Bill C-218 (Historical)

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting)

This enactment repeals paragraph 207(4)‍(b) of the Criminal Code to make it lawful for the government of a province, or a person or entity licensed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of that province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in the province that involves betting on a 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.

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

The Dubin inquiry certainly was timely for the drug abuse and PEDs issues that we've seen athletes in that era come through, not only in this country but others.

I'm just going to pose a question to you because of my private member's bill on single-event sports betting. This has had a major influence, not only in this country, but in the world. In the last week we've seen the baseball coach of Alabama fired. We've seen suspicions of gambling for the Iowa football team.

Have you received any additional funds to make sure that we are so-called “safe sport” in gambling in this country? Have you received any since Bill C-218 was passed in the House of Commons?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have one last quick question.

One of the concerns I have is that if we devolve a lot of this to the province, we could have provinces with different laws and rules. I worked in the past on single-event sports betting, and Mr. Waugh had his bill passed. We worked together on that. It was basically my bill. I took it back off the table, and he brought it forward. They did a great, amazing job, but the problem is that each province now has its own rules, and I've had concerns over how some of that evolved.

What do you say about the concerns about provinces making different jurisdictional decisions related to this initiative?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Paul‑Hus.

I have a question about single-event sport betting. As you know, single-event sport betting is big business in Europe and Asia, where it's long been legal. In Europe, I've seen figures that it's worth about $40 billion Canadian a year. Bill C-218 is making its way through the Senate, and it will decriminalize single-event sport betting.

What is your view on decriminalizing single-event sport betting without putting in place any additional protections, keeping the current system we have in place for regulating gambling?

[Laura Tamblyn Watts, President and Chief Executive Officer, CanAge]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Laura Tamblyn Watts, and I'm the president and CEO of CanAge, Canada's national seniors advocacy organization. We are a pan-Canadian, non-partisan, not-for-profit organization. We work to advance the rights and well-being of Canadians as we age and ensure that older Canadians can live vibrant and connected lives.

With me today is Haley Mason, policy officer at CanAge, with whom I will be co-presenting. I will present the first portion of our oral submissions, and Ms. Mason will conclude. CanAge will divide its comments into the three substantive areas: criminal justice reform, prevention and awareness, and responses and research.

Our first recommendation is to create an elder abuse and neglect specific Criminal Code charge. I have studied the work of criminality in elder abuse for more than 20 years, and there is little that indicates that this is not appropriate. With great respect to my colleague, I do think it is time for a criminal elder abuse charge. Police involvement, charging and the criminal justice system have been minimally involved in elder abuse and neglect. There has, by contrast, been frustration from the public and from officers that they do not have the needed tools to adequately respond to the increasing spread and impact of elder abuse and neglect. There is coverage missing.

It's important to create a Criminal Code provision for ease of charging for types of abusive or neglectful behaviour that do not fall squarely within the commonly existing highlighted provisions of underlying offences. There are, quite simply, gaps in the Criminal Code related to elder abuse and neglect that need to be filled. Although having a charge for criminal elder abuse and neglect is important for the goal of deterrence, specific charges make a clear message that abuse of vulnerable older adults is not just a civil matter and provides scope for multiple charges to be laid.

The oft-cited section 215, failure to provide the necessaries of life, is, in fact, a charge very rarely laid. In the elder abuse and neglect context, this charge is typically only laid in the most extreme and profound circumstances, such as leaving an older person in an unheated garage to die of starvation and sepsis due to untreated wounds. Much abusive behaviour of older adults deals with the blocking or restraining of liberty, the invasion of privacy, and predatory types of tracking, grooming, and coercion.

CanAge has had the benefit of reviewing the materials from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and is supportive of considering their suggestions for new charges of criminal endangerment. However, CanAge would like to draw attention to the recently considered Bill C-218 on controlling or coercive contact within intimate relationships which this committee has heard recently.

I'm going to turn now to my colleague, Ms. Mason, to continue.

Sports Betting

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the single-event sports betting bill, Bill C-218, is currently before the Senate. I value the vital role our senators play in reviewing bills passed by the House and rise today on behalf of the tourism sector and its workers to appeal to senators to pass this legislation quickly. This bill received all-party support in the House, which is quite an achievement.

The tourism industry has been hit hard by the COVID pandemic. To recover, it will need Parliament's full support. Bill C-218 would secure well-paying jobs and give the tourism industry a much needed boost. I look forward to its swift passage in the Senate. I would also like the thank my Conservative colleague, the MP for Saskatoon—Grasswood, for introducing the legislation.

Tourism is a significant driver in my riding's local economy. Passage of this bill would be welcome news back home.

Finally, what an honour it is to stand in the House on behalf of the people of Essex.

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act

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

Madam Speaker, the prohibition on single-event sports betting is one where we are all well behind the rest of the world, including our neighbours to the south. I believe, and others believe, it is time that we simply catch up with the rest of the world. Instead of strong regulations and consumer protections, right now we have a system run by criminals and offshore companies. Instead of profits going toward the public good, they are actually going to funding their criminality.

It is time for that to end in this country. There is a clear consensus across party lines that Canadians agree with that tonight. I am very hopeful that in a few moments, we will be able to formalize that consensus and get this legislation sent where it should be, the Senate.

As this will likely be my last opportunity for me to speak in the House on this legislation, I want to thank all the members of Parliament from all sides in this place who have supported Bill C-218 through the legislative process. In particular, though, I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Essex and the member for Windsor West for their hard work and support on this file.

I also want to thank the many stakeholders who came forward to provide their expertise and insight to me directly, the justice committee, and all my colleagues for their conversation. Since I brought this bill forward last February, I have heard from provincial and municipal governments, industry organizations, mental health and responsible gambling advocacy groups, amateur and professional sports organizations, sports media and various other groups. All of them provided valuable information, which was so crucial to the development of this legislation.

This could prove to be a historic day for our country. The passage of Bill C-218 here in the House of Commons would be a clear indication that the elected representatives of the people of Canada believe that this change is in the best interest of all Canadians. I am hopeful that upon passage of this legislation, our colleagues in the Senate will take up this legislation with haste, so that this outdated prohibition can finally be removed from the Criminal Code in Canada. It is well past time that we do so again.

[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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate again in this process.

I want to thank all the members who were part of this effort, and not only this one but the previous one and even the one before that, which my comments will reflect on.

The former member for Windsor—Tecumseh, Joe Comartin, had a bill that went through this process and it got to the Senate. However, it languished there for a number of years and was never passed. With that lesson in mind, I am hoping that this process will go to the Senate, and the other chamber will be a little more expedient. I thank the government side for its support of this bill, Bill C-218, as well the Conservative Party, and I am hoping that the independent senators will connect and move this forward.

As has been noted, it is very important to acknowledge that things have changed a little, which is one of the reasons why I think the bill before us has more hope and opportunity than the previous ones. The NHL, NBA and other professional sports leagues have not just joined the process of getting this bill passed, but have changed to supporting it from being opposed to it in the past. That related to the fact that they had a monopoly and a system and structure that were based out of Nevada.

The situation with these restrictions today goes back to the United States and the syndicated crime that created Las Vegas. These were struck down by the court's ruling in New Jersey, which said the leagues should not have a monopoly on something that had been invented. They did not necessarily have a right to it. It had evolved over a number of different processes and was shattered, creating these differences.

We are different from other countries in that this type of regulation has come into effect through Europe and other place around the world. We can bet on our phones, we can bet on our computers and we can bet in a number of ways, but that is sending money to organized crime offshore and not helping the public purse. It is not helping people to deal with addictions or to identify strategies.

One of the most important things that we heard at committee was about the responsible gaming element and strategies to have people be registered through the process to get help, to redirect resources to it and to work with people to flag those problems before they get worse. This is as opposed to dealing with bookies in a backyard or over the phone with an offshore account who do everything they can to bait people into gambling more. What is recognized in this process is that we have a responsible, moral and ethical view in dealing with this, because if we do not, we leave vulnerable people in the hands of others.

I will wrap up my comments by reminding members that we have been here before. We had a bill pass in the House of Commons that was pretty much the same as this one and, later on, we had my private member's bill. We have to get this bill to the other chamber and have to get support there. I am working with members in the other chamber already, and I hope all members do.

If we are working on COVID-19, on policy and a whole series of things, one thing we can do right now is direct money away from organized crime and put it to the public good. We are all looking for, and debating, ways to help with the financial constraints during this pandemic. In this situation, more people have been using the online and offshore accounts than ever before.

Unfortunately, right now we cannot help some of the other good industries that are associated with this, like Casino Windsor and other places. However, the reality is that we would redirect traffic from organized crime. If we get this bill, Bill C-218, passed, it promises more resources and more support to make sure that people will be able to do this activity in a responsible, regulated manner.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this private member's bill.

I do want to express my support for Bill C-218, the safe and regulated sports betting act that is before us. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate and thank some other members too, in particular the member for Windsor West, who just asked a question a moment ago. He brought forward a similar bill that did not get to where we think this one will get to after the vote today.

The legislative process is very interesting in the way things can work their way through this House and the way bills can come forward and be lost, but the issue may not be lost and it can keep gaining momentum. Then somebody else will bring it forward, or perhaps a government will bring it forward. Eventually, it will end up getting here. Although the bill from the member for Windsor West did not make it through, it certainly played a role in advancing this issue in this House.

In my own caucus, I think of the member for St. Catharines, who routinely talks about this issue and brings it up, making sure it was at the forefront and people were continually considering it. I had many opportunities over dinner and at various times listening to him talk about this issue.

What we have come to realize is this is a $14-billion industry in Canada. Right now, a lot of that money, the majority of it, is offshore or in crime. We have an opportunity here to recognize the fact that this is already happening, so why not use it as an opportunity to regulate the industry, control it, and get that money out of crime. Getting that money legitimately into our economy will make sure that governments, whether federal, provincial or regional, have the opportunity to benefit from this as well, and that the money is not just in organized crime or hiding behind legitimate ways of doing business.

One other thing I will add is that I genuinely think this will increase the integrity of sports. It will help, in particular, the booking of sports and the police in doing their work to make sure that things are being done legitimately.

There are a number of good arguments for this legislation. There is the angle of tourism, as it relates to sports betting and what it means to certain tourism industries in certain parts of country. I think of Niagara and Windsor off the top of my head. As I am from Ontario, those are the two that come to mind first.

The government plans to support this piece of legislation. It is long overdue, and I am happy to lend my voice to that support and vote in favour of this when we get to that moment shortly.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his support on this bill, Bill C-218.

He is absolutely correct. All the federal government has to do is take a single line out of the Criminal Code to give the provinces and territories the much-needed support to move forward with single event sport betting. This is just the first of many processes. If we can get it passed tonight and on to the Senate, where it can look at it and make the necessary adjustments if it wants to, then it will give that power to the provincial governments, through their lotteries, which quite frankly have been dealing with gaming institutions for the past 30-plus years. We are really looking forward to the legislation moving forward.

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, what a day we have today. It is certainly an honour for me to speak to this legislation once again. Now we are in our third reading, after a robust study at the justice committee.

It is worth noting that Bill C-218 returns to us with a slight amendment, supported by all parties, to ensure that proper protections are in place for Canada's proud and long-standing horse-racing industry.

At first reading and second reading, and in committee, I had the opportunity to discuss many of the issues at the heart of single-event sports betting. Even though single-event sports betting is prohibited by the Criminal Code, it is still a $14 billion industry here in Canada. As I have said before in this place, it is all done by unregulated and unsupervised offshore betting sites and black market bookmakers. There are no consumer protections in place. There are no problem-gambling programs offered and no guidelines that bookmakers are required to follow. This also means that the economic benefits are not being felt by Canadians.

I do not want to repeat what I have discussed already through the various stages of this legislative process. However, for the benefit of my colleagues who did not participate in the justice committee study, I want to highlight some of the important points that were raised by witnesses during the justice committee study on Bill C-218.

The first comment is from Shelley White. She is the CEO of the Responsible Gambling Council, which is an independent organization that works to ensure there are adequate gambling safeguards in place to promote the well-being of Canadians and communities. She said:

[I]t is RGC's neutral and independent stance that we recommend Bill C-218 be passed. This is a unique opportunity to bring together stakeholders from health, mental health, education, financial services and the policing sectors with the gambling industry to create a made-in-Canada responsible gambling culture comprised of evidence-informed regulations and leading practices. We have the opportunities to learn from other jurisdictions who've come before us and applied the highest level of safeguards.

This same point was reiterated by Paul Melia, who is the president and CEO of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. He said:

I think the legislation provides an opportunity to provide greater services and support to those who may become addicted to gambling than the current system, where we have an unregulated market and where it's going on. We're not really aware of how much is going on, who may be addicted and who might be harmed, so I think there's an opportunity to provide the appropriate services.

I put these two comments first because they address the concerns I have heard from many constituents of mine and from Canadians who have written to me from coast to coast.

When we talk about gambling in any form, mental health and addictions are major concerns, and rightfully so. However, the reality is that the current situation is far worse for those who are struggling with addiction and mental illness. By allowing offshore sites and black market bookmakers to monopolize single-event sports betting, we are ensuring that adequate consumer protections and assistance programs are not available to those who desperately need them. As addressed by the Responsible Gambling Council and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, this bill presents an opportunity for us to rectify that issue once and for all.

The next comment I want to touch on is from Unifor president Jerry Dias. He said:

It goes without saying that revenues generated in illicit, illegal, underground black market gaming operations do nothing to contribute to good jobs for workers in Canada. This money is siphoned off into the pockets of offshore operators and organized crime. On the other hand, by creating a legal and regulated market for single-game sports betting in Canada, we could help protect thousands of good, unionized jobs in gaming locations across the country and potentially create many more.

I have two more comments from the committee on which I want to touch.

The first is from Zane Hansen, the CEO of the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, which is responsible for managing several casinos in my home province of Saskatchewan. He provided some important context for the gaming industry, given the COVID-19 pandemic. He said:

...having single-event wagering as an approved form of gambling to incorporate into our business model will really assist us in rebuilding and going forward. It's going to be a whole new world getting our customers back into our building and feeling safe and comfortable.

By the way, Zane Hansen provides what I feel is important insight from the industry's perspective because it is also from an indigenous perspective.

Bill C-218 would provide a significant opportunity to help the gaming sector begin the rebuilding process. This applies not only to SIGA or Saskatchewan, but to all establishments and communities across the country.

The final comment I want to touch on is from David Shoemaker, CEO of the Canadian Olympic Committee, as it gives an all-encompassing overview of the legislation. He said:

The timing is right for Canada to expand sports betting. This bill has the potential to unlock new growth opportunities, reduce illegal betting and generate revenues for both the sport industry and governments. Our interests are in ensuring that single sport betting is introduced in a responsible, effective and profitable manner.

I am not sure I need to add anything else to Mr. Shoemaker’s remarks tonight, other than to point out that the support coming from the Canadian Olympic Committee is representative of the fact it is not just professional sport that wants the legislation to pass, but amateur sport as well. Bill C-218 is in the best interests of all athletes.

We know the legislation has support across party lines, throughout industries and from countless stakeholder groups. Let us not delay any further and get Bill C-218 sent to the Senate so it can be considered and hopefully passed there.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.