are in a situation where speakers on this current bill and its previous iterations, including in 2016, acknowledge that single-event sports betting exists. If it is going on illegally, that means it is the black market that is taking all of the benefits.

When we are dealing with the Criminal Code and looking at how various sections of it are acting, we have to make a very thorough analysis of whether keeping an existing section of the law is even worth it if so many people are in fact breaking the law and if most of the benefits from that activity are going to black markets.

If the revenues from single-event sports betting are funding illegal activity, such as the purchase of guns, and are contributing to the local drug trade, that is a bad thing and we need to find ways to properly regulate it under provincial authorities. I do not want to go into too much detail on this, but I think that in itself is an excellent reason for us to consider amending this section of the Criminal Code to bring it under provincial regulations. There are strong steps being taken to strengthen regulations in gaming as well.

In my own province of British Columbia, we have certainly seen some major inquiries into money laundering in casinos. I am not saying that casinos have not had their problems, but because of the actions of the people laundering money through casinos, the Province of B.C. has now stepped with tighter regulations. If we, as the federal Parliament, were to make this important amendment to the Criminal Code, provinces like B.C. and others, would bring in the necessary strong regulations.

If we look at the United States, Americans spent about $150 billion on sports betting in 2016. Here in Canada, it is estimated that Canadians illegally wager between $14 billion and $15 billion annually on single-event sports. That is not a small sum of money, and it is something we have take great account of.

I will end by noting that there is a list of great supporters of this, including the national Unifor union, the City of Windsor, the Canadian Gaming Association and, closer to home for me, the attorney general of British Columbia. We would do well as a federal Parliament to listen to those voices, from the private sector, labour and provincial governments, to make sure that we pass this bill.

I will indicate my strong support for Bill C-218 and hope to see us get it to committee where it can have that important analysis.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to have the Thursday question. It allows me to talk to him, which is increasingly rare these days.

To answer his question directly, tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

When we return from our constituency week on February 16, we will resume consideration of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement. It is absolutely vital that we pass it quickly.

Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is also referred to as UNDRIP.

Thursday, February 18 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-13 concerning single event sport betting, as well as Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope all our colleagues have an excellent week working in their ridings.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is important for me to inform the House and the thousands of Canadians who are waiting to find out what we will be debating this week. Without further delay and so as not to make them wait, I will tell my colleague right away.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-10, the Broadcasting Act.

In the event that we finish debating Bill C-10, we will then give priority to the following two bills: Bill C-12 on net-zero emissions and Bill C-13 on sports betting.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity afforded to me by my colleague's question to thank you and your colleagues in the chair.

I also want to thank my colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, and our Bloc Québécois and NDP counterparts and their teams.

I want to thank the table officers, who do extraordinary work, all of the teams, and the pages who are patient enough to work with us every day and kind enough to always smile while doing so. I also want to thank the whips and their teams.

Finally, I want to thank all members for this very different session. It has not always been easy but, together, we were able to do a lot for the good of all Canadians.

Oral Questions

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with other parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, single event sport betting, be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendments, deemed concurred at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, if the Conservatives stop filibustering and allow a stand-up vote on Bill C-7, then next week the government expects to call the following bills: Bill C-8 on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94; Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation; and Bill C-13 on single-event sport betting.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you because December 5, two days from now, marks one year since the House elected you and placed its trust in you. You oversee House proceedings fairly, impartially and with dignity. Thank you on behalf of all members.

Criminal Code

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (single event sport betting).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)