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.