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.

Justice and Human Rights

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.

[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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that Bill C-218, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 1 with the following:

2 Paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

(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

I will leave it at that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Clerk, if you could please let in Mr. Waugh with the consent of the committee....

Are members okay with Mr. Waugh sitting in with us today?

Absolutely. He's been such a great representative, I think, over the past number of hearings on Bill C-218.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Welcome back, everyone. We are now in public and webcast. We will be proceeding with the clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-218.

Mr. Brian Masse will now be replacing Mr. Garrison, and Mr. Badawey is replacing Mr. Kelloway. It's very good to have both of you here today.

To assist us in our deliberations, we have in attendance, in Ottawa, Mr. Philippe Méla, our legislative clerk; and our faithful officials from the Department of Justice, namely, Carole Morency, director general and senior general counsel, criminal law policy section, policy sector; and Michael Ellison, counsel, criminal law policy section, policy sector.

Welcome to both of you. Thank you for being here.

Now we'll go to the clause-by-clause consideration. As members know, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, will be postponed until the very end.

(On clause 2)

Within clause 2, we have two amendments, namely G-1 and CPC-1. Just so that members understand, I will be calling on G-1 first, because it was submitted first. If it is adopted, CPC-1 cannot be moved as they are identical. For the same reason, if G-1 is defeated, then so is CPC-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

That concludes our second hour of panellists. I'd like to take this time to thank all our witnesses for their very important testimony and your remarks today.

If you would like to provide further clarification for the committee, I would ask that you please send that to our committee clerk as soon as possible so we can include it in our deliberations.

I have a very quick reminder for the members that the deadline for submitting amendments for Bill C-218 is today at 4 p.m. If you have any questions or any issues with that, please don't hesitate to reach out to me or to the clerk as well.

Thank you all very much.

I adjourn this meeting.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. O'Donnell.

Could you tell me what your views are on the issue of whether or not to exclude racehorse events from Bill C-218? Bill C-13 excluded them while Bill C-218 includes them. My understanding is that they should be excluded, in your opinion.

I would like to know why horse racing, as opposed to any other sport, should be treated differently.

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

Thank you.

I have a question for Chief Deer.

As I understand it, there has been no negotiation or agreement with Quebec on the issues you addressed in your remarks.

What is your specific request with respect to Bill C-218?

I understood you were going to suggest amendments to us in writing. We will receive them later, but for now, can you give us an overview of your requests?

[John Levy]

Again, I think the issue must relate to what's in front of us right now, which is Bill C-218. What we want to focus on is that we don't want to do anything that's hurting the racing industry. What the amendment that we're proposing will do is it will leave the racing industry in the same position they're in now.

Are there other issues with respect to racing? I'm sure there are. I mean, I used to be in that business. But the reason they're supporting sports betting is that they see it as something that will really benefit horse racing at Woodbine and all of the other tracks, and the horsemen and everybody all across the country. That's why they're supporting it.

If there are other issues to deal with, let's deal with them down the road, but let's bring it in from the cold, from the grey market, and let's bring it into a licensed and regulated [Technical difficulty—Editor] environment. We don't want to miss this opportunity this time. We missed it a number of years ago. None of those dollars were working for any Canadians over the last period of time. Now is the time to solve this problem. If there are other things that would help horse racing in the future, I would be all in favour of looking at them.

[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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

May I take this opportunity to first acknowledge that the lands that I'm speaking from here in Niagara are those of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe peoples. With great respect to those in the past and still residing here, I give that mention.

With that as well, I do want to thank many members for their bipartisan effort, there's no doubt, throughout the many years of this bill, Bill C-218, being brought forward. To those members, such as MP Irek Kusmierczyk, Brian Masse, Kevin Waugh and Minister Lametti, thank you for bringing this forward and putting it on the table. It's long overdue.

Folks, I think for the most part this bill attaches itself to equitable economic benefits for those across the country. As well, it brings something above ground, legalized wagering for single sport betting, and therefore it's not part of the grey market as it has been in the past.

Being from Niagara, I'll say there's no question that we are positioned to benefit. We are a border community, with two major casinos within an area that attaches itself to a great number of people.

I want to go back to that word “equitable”. With that, here in Niagara, hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs will be created. Tens of millions of dollars will be made. Of course, the equitable balance is going to place us with our competition across the border and there's no doubt we'll benefit.

Putting all that aside, I want to prioritize my time with our indigenous community.

Chief Deer, as well as Chief Delisle, sekoh. It's great to see you folks and I appreciate the time that you're giving us.

You both spoke earlier, and Chief Deer, you in particular had run out of time. With all due respect, I want to give you that time right now, with my time, to expand on some of the comments and points that you were about to make. I feel that a lot of what you and the indigenous community are discussing is very important to create that equity and to ensure that it is a partnership between the provinces and territories, and of course, the federal government.

With that, Chief Deer, I'll go straight to you and allow you to finish some of the topics that you were discussing earlier.

[John Levy]

I think that's kind of the way we are. When we launched our TV network in Canada—and thank you for your question—we were up against the big boys here in Canada, too. We launched in the mid-1990s. TSN had a 10-year head start on us. Rogers was launching Sportsnet. We have never been afraid of competing.

For us, it has always been about having the customer come first. Sports betting was really just a natural extension for us in the context of serving the needs of our consumers.

The repeal of the single-event wagering and introducing Bill C-218 and having it pass would be of enormous growth, not only for our company, but for all Canadians. We're already experiencing what that looks like in the U.S., where we have launched in four states, working with regulators and creating technology that allows us to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, which I think is very important.

We're very excited about the prospect of being able to execute on our home turf and satisfy the needs and the passions of our millions, literally, of sports fans all across Canada who are looking for sports wagering.

[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.

[Chief Michael Delisle Jr., Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake]

Thank you, Chief Deer.

I'll start with a brief history of gaming in Kahnawake. The Kanyen'kehà:ka, Mohawk in English, have engaged in gaming and sports betting since time immemorial, a fact that has been confirmed by historical research. Games of chance and wagering on sporting events such as lacrosse have always been and continue to be an integral part of Kanyen'kehà:ka culture and central to our relationships with other nations. In 1996, as an assertion of our inherent right to self-determination, Kahnawake enacted the Kahnawake gaming law, an assertion that is clearly also reconcilable with subsection 35(1) of Canada's Constitution Act, 1982.

Over the following 25 years we utilized our own ingenuity and resources to build a successful, sound and reputable gaming industry in both the online and land-based sectors. Online and land-based gaming in Kahnawake is licensed and regulated by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. Its pragmatic and thorough approach to regulation has earned the commission a reputation of being fair, diligent and well respected.

From an economic perspective, gaming in Kahnawake is a socio-economic initiative. Gaming produces significant revenues that are used for a variety of community projects we would not otherwise be able to recognize. It employs hundreds of people, both from Kahnawake and elsewhere, and facilitates valuable workforce development.

Kahnawake's sports betting brand, Sports Interaction, is operated by Mohawk Online, a company wholly owned by the Mohawk Council. Profits from Sports Interaction have been benefiting our community and have most recently provided us much-needed relief from costs stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Kahnawake gaming industry is a perfect example of an indigenous community's succeeding. We are facilitating economic self-sufficiency to take care of our evolving needs. In our 25 years of operation we have exercised our jurisdiction over gaming openly and conscientiously. We have done so with the knowledge and support of members of the current federal government, such as Minister Lametti.

First, we must be clear that Kahnawake does not take issue with the intent of the code being amended to permit provinces to facilitate sports betting. We recognize Bill C-218 as a positive move forward for Canada's gaming industry. However, we do take issue with the bill's failure to consider, accommodate and reconcile the interests of indigenous peoples.

In its present form the bill threatens the economic resilience of Kahnawake's gaming industry. Simply put, Bill C-218 perpetuates an injustice to indigenous communities that resulted from an agreement between Canada and its provinces in 1985, whereby authority to conduct and manage gaming was exclusively delegated to the provinces. At that time indigenous peoples were not consulted, nor were our interests considered or accommodated. We were simply closed out. What happened in 1985 was a stain on the honour of the Crown.

While it is true that since 1985 some provinces have made efforts to accommodate indigenous interests and share some portion of gaming revenues, this is not the case in Quebec. To date, Quebec has not entered into any agreements to share in gaming revenues with indigenous communities, nor has it ever indicated a will or intent to do so. In short, advancement of Bill C-218, unless it is amended, will result in a deepening of the injustice experienced by indigenous communities, including Kahnawake, since 1985. Worse, Kahnawake's gaming industry will so severely be affected it could face total decimation.

The present state of the single events sports wagering market is frequently described as being under control of either organized crime or offshore interests. To be very clear, Kahnawake's gaming industry is not operated by organized crime nor offshore interests. The fact is we occupy ourselves with good and honest social responsibility and have built a gaming industry that we stand behind as being integrous. This fact must be considered in your deliberations.

I'll pass it back now to Chief Deer.

[Chief Gina Deer, Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

We are pleased to address you today concerning Bill C-218, to make note of the impacts it will have on the gaming industry in our community and to recommend bill changes, amendments, and accommodation or reconciling with the interests of Kahnawake and other first nations in Canada.

I will turn it over to Chief Mike Delisle for some of the history.

[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.

[Bill O’Donnell, President, Central Ontario Standardbred Association]

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to present to your committee.

My name is Bill O'Donnell. I am the president of the Central Ontario Standardbred Association, which represents and supports the horse owners, trainers, drivers, caretakers, tradespeople and others who participate in horse racing in Ontario's 12 standardbred tracks.

I have been involved in horse racing all my life, as an owner, breeder, trainer and driver. I am currently the vice-president of the Ontario Standardbred Adoption Society, or OSAS for short, which is where we find homes for retired racehorses. I am also a director on the Ontario Racing board.

Our association supports the proposed expansion and regulation of single-event sports wagering in Canada but wants to ensure that our agriculture-based horse-racing industry is protected in the process.

I'd now like to turn our presentation over to Dave Drew for more details about our recommended changes to Bill C-218.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If the Nordiques come back to Quebec City, I want to know before anyone else. I'll have bets on that.

My question is for Mr. Melia.

I understand that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport covers a number of sports, not just hockey, for example.

I would like to hear your views on the issue of including horse racing betting in Bill C-218.

There is a debate right now. Some would like to see horse racing bets excluded and others think they should be treated the same as any other sports bet.

[Sandy Hawley]

Well, I'm not really an expert on legislation, but I think Bill C-218 includes horse racing for single sport betting.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, I think your requests are very reasonable. They would be good things to do, even outside the legislation—also within it—in terms of regulations and so forth. They may not be specifically here but should be accomplished and set as a goal. Thank you for your presentations and your commitment to these measures. It makes important strides for several reasons.

To Mr. Hawley, on the historical horse racing, it seems to me that the horse-racing industry is looking more for a revenue stream than really anything else.

I have a lot of empathy because the provincial government under McGuinty closed the Windsor raceway despite the fact that we introduced a charity casino, which actually made a profit and was doing okay. We lost all the subsequent benefits, as you mentioned.

I have empathy for you right now, jealousy even, with your being in Kentucky. It's actually a quicker drive from Windsor to Kentucky, where you are, than it is from Windsor to Ottawa.

I really have a lot of empathy, but I guess the problem is this: Would you not agree that historical racing is based on fiction and algorithms? That makes it a little bit different. You could do the same thing with historical betting on hockey, football, anything.

Perhaps that might need some more thought, and provincial regulations could offer a better path. Would you not agree that might be better? If not, what is a specific amendment that you want for C-218?

My understanding is that it would require several...and perhaps even different legislation that could actually scuttle this one. Maybe you can comment on that, please.

[Sandy Hawley]

Yes, sir.

We actually have tremendous technology at Woodbine, and of course at racetracks across Canada. We have HorsePlayerInteractive, which is a way of betting on horses. I think that if the government would allow it, Woodbine would be a big part of Bill C-218.

[Sandy Hawley]

Yes, sir.

We're definitely not against single sports betting. It's just a thing that we hope we can help regulate in some way.

As I mentioned, there are a number of jobs that depend on this. I mentioned a few jobs, but there are many more that I could mention. I think it's very important that there be an amendment on C-218.

[Keith Wachtel, Chief Business Officer and Senior Executive Vice-President, Global Partnerships, National Hockey League]

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

My name is Keith Wachtel. I'm the chief business officer and senior executive vice-president of global partnerships at the National Hockey League. I'm here today with my colleague, Conal Berberich, a vice-president in our legal department.

We would like to thank you, Madam Chair, and the committee members, for inviting us here today to share with you the NHL's journey and experience on the topic of single-event sport wagering.

First, the National Hockey League supports Bill C-218, the proposed Canadian federal legislation to eliminate the provision in Canada's Criminal Code that prohibits provincial governments from offering wagering on a single sport event. Though the NHL had previously opposed single-event sports wagering, for the reasons we stated publicly on the record, the reality is that the landscape in North America has changed. Our experience in the United States since 2018 has demonstrated that a well-regulated marketplace that both advances and protects the interests of relevant constituencies can be established in a safe and responsible manner.

Since the Supreme Court of the United States' 2018 decision in Murphy v. the NCAA overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the American Gaming Association reports that 25 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that permits, or will soon permit, single-event sports wagering. In that regard, we point to the growing number of commercial relationships that are being formed within the NHL, including U.S.-based league-level relationships with currently five, and soon to be more, major sports books.

As part of our league-wide policies that govern these relationships, sports books are required to, among other things, represent and warrant that they are licensed and legally compliant, including enforcing age verification and geo-gating requirements; taking appropriate steps to monitor wagering on the NHL and share information; offering only appropriate bet types; and promoting responsible gaming. As part of the NHL's U.S. efforts, we have partnered with industry trade groups and have committed resources in support of responsible gaming, including public service campaigns.

All interested constituencies are aware that such a change in the law governing sports betting in Canada will present both opportunities and certain challenges, as it has in the United States, as we collectively navigate the new sports betting landscape. Establishing a level playing surface across the North American sports betting landscape will promote transparency, fairness and responsibility for all stakeholders in the space, as well as for the public.

We believe that any sports betting legislation should provide a comprehensive framework that appropriately takes into account and adequately balances the diverse interests of the various constituencies. Accordingly, we strongly believe the key elements of any legislation should, among other things, provide for appropriate consumer protections and technological safeguards, for example, age and geographic restrictions, abuse or addiction hotlines and the like; ensure the protection of intellectual property rights; permit leagues and governing bodies to restrict the types and timing of bets that might be placed on games, for example, certain so-called prop bets that might lend themselves to a perception of inappropriate incentives or behaviour; and appropriately allocate resulting revenues across the various stakeholder groups.

Although the National Hockey League has no concerns regarding the integrity of our game, we take our responsibilities in this regard seriously, as reflected by the extensive, ongoing monitoring we undertake in the normal course, both internally and via leading global experts in the space, such as Sportradar.

The National Hockey League provides family entertainment and has worked tirelessly since its inception in 1917 to earn and maintain a reputation for the absolute integrity of its competition for the good of the sport and our fans, irrespective of any legislative changes across Canada and the United States related to single-event sports wagering. We prohibit, and will continue to prohibit, all National Hockey League employees and players from engaging in any wagering on National Hockey League games.

Madam Chair, thank you again. We look forward to the committee's questions.

[David Shoemaker, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary General, Canadian Olympic Committee, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport]

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.

First is responsible, the impacts of Bill C-218 may include an increase in match manipulation and gambling, which we believe poses at least as much risk in amateur and Olympic sport where athletes don't earn big incomes and large amounts of betting still take place.

The International Olympic Committee has created a code on the prevention of manipulation of competitions. In 2020, together we organized a workshop in Canada on match manipulation. Many international sport organizations have established integrity units to safeguard their sports and to educate and protect athletes. A focus on protection and education will be required going forward. A portion of incremental tax revenues should be earmarked for mental health care and addiction education.

Second is profitable. Deloitte estimates that within five years of legalization, Canadian sport betting could grow to $28 billion a year. We must ensure that revenues are distributed back to the principal content providers that stage the events, in our case, a member national sport organization, many of whom operate on shoestring budgets, to enable them to provide increased support to athletes at all levels of the sport system.

Last is effective. National sport organizations will need support. In establishing infrastructure to ensure betting integrity and in monetizing all available channels, including partnerships with sport betting companies, media rights and data sales, we must equip sport organizations with the tools and support to capitalize on the expansion of sport betting.

We believe the expansion of betting options can be a game-changer and if we focus on betting being responsible, effective and profitable, we can all win.

Thank you.

[Paul Melia, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is pleased to be here today with the Canadian Olympic Committee with whom we've been collaborating to examine the impact of Bill C-218 on Canadian sport.

Through this short presentation the CCES will share with you concerns around the increased risk of match manipulation and ways to mitigate that risk. The COC will comment on the potential for revenue generation to support sport development in Canada.

The CCES supports Bill C-218 as we believe a regulated framework is needed to appropriately manage single event sport betting in Canada.

Technology and organized crime have combined over the years to render Canada's current laws regarding prohibition of single event betting all but meaningless. Single event betting on Canadian sports, including by Canadian residents, is already a multi-billion dollar a year business but most of the revenue is going to organized crime. Legalizing and regulating single event betting in Canada would be an effective harm reduction strategy. However, it also comes with associated risk to the safety of athletes and the integrity of Canadian sport.

If Bill C-218 is to move forward, the committee should be aware of the increased risk to athletes' safety and the integrity of sporting competitions posed by match manipulation. Legalized single event betting in Canada will increase the risk of match manipulation. Match manipulation is linked to organized crime, which takes advantage of vulnerable athletes, officials, coaches and other support staff to fix the outcome of sporting competitions.

This is a global issue, and it's already occurring in Canada. Many countries, such as Australia, Great Britain and Germany, are actively addressing match manipulation through legislation designed to prevent, detect and punish match fixing in sport. No such legislation, no such legislative framework, currently exists in Canada. The CCES therefore recommends that the passing of the bill be accompanied by the following specific actions to reduce the risk of match manipulation.

Canada should ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, which is open to non-European nations. Australia has done so.

The Government of Canada should require all federally funded sport organizations to: one, demonstrate they have rules in place to manage the risk of match manipulation, including disciplining those engaged in match fixing; and, two, demonstrate that all participants within their sport are educated about the risk.

Incremental costs to the Government of Canada and to federally funded sport organizations associated with the above two recommendations should be covered through the incremental revenue associated with single sport betting.

I will now turn it over to David.

[Sandy Hawley, Retired Thoroughbred Jockey, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Moore.

My name is Sandy Hawley. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the racing industry across Canada.

I was a professional thoroughbred jockey for 30 years, starting at the age of 19 years old. I rode around the world, but mostly in Canada and the United States. I have been lucky enough to receive a number of awards throughout my career, including the Order of Canada. I'm also a member of Canada's Sports Hall of Fame, the U.S. racing hall of fame and the Canadian Horse Racing Hall of Fame. Also, it was a great honour to receive the Lou Marsh award as Canada's athlete of the year in 1973 and 1976.

I'm speaking before you today from my winter residence in which happens to be one of the most historic racing jurisdictions in the world, Kentucky, home of the Kentucky Derby. Despite its rich history, racing here in Kentucky has also faced its challenges recently, but the industry now has a positive outlook thanks to historical horse racing which may single-handedly save the industry.

Horse racing has provided me the opportunity to race around the world and ended up by my meeting my lovely wife Kaoru, who is also a thoroughbred jockey.

As you can see, horse racing has been very good to me. This industry contributes $5.7 billion to the Canadian economy each year and supports over 50,000 jobs across Canada. These jobs depend on revenue from parimutuel wagering on the horse-racing industry. The revenue from [Technical difficulty—Editor] and secures many people's incomes, jobs and livelihoods. These include grooms, hot walkers, trainers, owners, blacksmiths, veterinarians, agriculture workers and jockeys, just to name a few.

There is a deep history of tradition in Canadian horse racing. In fact, just a few years ago, the Canadian horse industry celebrated its 250th anniversary.

I understand the world is changing, and sports betting happens all around the world. Although I'm not an expert in this area, it seems like it makes sense to legalize it so the government can regulate it and use it to create jobs and generate revenue.

I am in favour of single sports betting, but if not done correctly, it could be devastating to our industry and the many jobs within the agriculture and rural communities.

I've always been very proud of Canadian horse racing, notably Woodbine Racetrack, where I rode my first race back in 1968. Horsemen from around the world love to come to race at Woodbine Racetrack for its beautiful facility and hospitality.

I've also worked for Woodbine Entertainment for the last 25 years, since I retired from my riding career, as an ambassador in media and media relations, and I continue to do so.

I mentioned earlier that I spend my winters here in Lexington, Kentucky, where there's historical horse racing, whereby a wager can be made on an anonymous race that happened in the past. Basically it's the same thing as wagering in a live race, but instead there's no need of operating a live race. It uses thousands of anonymous races from the past, which probably include a few of mine, and offer it as a wagering experience for the customer. Similar to betting on a live race, some of the money is given back to the industry to help sustain it. Historical horse racing has literally been the saviour for horse racing in Kentucky, and I strongly believe historical horse racing can have some profound impact here in Canada.

I'm counting on the government to recognize the industry, its hard-working people, its value, and make the right decision on the amendment of Bill C-218 so that betting on horse racing would be excluded. Without the exclusion, it would kill the revenue stream that supports a sport, all the people and the businesses that depend on it. For instance, it would be like trying to drive an automobile without gas or a battery.

On behalf of the entire industry, I am asking this committee to ensure that horse racing has an opportunity not only to survive but also to thrive for another 250 years as it continues to be an important part of the daily lives of so many, as it has been to mine.

Thank you for your time this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Once again we are on Bill C-218. The sponsor, Mr. Waugh, is with us today. He's replacing Mr. Cooper.

Welcome back, Kevin.

Mr. Masse, who is there in person, is replacing Mr. Garrison.

Welcome back.

As well, Vance Badawey is replacing Mr. Virani today.

Welcome, Vance. It's great to have you here today.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person who is speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. For Mr. Masse specifically, we ask that you please follow your guidelines and protocols with respect to distancing and such.

As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting. I thank members in advance for their co-operation. To ensure an orderly meeting, I will outline a few rules to follow.

For interpretation, you will see a choice at the bottom of your Zoom screen. Please select the language that you would like to listen to. You can speak in either of the official languages of your choice. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. With regard to the speaking list, I do have a speaking list that is available [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

No, I meant the Canadian Football League, but perhaps we can revisit that based on what you're advising us. We'll have a conversation with the clerk afterwards and ensure that they're represented here at least. The actual league, the CFL, did advise us that they'll be providing written submissions regardless.

Just so members are aware, at our next meeting on Thursday, we will be having Minister Lametti appear in the first hour, and then the second hour will be officials only. We'll be meeting about the supplementary estimates (C) 2020-21 and the main estimates for 2021-22. Keep that in mind as we go into our next meeting.

We have a break week in between, and then March 23 will be the last meeting on C-218. On the 25th, the first hour will be dedicated to considering the draft report for the coercive conduct study, and then in the second hour, we'll go into clause-by-clause for Bill C-218.

Those are my updates with the agenda.

Mr. Moore, I see your hand is raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

As I indicated earlier, we would need 10 minutes, as Mr. Fortin requested at our last meeting, to discuss his motions and some housekeeping items, so at this time I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for your very compelling testimonies today, for being here and for answering our questions. If there are further clarifications that you'd like to provide, please send them to our clerk in writing. We'd be happy to receive them.

Thank you again. You are now welcome to log off the meeting if you so desire.

Very quickly to members, we'll get to a couple of housekeeping items before we go to Monsieur Fortin's three motions.

First, you've all been emailed our budget for the study of Bill C-218 in the amount of $2,650. Can I have the consent of the committee to pass this budget? A thumbs-up would be great.

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

In your opinion, if Bill C-218 were passed and the practice were legalized, couldn't the racetracks come to an agreement with Loto-Québec on revenue sharing? Ms. Leslie spoke earlier about the cost of maintaining horses, among other things. Couldn't some type of revenue sharing be arranged with Loto-Québec? Has this option been explored or discussed?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for you, Ms. Thomassin. However, I want to start by greeting you on behalf of your member of Parliament, Ms. Charbonneau, who would have liked to be here.

Ms. Thomassin, I gather from your presentation that you're concerned about the financial impact of potentially legalizing single-event sports betting. You aren't the only person to make this point. I'm not an expert in the field. However, I gather that single-event sports betting is already taking place, but the black market is benefiting from it. This is done through criminal organizations. It has always been that way and it probably will be that way as long as single-event sports betting is prohibited.

Bill C-218 proposes to legalize single-event sports betting. This would mean, for example, that Loto-Québec could manage bets on events that take place at your place, at the Trois-Rivières Racetrack. You're concerned that this would cost you revenue. However, you're already losing revenue to the black market.

Have you estimated the market share that goes to criminal organizations for single-event sports betting?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

In 2014, the Senate blocked Bill C-290, which was very similar to Bill C-218. The senators felt that there was too much potential for match fixing or for organized crime to infiltrate the world of legal betting by rigging sporting events, including horse racing. One concern was that horses would pay the price for this potential rigging with their health.

How would you respond to these allegations today?

[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.

[Stewart Groumoutis, Director, eGaming, British Columbia Lottery Corporation]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Thank you for inviting the British Columbia Lottery Corporation to provide our perspective on Bill C-218, the safe and regulated sports betting act.

My name is Stewart Groumoutis and I'm BCLC's director of e-gaming operations. My colleague in virtual attendance is Dr. Jamie Wiebe, director of player health at BCLC.

We are pleased to speak to the committee today as you consider this bill to modernize the law in Canada so that sports bettors can finally legally access single-event betting in their own country, as well as the benefits and safeguards that come with that option.

To provide some background on BCLC, we conduct and manage commercial gambling in a socially responsible manner on behalf of the Province of British Columbia. This includes 16 casinos, 17 community gaming centres, 3,500 lottery retail and hospitality locations and PlayNow.com, B.C.'s only regulated gambling website, which currently captures approximately two-thirds of B.C.'s total online gambling market.

Since 1985, approximately $25 billion from BCLC's revenues has gone back to the Province of B.C. to support important investments like health care, education and community programs.

Like previous speakers, we believe single-event sports betting is long overdue. We believe we can offer this product while supporting the health and safety of our players and mitigating gambling-related harms.

We know that B.C. players already make these bets, either south of the border in State of Washington casinos or on unregulated offshore websites, neither of which provide revenue or jobs that support British Columbia. In fact, we estimate that more than $1 billion is wagered on sports annually in our province. The majority of the benefit of that wagering leaves B.C. as a result of the current laws.

We're asking for a level playing field. We're asking for the opportunity to offer single-event sports bets in a way that benefits our province and our players—through regulated player health, integrity and security safeguards.

In the short term, BCLC plans to first implement single-event betting on PlayNow.com and quickly create a new suite of sports betting opportunities for our customers. In the long term, at land-based casinos and community gaming centres, we're ready to work with our industry, regulator and government partners to introduce licensed sports books in key markets.

We'd also consider enhanced sports betting offerings at hospitality locations, providing a much needed economic boost to bars and pubs across B.C.

While this is a significant opportunity for our players and our province, we acknowledge that legalized single-event sports betting creates a responsibility to enhance the robust player health safeguards we already have in place.

We can tell you that providing the best player experience possible—while supporting the health and well-being of our players by reducing gambling-related harms—is at the forefront of how we work. In fact, our goal is that no one is harmed from gambling offered by BCLC. We're working towards this not only by encouraging healthy play but by making our products, environments and services safer for our players.

One way we do this is through player research to gain a deeper understanding of risks, current interventions and safeguards, as well as evidence of their effectiveness. Another way we do this is through our GameSense advisers. They are dedicated player health specialists available to support players with informed decision-making and healthy play—or to refer them to treatment and support when needed.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, and with B.C.'s casinos currently closed, we have enhanced these supports and have GameSense advisers available via telephone and online chat on PlayNow.com. In fact, PlayNow.com is the only online gambling website in North America, and it is one of the few in the world with dedicated player health specialists ready to support their customers.

You'll also recall from a previous speaker, Mr. Zane Hansen from SIGA, that our GameSense program is widely used by our provincial counterparts in Saskatchewan. It's also licensed in Alberta, Manitoba and several jurisdictions in the United States, including all MGM resort facilities.

For our commitment to continuous improvement and our evidence-based approach to player health, BCLC has received the highest level of certification—for the fourth time in a row—from the World Lottery Association. This certification is for excellence in responsible gambling programming.

If Bill C-218 is passed, BCLC and our Canadian regulated counterparts are well-positioned to offer single-event sports bets to players in a safe and responsible way.

As someone who has been with BCLC for more than 10 years, I know first-hand about the investments we have made in player health, the terrific player experience we offer and how much better it could be with single-event sports betting.

This is something our country is ready for. That's why we're urging you and your colleagues to work collaboratively to bring single-event sports betting to Canadian players and provinces.

Thank you.

[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]

Just to clarify, the number that is bet parimutuelly in Canada, legally through the CPMA, is $1.2 billion today. We believe that if Bill C-218 were to come in unamended, there could be fixed-odds wagering legal in Canada and perhaps as much as half of that parimutuel number, $600 million, could disappear and the industry would not benefit from that handle number.

You've asked me to also guesstimate what I think the offshore market on Canadian horse-racing products could be today, and I am saying I think it could be north of $200 million.

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

Right now, single-event betting on horse racing is controlled by organized crime. Do you know what this means financially?

You said that, if Bill C-218 were to pass, about half of your $1.2 billion in revenue would be affected. That said, have you estimated how much of that money is currently going to the black market, to criminal organizations?

[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.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

My question for Mr. Ford pertains to what has already been discussed. The people in the racetrack industry are concerned that, if Bill C-218 were to pass, they would lose revenue. Mr. Lewis spoke—and he isn't the only one who has done so—about the single-event betting done through the criminal network.

Mr. Ford, do you think that legalization would really affect racetrack revenue?

[Jim Lawson]

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Chris D. Lewis, Retired Commissioner, Ontario Provincial Police, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for inviting me here today to provide some commentary regarding Bill C-218. My name was put forward as a potential witness by the Canadian Gaming Association.

One of the arguments made in favour of decriminalizing cannabis in Canada similarly applies to the sports wagering issue. It's a product that millions of Canadians spend billions of dollars illegally to obtain. It is estimated that Canadians spend $10 billion annually through illegal sports betting operations controlled by organized crime.

In December 2019, the Ontario Provincial Police organized crime enforcement bureau broke up a Hells Angels-controlled illegal gambling ring in southwestern Ontario that earned $131 million over a five-year period. Based on the average profit margin of 5% to 6% for a sports book operation, this single organized crime operation would have accepted close to $2.5 billion in illegal wagers over that five-year period.

The OPP alleged that Hells Angels members controlled the illegal gambling ring through five websites. Many of the gamblers utilizing these sites would not understand that the sites were controlled by an organized crime group.

It is important to note that with the organized crime illegal gambling model come criminal turf wars, resulting in assorted violent crimes right up to and including murder. There have been a number of gangland murders in the greater Toronto area alone over the past several years related to the control of illegal gambling marketplaces, including shootings, arson and fire bombings.

There is a severe public safety risk related to that activity, as well as tremendous financial costs associated with responding to, investigating and prosecuting such acts of violence. In addition, investigating organized crime group activities is extremely resource-intensive from human, technology and operational funding perspectives.

According to a 2019 report from Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, or CISC, illegal bookmaking exists in every single region of Canada. While the exact size of the illegal sports book market is not known, it is believed to be significant. Some estimate it is in excess of $10 billion annually.

There are several examples of large-scale illegal betting operations run by organized crime having been broken up by law enforcement. These activities provide revenue to organized crime groups that allow them to fund a variety of other criminal activities.

The public report on organized crime in Canada highlights the use of illegal gaming operations by organized crime groups as a high-profit, low-risk market. It states on page eight:

[Outlaw motorcycle groups] collaborate with other [organized crime groups] in the importation of cocaine and other illicit drugs, and have networks stretching across Canada that facilitate their well-established distribution lines. They are criminally associated to groups that form the [traditional organized crime] network, and are involved with [organized crime groups] involved in illegal online gaming....

On page 12, the report says:

Gaming networks generate millions of dollars of revenue each year, and [organized crime groups] involved in this market use these illicit funds to finance other forms of criminality, such as drug importing and trafficking.

For individual bettors, dealing with organized crime in terms of sports betting brings additional personal risks. Organized crime groups will provide loansharking and allow individuals to far exceed their financial capacity at exorbitant criminal interest rates. Then they will hang the threat of physical violence and other forms of extortion over the borrowers' heads to ensure the repayment of accumulated debts in a timely way.

The Government of Canada has made it a priority to develop new policy and legislation to reduce organized crime activity. The Prime Minister's 2019 ministerial mandate letters for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada included statements to that end.

The Government of Canada cited that one of its primary reasons for legalizing cannabis was to eliminate the criminal element and reduce organized crime's access to the large profits generated. It's time to apply that same logic to sports wagering and pass the amendment to the Criminal Code to permit single-event sports wagering.

The majority of Canadians who engage in sports betting believe they are engaging in a fun and harmless activity, as it is often presented as being legal and respectable. They are often unaware of the significant profits criminal organizations make as a result.

Bill C-218 will allow for greater regulation and oversight to ensure that Canadians are wagering in a safe and secure environment. A legal, regulated sports betting marketplace will provide the gambler with a safe and secure environment to bet in and the confidence that appropriate, responsible gambling measures are in place.

For more than three decades, Canadian provincial regulators have demonstrated an extremely strong track record in overseeing the development of industry-leading consumer protection safeguards, resulting in safe and responsible regulated gambling environments for Canadian players—

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

That's exactly what I was going to talk about just now before we adjourn today.

There are two major deadlines.

The deadline for written submissions, Mr. Cooper, for all members, is March 11 at 4 p.m. That is taking into account the translation time and also giving enough time between that deadline and the deadline for submitting amendments as well. March 11 at 4 p.m. will be the deadline for written submissions for Bill C-218.

Also, then, the second deadline—I know we talked about it at our last meeting, but I'll just remind members—is March 23 at 4 p.m. That will be the deadline for members for amendments to Bill C-218.

If any of you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to reach out to me or to the clerk. As you know, the legislative clerk is at your service to help you draft amendments, should you so need that. Just reach out. We'll be happy to provide you with that support.

Then we will get right into our next meeting, which will be another meeting on Bill C-218, with more witnesses.

Are there more questions from members at this time on what's happening in the next couple of weeks? No?

Does that answer your question, Mr. Cooper?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Burns.

Right now, Canadian gamblers must go on websites or abroad, such as to a number of American states, which allow single-event sports betting. I am still obviously talking about single events.

If Bill C-218 is passed, people will be able to bet on single sporting events in Canada.

Beyond the impact and the inflow of Canadian money related to single-event sports betting, what impact could this have in terms of foreign money that would ultimately be invested in casinos or other entities, here, in Canada?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

Mr. Dias, wouldn't passing Bill C-218 represent an expansion of gaming in this country? So isn't that in essence really what we're voting for?

[Jerry Dias, National President, Unifor]

Good afternoon, Chair, and members of the standing committee. It is a pleasure to have been invited to speak to you here today. My name is Jerry Dias, and I am the national president of Unifor, which is Canada's largest private sector union.

Unifor represents 315,000 members across nearly all major sectors of the economy, from coast to coast, including approximately 11,000 gaming workers across the country. We have members working at the Parq Casino in Vancouver, at Manitoba lotteries, and at Caesars Windsor and Casino Rama, just to name a few.

It is on their behalf that I am speaking today when I share Unifor's support for Bill C-218, the safe and regulated sports betting act. We believe the federal government should act now to permit single-game sports betting so this gaming activity can be regulated and so our federal and provincial laws and regulations support safe and responsible gaming policy.

Unifor has been advocating for this legislation on single-game sports betting for several years, because we know first-hand that responsible gaming must take place in a professional, properly regulated and fairly taxed environment. Our members and elected leaders—leaders like Dave Cassidy, president of Local 444 in Windsor, Ontario—have been strong and vocal advocates for this legislative change. Local 444 represents 2,300 members working at Caesars Windsor.

In addition, Unifor's hospitality and gaming council, a leadership group elected by and representing 22,000 workers in the hospitality and gaming sector, has endorsed the legislation and regulation of single-game sports betting. Our workers and leaders in the sector know that regulated gaming supports our communities through good unionized jobs, provides business for the broader tourism and hospitality sector, and drives much-needed revenue streams for local, provincial and federal governments.

For many years, some of the biggest opponents to single-game sports betting were the professional sports leagues themselves. However, over time, technology has changed, regulation and enforcement have changed, and public sentiment has changed. Reflecting this shifting, evolving understanding of responsible gaming, many professional sports leagues have revised their position. In June 2020, the NBA, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer and the CFL issued a joint statement supporting the legalization of single-game sports betting in Canada. These leagues recognize the same fundamental truth our members and local leaders do, and that is this: single-game sports betting already takes place in Canada every day, but right now it is illegal, illicit, unregulated and unmonitored. By now, you've probably heard—which you have—that sports betting in Canada is a $14-billion-a-year business, and that only about $500 million of that is spent on legal provincial sports betting. The other $13.5 billion is spent through offshore organizations and illegal bookmaking operations.

In other words, in reality, Bill C-218 isn't about bringing single-game sports betting to Canada. It's about creating a legal framework that will establish a legal and regulated sports betting market in Canada, which would in turn increase consumer protections, help support responsible gaming measures, and protect the integrity of the sports themselves.

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. As you witnessed just last week, Bill C-218received overwhelming support at second reading, with 303 members voting in favour. For our members working in the gaming sector, their families, and their communities, this show of support is great news.

I'd like to close by reiterating Unifor's support for Bill C-218. It's time to bring legal and regulated single-game sports betting to Canada.

Thanks very much and I look forward to your questions.

[Shelley White, Chief Executive Officer, Responsible Gambling Council]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights. Thank you for inviting the Responsible Gambling Council to share our perspective on Bill C-218.

RGC is a respected Canadian not-for-profit organization whose mission is to prevent problem gambling and reduce its impact. Canada is considered a leader in responsible gambling. We're proud to be part of this discussion on the legalization of sports betting.

Our position on gambling is neutral. Gambling is a legal activity in Canada, and as such, we exist to ensure safeguards are in place to minimize the risks associated with gambling.

For over 35 years, RGC has worked closely with regulators and operators to provide strategic guidance, research and accreditation. It works with the public to deliver education and information, so they can make informed decisions about gambling.

We are gratified by our work and how it influences a safer gambling industry. For instance, we prepared the responsible gambling Canada review for Paul Burns and the Canadian Gaming Association, which Mr. Waugh referred to on Tuesday.

For over the last few years, sports betting has grown in popularity, and with it, the body of evidence to suggest who's gambling, the issues associated with sports betting and how to support a safer sports betting industry.

According to the 2018 Canadian Community Health Survey, sports betting prevalence in Canada is 7.9%, with Alberta and Manitoba showing the highest proportion of participation.

A survey that RGC conducted in August 2020 with Ontarians asked about their participation in live, online sports betting with a bookmaker. Sixty-two per cent of males responded that they had participated. Thirty-four per cent of respondents had recently lost employment or reduced hours of employment. Thirteen per cent screened with severe anxiety. Forty-seven per cent positively screened for problem gambling. Over one in 10 intend to gamble online post-COVID-19, and 5% intend to increase their online gambling when more options are available in Ontario.

While this study was about gambling during COVID-19, we know that the impacts from the pandemic will be long-lasting. This study clearly underscores the importance of prevention safeguards as a priority as governments seek to provide broader exposure to gambling.

While gambling has existed in Canada for many years, it's important to take note of how sports betting differs from other types of gambling. Sports betting ties gambling to a favourite pastime enjoyed by millions of Canadians. This association normalizes the gambling activity. Added to this, sports betting has the added complexity of tying emotion into the gambling experience. The emotion associated with the heat-of-the-moment game play can make informed decision-making about money and time spent playing more difficult.

It is with these people in mind that we speak to you today. RGC believes that it's in the best interest of Canadians and Canadian society as a whole that Bill C-218 be passed. It is with this evidence and Canadians' best interests in mind, that RGC recommends the following to the committee.

First is that the legislation of single-event sports betting include a robust regulatory framework that requires provincial regulators and operators to prioritize and integrate consumer protection within their strategy, including adherence and accountability to the highest standard of responsible gambling.

Second is that the federal government continue to champion the prevention of addictions and preservation of individuals' mental health and well-being, in accordance with Canada's Mental Health Commission strategy . This can be achieved by prioritizing consumer safety and supporting the provincial authorities to develop comprehensive responsible gambling strategies as well as build their capacity to support individuals and their communities when they introduce legalized sports betting.

The good news is that we don't need to recreate the wheel. Most of the standards already exist and are in place in land-based gambling. We also have the benefit of lessons learned from other jurisdictions.

In closing, Madam Chair and members of the standing committee, it 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 thoughtful and intentional approach will demonstrate Canada's commitment to prosperity as well as the health and well-being of Canadians and society. Thank you.

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

Are you sure that, if Bill C-218 was passed, we could avoid the fixing of single-event sports in Canada?

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

Okay. I have two and a half minutes.

It will go by quickly.

As my colleague said concerning sports betting, the more I hear about it, the more I realize that I don't understand a thing, but that's another story.

Mr. Ellison, in your opinion, if Bill C-218 was passed as is, would the Criminal Code or the Canadian legislation make it possible to properly control problems that are potentially related to the fixing of single-event sports?

If not, what could we do to improve the legislation?

[Michael Ellison]

I suppose I can answer that question.

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

[Michael Ellison]

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

I hope that answers your question—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

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

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

[Michael Ellison]

To get to the point as quickly as possible, because I know we don't have a lot of time, there are agreements in place between provinces and territories and indigenous peoples. Whether it's an indigenous nation within the province or a community or an organization, those agreements can involve indigenous peoples and they can have a direct effect on them. For example, the Province of Saskatchewan and SIGA have a very comprehensive agreement in place that deals with revenue sharing and whatnot. Bill C-218 can have an impact on indigenous peoples by affecting those agreements, and the ability of provinces and territories to offer additional products would also allow indigenous operators to offer additional products as well if there was an agreement in place between them and the province or the territory.

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

Apologies, I don't mean to interrupt, but we don't have much time.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that gambling is not currently taking place on first nations lands. So the impact of Bill C-218 would be the same on first nations lands and among civil society in general. Is that right?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Ellison, I would like to know what you think about the current legal status of gambling on first nations reserve lands. We know gambling is taking place there.

Also, if passed, what impact would Bill C-218 have on that gambling?

[Michael Ellison]

As Ms. Foss described, parimutuel betting is a form of pool betting. While I would defer to her on the specifics of the exact operation of parimutuel betting, it is essentially a form of pool betting. All interested bettors on the outcome of a horse race pool their bets together. A levy is taken out of that pool for the operation of the CPMA and to help pay for the horse industry in general, including the race operators. The remaining money, depending on the outcome of the race and which horse was bet on, is then divided up between them. That is the pool-based system.

The difference between that and single-event sports betting is that...essentially there is no difference. Single-event sports betting is legal in Canada in one form, and that is parimutuel betting, because ultimately this parimutuel betting system that's in place, which is regulated by the CPMA, is a form of betting on the outcome of a single sporting event.

While Bill C-218 seeks to decriminalize single-event sports betting, it does so when we're talking about provincial and territorial powers. The bill would propose to decriminalize single-event sports betting, including betting products and games of chance, however they are set up by the provinces and territories within their structure of lottery schemes.

To quickly sum up, parimutuel betting—as it's constructed under the CPMA currently—is one form of single-event sports betting, but there are no other legal forms of single-event sports betting today.

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

Yes, I knew that. Thank you, though, for confirming that.

Mr. Hansen, thank you for coming to committee today.

So much has been said about the casinos in Niagara Falls, along with Windsor. I brought you to committee—and you accepted—because of the indigenous aspect. This bill, Bill C-218, has a broad effect across the country. You had a very good statement today. You employ up to 1,800 people or more, and 65% of those are indigenous. This is the group that I feel in our province needs hope and opportunities. I think this bill's going forward gives your company and the people of Saskatchewan an opportunity for hope and employment because coming out of COVID is going to be, as you said, extremely difficult.

Could you comment on that?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lisa Foss, Executive Director, Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thanks very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, CPMA. Let me start by explaining a little bit about the CPMA.

The CPMA is a special operating agency situated within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that regulates and supervises parimutuel betting on horse races. The legislative authority was established in the 1920s.

The mandate of the CPMA is to ensure that parimutuel betting on horse racing is conducted in a way that is fair to the betting public.

You might not be familiar with the term “parimutuel”. Very simply, it's a form of betting that is pool-based, where the bettors are competing with each other for a portion of the pool. The winners divide the total amount of the bet—that is to say, the pool—in proportion to their bets, less a predetermined percentage for the management of the pools by the racetrack operators, applicable provincial taxes and the CPMA's federal levy.

The CPMA's funding model is set up under the Revolving Funds Act, which means it does not receive any government funding. Rather, its revenue is generated through a 0.8% levy applied against each dollar bet in Canada on horse racing.

The total amount bet in Canada on horse racing in fiscal 2019 was $1.2 billion, which generated an annual revenue of just over $9 million for the CPMA. The sector and the CPMA rely on the revenues earned from this betting to fund their operations. Over the last decade or so, these funds, the total amount bet in Canada, have been declining steadily. In the last 20 years, they have dropped by about 27%.

With the funds generated through its levy, the CPMA currently monitors parimutuel betting at 31 racetracks and 145 betting theatres. Betting theatres might be something that you're familiar with at your favourite sports bar. The CPMA has a staff of 31. I'm going to very quickly highlight the three buckets of things that we do.

First, we provide regulatory approval and oversight for betting on parimutuel horse races. This includes, for example, ensuring accurate calculations of the amounts retained by the racetrack operators and the amounts paid out to the winners. We investigate complaints, and we audit systems.

Second, we issue betting permits and licences to Canadian racetracks and their associated betting theatres.

Third, we deliver the equine drug control, or anti-doping, program to deter the unauthorized administration of drugs and medications to racehorses. This national program ensures consistency and helps maintain the integrity of the sport. In an average year, the CPMA tests approximately 25,000 samples of blood or urine. Where a drug violation is found, a certificate of positive analysis is issued by the CPMA. It is up to the province to adjudicate and impose penalties on the violation. For example, that could be a fine or a suspension.

While the CPMA is focused on betting and equine anti-doping, it's the provincial governments that regulate the sport itself. For example, it is the provinces that assign the race dates; officiate the races, with judges and stewards; and license the racetracks, owners, trainers and jockeys.

Now, very quickly, I would like to address the technical elements of Bill C-218 as they relate to horse racing.

Bill C-218 is silent on horse racing, which means that if Bill C-218 proceeds as currently drafted, it could be interpreted as permitting the provinces and territories to conduct and manage all forms of betting on horse racing, including parimutuel betting, which is an area that is currently regulated by the federal government through the CPMA.

If the provinces and territories were to offer and regulate betting on horse racing, it could take customers away from the racetrack operators, who currently are the only entities issued betting permits by the CPMA. This would put further pressure on the horse racing industry and the revenues base of the CPMA.

That's it. I think that's my five minutes.

I'd be very happy to answer your questions related to regulating parimutuel betting on horse racing.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, MP Masse, for all your work on your bill and for piggybacking with me on my private member's bill, Bill C-218.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and all members of the justice committee, for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-218, the safe and regulated sports betting act.

This important piece of legislation seeks to make a rather simple change to the Criminal Code to remove the long-standing restriction against betting on single-sport events, fights and races.

By the way, I was very happy to see the broad support this legislation received in the House of Commons last week and the positive remarks made by all colleagues from all parties.

Single-event sports betting already takes place in this country, and it is a massive industry. According to some estimates, the single-event sports betting industry is worth $14 billion per year. Unfortunately, due to the fact that it is banned under the Criminal Code, this betting all takes place through offshore betting websites and black market bookmakers, most of whom have ties to criminal organizations like the Hells Angels.

This, in and of itself, spawns a variety of problems. First of all, the fact that single-event betting remains prohibited means that the provinces, which are typically responsible for management of lottery and betting systems, are totally unable to regulate this industry. As such, none of these websites or bookmakers are subject to any regulation or taxes.

Not being subject to regulation or government oversight, these websites have no consumer protection requirements, aren't required to maintain or support problem gambling programs, and don't reinvest or spur any further economic activity in the communities that they generate their profits from. This means that all of the profits from such wagers go straight into the pockets of foreign website operators and criminals. In the case of criminal organizations like the Hells Angels, which operate the black market betting rings and websites across this country, the money generated goes on to fund other forms of criminality, providing increased risk to the safety of our communities.

While parlay betting, which requires bettors to select the winners of multiple games correctly, is legal and already exists as a product available in Canada, parlay-betting products like Pro-Line and Sport Select generate only a small fraction of the sport betting in this country, approximately $500 million per year. These products are naturally less attractive to bettors, as the odds of succeeding in their wagers are greatly reduced, so they seek avenues to bet on single events and go toward avenues that most bettors don't realize are actually restricted in this country.

By removing these restrictions in the Criminal Code and putting single-event betting into the hands of the provincial governments, the provinces will be able to offer the products that bettors actually want to bet on and take betting out of the hands, then, of this black market. Organizations such as the Western Canada Lottery Corporation, Lotto-Quebec, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and others that the governments might entrust with these products have experience in these industries and are highly regulated to ensure that consumers are well protected.

It also means that the billions of dollars that currently go to offshore sites and criminal organizations are actually going back into our communities, creating jobs and supporting community programs.

Many provincial governments and their regulators have expressed their support for this proposal, as have amateur sport organizations like Canada Soccer; professional sport leagues, including the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the Canadian Football League and Major League Soccer; and community organizations, plus municipal governments.

In closing, Madam Chair, the legalization of single-event sport betting provides a much-needed opportunity to tackle illegal gambling in this country and create new opportunities for economic development and new avenues for a variety of sectors, especially given the difficult times that we find ourselves in.

Bill C-218 has widespread support, both in the House and across this country.

I trust that in the name of good policy we can work together to get this legislation through this committee and to the rest of the legislative process.

Again, thank you, Madam Chair, and all members of the committee, for your time here today. I'm more than happy to answer some questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

We will start the second hour of this meeting.

For the duration of our study of Bill C-218, I welcome Mr. Masse, who will be replacing Mr. Garrison throughout this study.

Brian, welcome to our committee. It's really good to have you.

I know we're all quite familiar now with the Zoom technology, but I'll remind members to speak slowly and clearly, to please unmute when they are speaking and to mute when they are not speaking.

With that, I welcome Mr. Waugh, who is here by video conference, even though he's in Ottawa.

As a reminder, I have a one-minute card and a 30-second card for members as we go through our questioning, just to make it easier for everyone.

Mr. Waugh, you have five minutes to make your opening remarks.

Single Event Sports Betting

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank all members for their attention.

Criminal Code

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Oh, sorry, Mr. Fortin. The meeting is on Tuesday, but I'm talking about the deadline to submit your witnesses for Bill C-218.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I will look through the schedule to see if we can find an opening for a subcommittee meeting. At this time, it seems that it is not going to be possible as we are giving drafting instructions and then starting the study on Bill C-218. However, we will absolutely make sure that you have ample opportunity in a steering meeting to speak to your motion as well.

I understand the limitations on time right now. I just want to quickly see, Monsieur Fortin, if Monday the 22nd by noon is okay for witnesses from each party. With the 12 witnesses, excluding Mr. Waugh as the sponsor, it would be four witnesses for the Conservatives, four for the Liberals, two for the NDP and two for the Bloc.

Are we agreed on that breakdown for Monday, February 22 at 12 noon?

Monsieur Fortin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

The next thing, as I had outlined in our last meeting, is that on Tuesday coming, in the first hour, we'll be giving drafting instructions to the analysts for this study on domestic violence. For the second hour, I am proposing that we invite the sponsor of Bill C-218, Mr. Waugh, to come and speak to his private member's bill. Then, we will have two further meetings on Bill C-218, then one for clause-by-clause, and then we will get back to our established schedule.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

We can have a subcommittee meeting on this, but I'm presuming that would mean that after we deal with Bill C-218 we would then return to our previous schedule for COVID-related impacts on the justice system.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, what is your suggestion regarding the timing for Bill C-218 in terms of days of study? You're suggesting the first hour would be the second hour of our meeting on Tuesday, and then we'd have a full meeting on—

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

We've just concluded four meetings and the testimony is fresh in our minds. My respectful suggestion would be that we use the time we had allotted next week to wrap up this study and give direction to the analysts, etc. Once that's done, if there's a gap in between when the analysts are bringing back the report, etc. and the final conclusion in tying up this report, we can commence Bill C-218 at that time.

I think two meetings ought to be sufficient. I think there's all-party support for this bill, so it should be a fairly quick analysis of Bill C-218 on safe sports betting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

At this time, I would like to thank all of our witnesses. I really appreciate your testimony. If there are clarifications that you would like to add or any other statements of fact, please do send them over through the clerk. We would be happy to receive them.

At this time, I want to go over something really quickly with our members. Witnesses are free to leave if they would like to.

As members know, Bill C-218 has been referred to our committee at this time. I would like to ask members about this. If we give precedence to bills that are referred to us, should we be going into our bill study first or sticking with our current schedule of COVID and delays in the justice system?

I would propose that if we are going to go to Bill C-218, we can invite the sponsor of the bill for the second hour of the next meeting on Tuesday, then have two meetings with witnesses—two full panels—and then have one meeting on clause-by-clause. I leave it to members to decide if that's the route they would like to go.

Mr. Virani.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 568 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017, respecting the rule of anticipation, states:

If a decision is taken on the first bill,... [as was the case with Bill C-218] then the other [in this case, Bill C-13] may not be proceeded with.

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

Expropriation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-218.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sports betting, sponsored by the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

Today, legal betting on sports events occurs throughout Canada in the form of parlay betting and pari-mutuel betting. Parlay betting allows individuals to wager on the outcome of multiple sporting events, and pari-mutuel is a unique form of betting that allows betters to wager on live horse racing. These two examples provide individuals with the opportunity to participate in a safe and regulated betting environment.

Single-event sports betting is currently not permitted in Canada. This type of betting allows an individual to wager solely on the outcome of a single event or game, such as the Grey Cup. The premise of our criminal law in this area is a blanket prohibition on all gaming and betting activity. Betting, bookmaking, placing bets for third parties and similar gambling-related activities are all illegal. However, from the basic premise that all gambling activities are illegal, a series of exceptions have been enacted over time.

Bill C-218 is drafted as a short and straightforward bill. It proposes a single amendment to the Criminal Code to repeal paragraph 207(4)(b). This paragraph currently prohibits any form of betting on individual races, fights, single-sporting events or athletic contests. If enacted, the amendment would allow provinces and territories to create what is known as a lottery scheme to offer this unique type of betting.

On the surface, Bill C-218's proposal to repeal a paragraph in the Criminal Code seems fine. However, it raises a whole lot of issues that are likely to have repercussions, from the potential for significant revenue generation to unique health care consequences. Although my parliamentary colleagues will have to carefully examine all possible repercussions of this bill, I would like to start by focusing on one issue in particular. Although the vast majority of gaming regulations are enforced by our provincial partners, the federal government has jurisdiction over the supervision and regulation of pari-mutuel betting on horse racing in Canada.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has within her portfolio a special operating agency: the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, or CPMA. This agency, using revenues from its regulation of parimutuel betting, provides essential services to an important Canadian industry. Not only does the CPMA work with the provinces to provide a safe betting environment for Canadians who choose to wager on horse racing, but it also administers the national equine drug control program. This drug control program ensures fair play and the stability of one of Canada's oldest industries.

This is an industry that supports thousands of jobs across the country, from breeders and farmers to jockeys and trainers. Events such as the North America Cup and the Queen's Plate, the latter starting in 1860 and being the oldest continuously run race in North America, are not only important Canadian cultural icons, but also important sources of tourism and other revenues.

I highlight the horse racing industry and the role of the CPMA because of the potential effect of Bill C-218 on the future of these two entities. Should single-event sports betting be legalized without careful consideration of the potential impact on one of Canada's oldest industries, the effects could be devastating.

A repeal of paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code would not only legalize single-event sports betting, but also remove the prohibition on the provinces from regulating additional forms of betting on horse racing. As the CPMA currently funds its important programs through a levy on all bets placed through the parimutuel system of betting, a repeal of the protection found in paragraph 207(4)(b) may also result in removing the majority of CPMA's funding. Without this funding, we could very well see the collapse of this special operating agency, which is of special and essential importance to the horse racing industry.

At this time in particular, all parliamentarians should be clear on the impacts of their decisions on our economy and the impacts on the industry in all regions of our country.

That is why I think it is of vital importance that we take the time to examine, debate and study the essential role that the CPMA plays and the future of an industry that has always served Canada well.

We have a responsibility to the horse racing industry across this country to ensure that we make the right decision. We have a responsibility to vulnerable people in Canadian society to listen to experts in mental health and addictions. We have a responsibility to listen to police officers who investigate organized crime to see how the legalization of what was once seen as a moral vice might affect our modern system of justice and its impacts on illicit activities of organized criminal groups both here in Canada and abroad.

We must also listen to the indigenous peoples and communities as we work to re-establish Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation basis. We must learn what potential impacts this could have on their communities and nations.

Some first nations, and other indigenous groups across this country, have entered into agreements respecting gaming and betting with many of the provinces to share in gambling revenues with the provinces and manage community activities. These agreements are the result of significant consultation, negotiation and trust. It is also my understanding that there are likely other indigenous governments that have expressed an interest in more direct management in gaming and betting. We have a responsibility to listen to indigenous peoples and communities on these important issues and how this industry may impact and benefit indigenous peoples and communities.

We find ourselves at a moment in time when a new form of gaming is being proposed as an exception to the blanket prohibition on gaming and betting.

As always, Parliament must carefully examine the potential repercussions on Canadians and industry stakeholders. We need to determine if it makes sense for Parliament to keep using its jurisdiction over criminal law to prohibit this activity.

The United States recently joined other countries in making this form of gaming possible in a regulated context. We have also seen major industry stakeholders alter their public positions over time. One thing has not changed though: Parliament's duty to take the time to examine the repercussions of such a change on our federal system.

On that note, I would like to extend my thanks for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-218. I look forward to working with all members of the House on this unique initiative.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, Mosaic Stadium in Regina, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, sat vacant through 2020, empty of fans and their beloved players during the pandemic. It is my hope that some day in the not-too-distant future, Rider Nation will once again gather safely, sit shoulder to shoulder and cheer on the green and white as they pummel the Winnipeg Blue Bombers or any other inferior team. To get to that future moment in the bleachers under a bright blue prairie sky, the teams of the Canadian Football League are going to need sources of revenue, the lack of which led to the cancellation of last year's football season. That is why I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-218, the safe and regulated sports betting act.

Many of the merits of this bill have already been explained in detail in the House by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. One of the most persuasive arguments in favour of Bill C-218 is the good that could be done if the $14 billion in revenue generated every year in Canada by single-game sports betting were redirected from underground or offshore entities to lawful distribution in Canada.

Currently, as the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood has pointed out, the governments of Saskatchewan and other provinces take revenues from lottery ticket programs such as Sport Select and Pro-Line to help fund amateur sports and other community activities. These gambling services, known as parlay betting, require bettors to place wagers on multiple sporting events.

For example, if I want to bet on the Saskatchewan Roughriders to beat the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, I cannot bet on just that one game. I also have to bet on one or two other games that I may not be interested in watching, and if I do not pick those other games correctly no payout is made. I can inform the House from personal experience just how annoying and frustrating that can be. Even with these limitations, parlay betting generates approximately $500 million in revenue in Canada every year.

Let us consider the $500 million generated annually by parlay betting, and then think about the $14 billion generated annually by single-game sports betting in Canada. What could be done with that extra $14 billion? One institution that could benefit from the extra revenue is the Canadian Football League and its nine member teams. If the CFL incurs all the costs of putting on the games that people are going to be betting on, it seems reasonable that the league and its teams would want to negotiate some sort of revenue-sharing agreement with their provincial governments for some of the revenues generated from single-game sports betting.

The Canadian Football League and its predecessors have been part of Canadian culture for almost as long as confederation, with the Canadian Rugby Football Union having been founded in 1884. The Grey Cup trophy has been around for over a century, having been donated by Governor General Earl Grey in 1909. Since then, this trophy has been presented every November to the winner of the championship Grey Cup game, with the only interruptions being for World War I, the Spanish flu pandemic, and the current pandemic, which cancelled last year's football season.

On a personal note, one of my fondest childhood memories is of watching the 1989 Grey Cup game on TV in my parents' basement with my older brother and the neighbour kids as the Saskatchewan Roughriders beat the Hamilton Tiger-Cats in the newly opened Toronto SkyDome. I apologize to any members from Hamilton if that brought back some bad memories.

As we come out of the pandemic, many Canadians, including me, would like to see life get back to normal. That includes seeing the Canadian Football League play the 2021 season. I would like to remind the House that another option to enable the CFL to play this season is simply to provide it with a massive taxpayer subsidy. In fact, this is exactly what the league was asking for last spring: anywhere from $30 million to $150 million.

I cannot help but think that it would be nice if we could have our cake and eat it too. It would be nice if we could save this great Canadian institution without being a burden to taxpayers. I believe that decriminalizing single-game sports betting would allow the Canadian Football League the opportunity to do exactly that.

I would like to now discuss how Bill C-218, once passed into law, could create a voluntary source of revenue to help the Canadian Football League, its member teams and other organizations recover from the major economic disruption of the pandemic.

Quite simply, many organizations, including some professional sports teams, had already negotiated revenue-sharing agreements in the past with their provincial governments for parlay betting, such as Pro-Line and Sport Select. If single-game sports betting were to be decriminalized and regulated by provincial governments, it would present a real opportunity for the Canadian Football League and its member teams to negotiate future revenue-sharing agreements for the revenues generated from single-game sports betting.

If such a framework had been in place prior to the pandemic, then perhaps last year's CFL season could have been saved. The problem faced last year by the Canadian Football League is that its business model depends on gate-driven revenues, such as ticket sales, concessions and parking. Other sources of revenue, such as TV contracts and merchandise, are just not enough to make the league economically viable.

This is why the 2020 season was cancelled, and this is why the 2021 season is in jeopardy. However, if single-game sports better were legal in this country, and if the CFL had revenue-sharing agreements in place with their provincial governments, then this long-standing Canadian institution could be on stronger financial footing to come out of the pandemic and once again be economically viable.

The Canadian Football League is a benefit to many Canadians, over and above the players and fans. Every team at every stadium needs hundreds of workers to bring each game to life. I ask members to think of them all. Food and beverage vendors, security guards, tour bus and motorcoach operators, sports broadcasters, and camera operators all have a role to play in creating the contest on the field, the TVs and the tablets of fans all across the country.

I sincerely hope we will get out of this current pandemic as soon as possible, without a third or fourth wave. I would also like for there to be no more pandemics in the future. Then we can all get on with our lives, and there would be no need for the CFL to ask the federal government for a taxpayer-funded bailout to save the season or the league. If parliamentarians agree to pass Bill C-218 into law, then provincial legitimization of that $14 billion in annual gaming revenues could help improve the lives not just of the players and fans of the Canadian Football League but also those who are involved in other sports, cultural and community organizations across the country, as these revenues would be distributed legally under various provincially regulated frameworks.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood for sponsoring this bill. Finally, if Bill C-218 is passed into law, I will bet $50 that the Saskatchewan Roughriders win the Grey Cup this year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue, which is all the more important now that ads for sports betting are becoming increasingly common during broadcasts of Canadian sports events on channels like TVA Sports. These ads are not just regulated by Loto-Québec, and we are seeing other initiatives. It is therefore all the more urgent to better regulate them.

Before I get into the meat of the issue, I want to say that my thoughts are with the front-line workers supporting people who are suffering. Their job has gotten even harder because of COVID-19 and all the emotional distress it is causing. I want to thank them for encouraging those people and express my sincere appreciation under the circumstances. The support they provide is also related to the subject we are talking about this afternoon.

To come back to Bill C-218, I want to thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood, and I also want to recognize my colleague from Windsor West, who began this process a few years ago. In my opinion, the changes that would be brought about by Bill C-218 would improve transparency, better regulate sports betting and give the government additional resources to take care of vulnerable people struggling with addiction. I think that kind of support is key, regardless of the matter of revenue.

I therefore address the House today to express my support for Bill C-218, which seeks to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code on sports betting and sporting events to make it lawful to bet on a single sports event, rather than having to bet on a minimum of two events or more at a time. Single-event betting is already legal in many U.S. states.

This change would enable the provinces to regulate sports betting practices and give them the legal tools they need to keep bettors safe while limiting abuse. Provincial governments and communities will also benefit from economic spinoffs.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that transparency is the best way to fight the scourges caused by organized crime. This easing of the legislative measures will allow Loto-Québec, a public corporation, to collect revenues associated with this type of transaction. The Canadian Gaming Association estimates that $27 billion could be recovered from the black market every year.

The most important aspect of this is that, through the work of a public corporation, Loto-Québec, the Quebec government is in a better position to prevent pathological gambling problems than organized crime. Our public corporation has taken it upon itself to raise awareness and help people who have an addiction. Thanks to initiatives such as the Fondation Mise sur toi, the Quebec government is aware that it is best positioned to set up support mechanisms.

Our public corporation's approach gets us out of the infernal spiral of debt, organized crime and the suffering of illegal gamblers. When gambling happens on the black market, the identity of those with problems remains unknown and it is impossible to step in to help those who gamble excessively.

Bill C-218 would limit competition in the sports betting world, which is currently preventing Loto-Québec from competing with U.S. casinos. Even the Casino de Montréal is now advertising to attract players.

Our physical proximity to the United States makes it easy for people to place bets outside our borders. The member for Windsor West really helped us understand that, because his riding is close to Detroit and he has observed the phenomenon himself.

Bill C-218 will give Quebec and the other provinces the tools to better regulate sports betting, which will be impossible if it remains in the hands of offshore websites and underground casinos. Especially now in the Internet age, Bill C-218 will help our own Crown corporation, Loto-Québec, adapt to meet the needs of its clientele while also limiting the flow of capital abroad. I think online poker sites are among the biggest culprits.

Bill C-218 will enhance reciprocity between Canada's sports betting market and the United States'. Without that, it does not work. Specifically, Bill C-218 also protects casinos in Quebec and Canada. The casino in Plattsburgh, New York, competes with the Casino de Montréal in Quebec, just as casinos around Detroit, Michigan, compete with the one in Windsor, Ontario. We are talking significant revenue that our governments are missing out on, revenue that could support health care, for example.

Part of the money taken from sports betting transactions outside our borders would be used to structure our own support mechanisms or at least contribute to the well-being of our constituents.

Bill C-218 also helps weaken the funding of organized crime. It is a way to undercut them by taking away another source of income. It is also a way to prevent misfortunes like the one a young man in Quebec went through. I will read his story as reported in La Presse:

The young man went to an online site. At the homepage, the user has to enter a name and a password to access the site and then he can bet on the outcome of several professional sports games and even on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. According to our research, the name of the site is registered to a corporation in Panama. The site has been hosted on a server in Costa Rica since March 2015, but did not become active until a year later. The corporation that owns the server hosts roughly 75 other online betting sites. We were told that the Montreal mafia's sports betting operation is run by a manager who has an assistant below him, and then some bookies.

It is sort of like a pyramid scheme. The La Presse article continues:

The bookies are responsible for the players they recruit. The interest charged on a debt can increase from 3% to 5% a week, and when a player has a large debt, an individual with ties to organized crime can purchase it and then collect the debt and interest from the player. “The player's family may end up having to take on the player's debt,” a source explained. “Some people have lost their homes because of online sports betting.”

It is obvious that the situation is more than tragic.

Bill C-218 builds on a long line of failures. Ten years ago, in 2011, a bill similar in every respect to Bill C-218 was introduced, and the Liberals were the only ones who voted against it.

Ten years later, it is rather odd to see the Liberals introducing Bill C-213 to amend the Criminal Code provisions on single-event sports betting.

Then, a new version of the bill was adopted in the House of Commons but ultimately died in the Senate, which was also rather surprising.

In September 2016, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C-221, introduced by none other than the member for Windsor West. Oddly enough, however, a majority of Liberal MPs opposed the bill once again.

I have no doubt that my New Democrat colleague from Windsor West will vote in favour of Bill C-218, introduced by our colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. He has already spoken to this bill and, I should note, I also had the opportunity to speak then.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-218, since it will provide a new revenue stream for Loto-Québec and will impede unfair competition from American casinos. It will allow Quebec and the other provinces to better regulate sports betting, which is currently left to foreign websites and illegal casinos.

The Crown corporation is in the best position to prevent issues with compulsive gambling and organized crime, and to provide meaningful support to those who have fallen victim to the slippery slope of compulsive gambling. This issue causes psychological distress. We need to take meaningful action, and the framework proposed in the bill introduced by the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood is the least we can do.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-218 and the importance of single sports betting to my community and to Canada.

The bill would decriminalize new forms of sports gambling in Canada. While Canadians across the country are currently permitted to place bets on a series of sports events, a form of parlay betting, they are prohibited from placing a bet on an event in, or on an outcome of, a single game or match. These new forms of betting are referred to by many as single-event sports betting or single sports betting.

Let me begin by telling the House what single sports betting means to my community in Windsor—Tecumseh. It means jobs. This past winter, I invited the Prime Minister to join a discussion with local workers and labour leaders from Windsor—Tecumseh and Essex County. The Prime Minister wanted to hear directly from workers from Windsor-Essex. We discussed priorities, investments in the automotive sector, national child care to help parents get working again, investments in health care, including mental health, and protecting our environment.

Dana Dunphy, who is the Unifor Local 444 unit chair at Caesars Windsor Casino, took the floor and talked about the importance of single sports betting to Caesars Windsor and its 2,500 workers. She spoke very passionately and eloquently about the tremendous pain that Caesars Windsor workers and their families have gone through during COVID-19. Even before the latest lockdown, less than 10% are back at work.

Our government put forward a bill that would legalize single sports betting. That bill is for Dana and for the 2,500 workers at Caesars Windsor. The legalization of single sports betting would help keep Caesars Windsor competitive, especially against American casinos in Michigan that are literally a stone's throw away and have already legalized single sports betting. It would help protect these vital jobs in our community while at the same time introducing responsible gaming.

It has been a long road to get here. Many people have advocated hard in Windsor-Essex for this day, and it really was a true team effort. I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor Joe Comartin, who first raised this issue over 10 years ago, and my colleagues from across the floor, the member for Windsor West and the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, who brought this issue forward as a private member's bill during this Parliament.

Back home I want to acknowledge and thank Dave Cassidy, the president of Unifor Local 444, who has advocated for single sports betting since my first week on the job. That is when we got together over a plate of bacon and eggs at Uptown Restaurant and talked about the priorities of Unifor members, priorities like single sports betting and protecting jobs at FCA.

A few weeks later, Dave and I sat across a table with Mayor Dilkens of Windsor, Mayor McNamara of Tecumseh and the the member of Parliament for Windsor West. We were joined by the CEO of Caesars Windsor, the CEO of Tourism Windsor Essex Pelee Island and the CEO of the Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce. We were all united in our support for single sports betting and we made the commitment to work together to get it done, so here we are in sight of the finish line.

I thought I would start my remarks by discussing recent developments in the United States with respect to single-event sports betting.

Since a 2018 ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, single-event sports betting has been proliferating steadily throughout our southern neighbour on a state-by-state basis. Today, 20 U.S. states have now legalized single sports betting. Along with this change in the law in the United States, we have seen a significant shift in the positions of major sports league. Rather than seeing single sports betting as a potential threat to the integrity of organized sports, major league sports now see it as a viable commercial opportunity.

The American Gaming Association estimates that 7.2 million people will place online wagers for the Super Bowl alone and generate $4.3 billion in bets from this one single game. In Canada, the provincial governments have long been supportive of legalizing single sports betting. Ontario, for example, called for the legalization of single sports betting by the federal government in its 2019 budget.

As a result of the current prohibition, it is estimated that $14 billion a year is directed away from provincial lottery systems to underground providers of sports betting. Taxing this potential betting activity would not only help pay for important social services; it could also be used to assist people who suffer from gambling problems.

This legislation would not introduce something that is not already here. Canadians who want to participate in single sports betting are doing so in unlicensed markets. That money is funding the coffers of organized crime rather than those of governments that provide important services to Canadians.

Provinces and territories are losing revenue not just to organized crime, but to America and European countries that have already chosen to regulate single-sport betting. Now is the time for the government to act and begin competing on a fair playing field with the United States and other countries.

While putting forward strong arguments for the legalization of single-sport betting, it is important to consider at the same time the negative impacts of sports betting and, in particular, the potentially devastating impacts of gambling and addiction on vulnerable groups within our society. Mental health and addictions experts have come before Parliament in the past to provide advice on how single-event sports betting might affect our society. It can lead to loss of material possessions, physical health issues, job loss, intimate partner violence and other forms of criminal activity. We must listen to experts and be willing to learn. I very much look forward to a full debate on the impacts that these amendments could have here in Canada.

I know that the government takes concerns regarding vulnerable sectors of society very seriously, especially in light of the difficulties many Canadians have had that have been caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, continuing to criminalize this behaviour is not, in my opinion, the appropriate path forward.

While the federal government primarily operates in this area using criminal law, our provincial and territorial partners are empowered to manage and conduct, or in other words regulate, what have been called lottery schemes. They use revenue from regulating and taxing these lottery schemes or systems to provide important social services, which are more important than ever due to the impact of COVID-19. Our provincial and territorial partners take great steps to educate the public with respect to gaming and betting products.

The only area in which the federal government continues to regulate gaming and betting is the unique pari-mutuel system of betting on live horse racing. All other gambling activities are now either directly regulated or licensed by provincial governments.

The Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, or CPMA, is a special agency operating within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the CPMA not only regulates and supervises pari-mutuel betting on horse races, but also administers the national equine drug control program to ensure the stability of the horse racing industry through fair play.

As with all decisions we are called upon to make as parliamentarians, there is an appropriate balance that must be struck. I am looking forward to debating and studying all aspects of this issue and working with all members from all parties to ultimately decriminalize single-event sports betting and bring it into a safe and regulated space.

The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak in support of my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code to legalize single-game sports betting in Canada.

I want to thank my Conservative colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, for bringing this important piece of legislation forward. I also want to thank my NDP colleague, the member for Windsor West, for being one of Parliament's most vocal supporters for legalizing single-game sports betting.

I am proud to add my voice to this effort through second reading debate today, and I sincerely hope that all parties in the House will provide their support for this important piece of legislation, which is long overdue. In addition to legalizing single-game sports betting, Bill C-218 would help stimulate the creation of much-needed new jobs across Canada, generate millions in annual new revenues, spur tourism recovery and, more importantly, undermine the efforts of organized crime.

I will discuss these benefits in more detail, but first I want to recognize the 40,000 hard-working tourism employees in my community of Niagara, including those in our two casinos.

Before the pandemic, Fallsview Casino and Casino Niagara employed approximately 4,000 workers. Due to COVID-19, these casinos have been closed since last March. It is my sincerest hope that we can soon reach a state in Ontario whereby our tourism recovers and our two casinos can return to a sense of normalcy and responsibly reopen so that workers can begin returning to the jobs that they so dearly miss.

Bill C-218 may be a small bill, but if it is passed by Parliament, it could and would make a big difference. Over the past 10 years, there have been several opportunities for Parliament to address and remedy the situation. Each time, however, this opportunity has been lost. The most recent example, Bill C-221, was introduced in the first session of the 42nd Parliament by my colleague for Windsor West. Despite his valiant efforts, the bill was defeated at second reading by the majority Liberal government of the day. Hopefully, this time will be different.

I am encouraged by the kind words of several Liberal members who have been supportive of this initiative. Some even campaigned on it in the last general election. With cross-party support, it is my hope that we can come together as a Parliament and pass this legislation.

There have been some significant changes to the gaming industry landscape across North America since Bill C-221 was defeated. In a 2018 ruling, the United States Supreme Court legalized single-game sports betting. In response to this ruling, many states rushed to implement this newly legal and hugely popular activity. As of December 2019, 13 U.S. states had already legalized single-game sports betting, including cross-border states like New York, Michigan and Montana. These states are Canada's direct international competitors, and compete against border communities in Canada for tourism visitation, jobs, business and revenue generation.

Another development in the aftermath of this ruling was a shift among major professional sports leagues, which have become far more favourable in their support of single-game sports betting. For example, on June 15, 2018, the NHL released a statement. It read: “The National Hockey League has long opposed legalized sports betting; however, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling, the practical reality is that the landscape for sports betting in North America has changed dramatically. The National Hockey League is no longer opposed to Canadian federal legislation that may be contemplated to eliminate the provisions in Canada's Criminal Code that prohibit provincial governments from offering bets on single sporting events.”

Other major professional sports leagues in Canada that endorse single-game sport betting after this ruling include, but are not limited to, the Canadian Football League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Soccer and Major League Baseball. I cannot overstate the significance of these changes and what it means to have the support of these leagues behind this legislation.

According to a 2017 national economic benefits report published by the Canadian gaming industry, $17.1 billion was generated by this industry, including $16.1 billion in direct gaming activity and $1 billion in non-gaming revenue, which includes items such as food and beverages, entertainment, accommodations, retail and so on. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, gaming in Canada directly supported 182,500 full-time jobs and generated $9.2 billion annually to fund government and community programs and services. Of significance, the Canadian gaming industry has also invested $120 million annually on problem gaming treatment and initiatives to promote research, awareness and prevention as well as responsible gaming programs. It is incredible to think that these were the contributions of the gaming industry to our economy as of 2017. One can only imagine the growth that is ahead when our Canadian Parliament finally agrees to legalize this activity.

A final benefit I would like to discuss is the impact legalization would have on the illegal gaming market that currently exists. In January 2020, the Canadian Gaming Association noted that Canadians are estimated to be spending $10 billion annually through illegal sports betting operations controlled by, or orchestrated by, organized crime.

In December 2019, the Ontario Provincial Police put an end to a sophisticated illegal gaming operation through an investigation called Project Hobart. The police operation led to the arrest of 28 individuals who are now facing a combined 228 charges. From January 1, 2019, to July 2019, a period of just seven months, their illegal gaming websites are alleged to have brought in approximately $13 million in illicit funds. Over the period of five years, the police believe they grossed more than $131 million in illegal revenues. These revenues are a strong source of funding for organized crime.

OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique said the illegal gaming network placed individuals, society and the economy at risk. It is for these reasons and more that it is time we legalize single-game sports betting in Canada. If the economic arguments are not convincing enough for some of my esteemed colleagues, perhaps this public safety argument is.

The truth is that Canada is very far behind on this matter. We need to catch up to our international competitors, and do so quickly. We were behind even before the pandemic struck, then Parliament was prorogued and here we are today: even further behind. Every day that goes by is an additional day lost to our international competition. These delays cause Canadians to miss opportunities that they should be afforded.

From a tourism recovery perspective as we seek to navigate a path forward from COVID-19, Bill C-218 would deliver exactly what this industry needs as we prepare and plan for our recovery. As member of Parliament for Niagara Falls, I am proud to support Bill C-218 to legalize single-game sports betting, and I encourage my parliamentary colleagues of all party stripes to do the same.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-218 put forward by my friend, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).

My interest in this topic is not related to personal habits. I lost interest in sports gambling when, as kids, we collected hockey cards and played a game in which we flipped them to the ground against an opponent. Someone would flip their card and watch it land, heads or tails, and then someone else would flip their card. If the second person matched the first, heads or tails, they would win the card. That is how I lost my 1954 Topps Gordie Howe card, which, if I still had it today, would be worth $13,000.

My best bets over the years could have been profitable, had I backed them up with money. That would include Muhammad Ali knocking out George Foreman, the Tiger-Cats beating the Edmonton Eskimos in the 1986 Grey Cup, and the Czechs beating the Soviet Union in the 1968 world hockey championships.

If I am not a sports gambler, why am I addressing the matter of sports betting? It became obvious to me at an early age that people liked to bet on sports. Growing up in Hamilton exposed me to lots of it. Right near my grandparents' house in the east end was the race track known as the Hamilton Jockey Club. Although it had an illustrious racing history, Queen's Plates and all, its location near the steel mills in the days when workers were paid in cash meant that some dads came home after payday with no money.

Another feature of the east end was the floating crap game, once played on the street in storefronts, which were able to move away quickly if the police showed up. The last big one took place on July 2, 1959 at the corner of Beach Road and Albemarle, complete with drinks being served by a relative of mine who had been involved in the illicit alcohol trade. The reason the date is important is it was during a royal visit. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth was here, and that tied up almost the entire police force for the entire day.

Another relative was a well-known retired athlete and tavern owner. Fifty years ago people could place a bet on almost any sporting event in the tavern with Roy, the in-house bookie, who even had his own private telephone line.

Then of course there were the Irish Sweepstakes, well-known around the world, with winners becoming known to their communities and yet it was a total secret, supposedly, as to how one actually purchased an Irish Sweepstake ticket. One local winner won enough to retire as a waiter and purchase a farm.

My favourite story about the prevalence of gambling in our community came from the late and much beloved Sister Maria Cordis. Sister Maria was a well-known music teacher in the city who regaled us with stories. As a young novitiate, she was walking downtown and saw a man sitting in the park grass, slumped over. She took out a $5 bill and slipped it into his hand and said, “For His grace.” The next week she walked past that same man who waved her over and handed her $100. “What is this?” she asked. The man replied, “His Grace paid 20 to 1 at Woodbine.”

Sports gambling has been going on forever. The historians say the Greeks and the Romans bet on chariot races. It seems to be a natural human instinct to make a wager on almost anything, but especially sports competitions. Gambling as a whole involves staggering amounts of money.

In Hamilton, we were considering a downtown casino. We learned that the amount of money gambled by Hamiltonians at various Ontario Lottery and Gaming sites in one year was $40 million. As much as we, as a government, have had concerns about the obvious negative impacts and consequences of gambling, we have to acknowledge the reality that it does take place.

Not so long ago, the idea of single-event sports betting was opposed by major sports leagues and notably the Canadian Football League, here in Canada of course. The attitude among the North American pro sports leagues has changed over the past few years, to the point that serious consideration should now be given to the request from the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

However, I will say again that sports betting is an old story and an apocryphal one. It is related to the Grey Cup and goes back to 1954. That year, the Montreal Alouettes had assembled one of the greatest teams ever, with Sam Etcheverry, Hal Patterson, Red O'Quinn, Alex Webster and so many others. They were the huge favourites to win that game. The famous Chuck Hunsinger fumble led to a last-minute touchdown and an Edmonton victory. One bettor won so much money that he flew the entire Edmonton Eskimos team that day from Toronto to Montreal to celebrate, because in 1954 Toronto was fast asleep by sundown and was no place for a victory party. That is how much money he won. That story was confirmed for me by none other than Normie Kwong.

What confronts us now is, as always, to ensure that we carefully regulate gambling in a responsible manner with appropriate supports for individuals who may suffer from addictive behaviour and for the accompanying toll on personal and family lives.

The profits made through illegal gambling by organized crime do not find their way to supportive services. The Criminal Code currently prohibits all forms of gaming and betting, unless a particular form of gambling is specifically permitted. The provinces and territories are permitted to conduct or license a broad range of lottery schemes, including betting on the outcome of more than one sporting event, such as all of the NFL games in a weekend. However, there are exclusions, such as betting on a single event such as the Grey Cup game. The proposal before us would remove that exclusion.

We also need to take into account the competitiveness of our industries, whether it is making steel, mining potash or gambling, because our neighbours in the United States have legalized single-event sports betting. This puts their operators in a better position to offer a broader range of products and enables them to siphon off some of the money that should be coming to Canadian operators. This, of course, includes indigenous peoples and communities, for whom these proceeds can be critical, as we have seen during the pandemic lockdowns this year.

Among many things to be considered is the effect on the horse racing industry. The provinces and territories could be allowed wagering on single horse races, which could affect racetrack revenues. Repealing paragraph 207(4)(b), as contemplated by this bill, would permit the establishment of pari-mutuel betting, which could further impact the racing industry.

I want to congratulate the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood for taking the initiative to allow Parliament to explore a further enhancement to the gambling industry, and all of the jobs and activities it supports, through his thoughtful recommendations regarding changes to the Criminal Code. He has ideal credentials for sitting in this place because he did play-by-play sports. To me that is an outstanding credential, since I did that as well.

Those of us who are close to the sports and games understand in a very broad way that people are going to find a way to place a wager in a sporting event. It is up to us as the regulators to see if we can create what is proposed in this bill: a safe, legal and careful way of ensuring that supports are in place for those with problems, but that there are no negative impacts on the sports involved, especially in the horse racing industry.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-218. I want to start by thanking my former colleague and friend Joe Comartin who brought the bill forward in previous Parliaments. I have had it since then and I want to thank the member for bring it forward again in partnership. As we have heard, even from the Bloc, it is due time for this strong legislation.

I like the reference the international reputation and the work going on to fight illegal gaming across the world. That is a choice we have to make here right now. It is a choice we should have made before.

Unfortunately, the heavy lobbying by the professional sports organizations over a number of different decades have stopped Canada from moving forward. What has changed over the years is something the New Democrats saw taking place, which was the fact that this was moving across the globe and even into the United States. The court system was readjusting the Nevada circuit, which was borne out of criminal organization. It was finally broken down to provide this type of organized effort to regulate the industry across the United States, hence why the sporting organizations finally came to their senses and understood that we need a better plan.

Organized crime and those who prey on people have got away with this for far too long, not just in Canada but across the globe, because of an unregulated product. We spend millions of dollars in local areas to fight them and billions of dollars to fight them across the globe. When we look at the bill, all it would do is adjust something that is necessary at this point in time.

I have travelled across the country and have seen the people who have been affected by the unregulated market. The thugs, those doing the offshore betting and organized crime element, are not dealing with the social repercussions in regard to betting in general. In fact, we have to spend extra money just to fight those elements.

When we look at a province like Ontario, it is legal right now to bet on three games, but not on one or two games. The change has not happened here because of paternalism of a central government that goes back to colonialism.

We are asking that the provinces have a chance to fight back. The provinces need to make their own choices on what products and services they will offer their citizens. They will be the front-line people to deal with the repercussions if there is some negative activity with regard to single-event sports gaming. It will give them power and custodianship of a responsible product that is then put out. We are talking about the public good.

Right now, the system of three works against individual citizens. It is called a parlay bet because it is a rigged bet. It makes it very difficult for people to win and creates further problems and complications. This allows for us to come into the modern age of a regulated system.

Who are we fighting? We are fighting criminal activity from the organized elements connected to the Hells Angels and other organized crime. We are fighting those in the backrooms, basements and bars who run the numbers and make profits off the backs of people.

The alternatives are to bring in this regulated market. With the regulated market, we have revenue to deal with a number of different problems. We also have revenue that will bring public good.

For example, Michigan is the most recent to bring this into the United States. We saw that this was going to take place. It is putting its revenue toward helping firefighters who get cancer or other illnesses from the job. The rest of the money goes to education. Each province will get to chose what product it wants out there. It will decide how that goes out. Then it will decide where that revenue goes.

When we look at the history of this bill, it also comes from competition. Billions of dollars of legally regulated betting is now at risk. When we look at communities like Windsor or Hamilton and across the country, we have tourist destinations where people visit. Those places no longer have a product available. They have to compete with the United States and with the phone.

There is a sad story taking place here. There are the value-added jobs in the actual regulated sports industry business and all the entertainment that goes around it. Then we have all those doing the work for the web design, running the different scenarios and the work that goes on behind the analysis and activity that takes place.

We get no benefit from that right now. We send tens of billions of dollars underground that then goes to human smuggling, violent crime, prostitution and drugs. Then we have to use our other revenue to fight that at the cost of millions of dollars locally and hundreds of millions of dollars nationally. It is time to change that.

That is why when I introduced my bill, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress were on board with it. Think of that. We have the business and labour communities together. The provinces and a number of organizations are looking at this through the tourism lens. A number of different groups understand the status quo does not work and that is why Canada has been left behind. That is why Canada now has to compete with illegal activity.

Here are some headlines of some recent illegal activity: “9 arrested, $35 million of items seized in organized crime bust”, “Police bust illegal casino and spa north of Toronto, seize 20,000 sq. ft. mansion and $1M in cash”, “Police lay 228 charges in alleged illegal gambling ring tied to Hells Angels”.

This is what is baffling about the government's current position on this. If we look at the most recent article, there are all kinds of things in it that are quite shocking that are tied to the unregulated market. Here are the words: “Dozens of suspects are facing hundreds of charges”, “illegal gaming”, “two-year-long investigation”, “18 other agencies and police services” had to come together, “further acts of violence”, “five allegedly illegal gambling websites”.

That is what is happening with Hells Angels and others. They have moved not only to thuggery on the streets but organized activity online. There were people gunned down in Toronto. A homicide is tied to this. There were 21 firearms seized, along with cash, vehicles, jewellery, vacation homes and gold and silver bars. That is what we are fighting against. There were 28 people charged with a total of 228 offences in this one bust alone. What the government is doing right now is not good enough. It is not good to put this onto another Parliament. We cannot compete out there with this activity.

Then there are the good things that can happen with a regulated market. Caesars Windsor, for example, has organized jobs with benefits. Money is going toward dealing with gaming addiction, which is super important to deal with in all of this. There is no way Hells Angels and other organized criminals are giving to the United Way. They are not giving to the charities and saying they will help them deal with the addiction problem. They are extending credit, giving people more products, giving them a raw bet, putting them further in debt and also making people dealing with this feel shame due to their admission of doing an illegal activity. The type of support that is necessary for people should be out there and people should not feel shame when dealing with it.

That is what is upsetting about the parliamentary secretary's intervention on this. We are telling all of the people who have those addiction issues that they have to keep it underground. For mental health issues, supports for families, all of those things, there needs to be money to deal with them. It is the responsibility of the provinces and the federal government, in this place, to deal with this. This is an opportunity for them to use revenues for the public good.

I mentioned what Michigan is doing, but I can say that right now, with COVID-19, we can do one of two things as the sports leagues emerge and as the betting activity stays at home, and we are all waiting. We can give them a bonus. That is what is happening. They are getting a bonus under COVID-19 and they are not going to be paying the big profit tax that maybe some other companies will. Those in organized crime are not going to saunter up to the table and say they will give money for infrastructure, health care and education. They are going to squirrel away that money either in Canada or somewhere else in the world and use it for all the other illegal activities.

From just the few stories I have noted, we are going to have to pay more money to the RCMP and to provincial and municipal police to fight this. That is what has taken place. It is time to change, time to come of age and time for us to grow up.

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the return of the Nordiques, especially since, in my opinion, Alain Côté's goal was legal.

Having said that, such short, clear and succinct bills rarely generate that much interest and debate. Bill C-218 consists of three clauses. The first tells us its title, the safe and regulated sports betting act. The third and final clause states that this act comes into force on a date to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. All the substance of the bill is found in the second clause, which states that paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code is to be repealed. It is pretty straightforward. It is simple, but Bill C-218 is like a ghost haunting the halls of Parliament.

It started in 2011. At the time, so during the 40th Parliament, we had Bill C-627. The bill that had been introduced had the same objectives, but it was never debated.

There was a second attempt during the 41st Parliament, in 2013. That was Bill C-290, but it died in the Senate in October 2014.

During the 42nd Parliament, in other words, the last session of Parliament, there was Bill C-221, but it did not pass second reading on September 21, 2016.

Today, under the 43rd Parliament, we are back with Bill C-218. Hopefully, we can finally make an informed and effective decision on this bill.

Unsurprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. It will do so because we have to take reality into account. The bill is in line with the legislative movement in the world. Our American neighbours already have laws allowing sports betting on a single sport. The attempt to end this practice was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 14, 2018, with the Murphy v. NCAA decision. That court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Congress to ban sports betting. Americans can therefore do this.

It is 2020 and people in France and England can place bets online. Earlier, in the lobby, I spoke to someone who made bets on a site based in Gibraltar, so we no longer need to meet someone in our city to bet. Now, it can be done everywhere in the world, and it is even easier in the United States.

Our neighbours to the south are competing unfairly Quebec and Canada in the gaming industry. Quebec has always been somewhat concerned about the pathological aspect of gambling and the use of that money. My Conservative colleague spoke about $14 billion. In Quebec, we are talking about $27 million a year, which is no small amount. What is more, we have always felt that this money should not go into the pockets of organized crime but should instead be replenishing the government coffers.

Quebec therefore set up an institution called Loto-Québec, which manages gaming in Quebec. However, the gaming industry in New York state and the entire online gaming industry are currently competing unfairly with Loto-Québec. It is time for that to stop.

Bill C-218 seeks to regulate gaming and make it safer for the people who engage in it. My intention is not to say that betting is a virtue, but it does exist. It always has and it always will. Our job as legislators is to regulate it as best we can.

I will now go back to what I was saying at the beginning of my speech. The title of Bill C-218 is as follows: safe and regulated sports betting act. In my opinion, we must ensure that this industry is regulated so we can better protect the players. It is a major industry around the world.

We want to avoid unfair competition, regulate gaming more effectively and be part of the global movement.

There was a situation in Quebec less than a year ago, in December 2019, involving an 18-year old man from Laval who racked up an online gambling debt of $80,000. When online gambling debts are controlled by the mob, the interest rate ranges from 3% to 5% a week and the debt increases exponentially. That is a scourge that we need to tackle.

This young many obviously did not have the means to pay that kind of money and ended up committing suicide in his home. He ended his life because he was unable to manage his gambling debt and he feared the worst for the safety of his family and the people around him. The website in question was tied to the Montreal Mafia.

We do not want that. Our responsibility as legislators is to prevent situations like that from happening again. The National Assembly of Quebec decided to tackle this problem as best it could. In 2016, it passed Bill 74 to regulate gambling in Quebec. However, the Superior Court of Quebec deemed the bill to be illegal because it did not fall within Quebec's jurisdiction. According the court, Quebec did not have the authority to prohibit gambling.

Quebec's hands are therefore tied. There is a pathological addiction to gambling among people who play. We want to control this problem, and we have some expertise through casinos and commercial lotteries. However, we need the additional tool of Bill C-218 to prevent situations as sad as the one of this 18-year-old young man.

In Quebec, we are talking about $27 million, but my colleague was talking about $14 billion. No matter how many millions or billions of dollars we leave to organized crime, I think it is a disgrace and that we owe it to ourselves to take back this jurisdiction and ensure that people play safely within a well-regulated framework.

Some parliamentarians opposed to the bill have concerns about cheating. I would just like to point out that section 209 of the Criminal Code already prohibits cheating at play. This risk already exists, and will always exist, even after Bill C-218 is passed, and so I do not think this is a problem that should concern us.

We must instead ensure that people who gamble do so within a safe and regulated framework and that the profits from gambling do not end up in organized crime, but remain in government coffers to benefit the citizens of Quebec and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, this member of the Liberal Party has stated tonight he is comfortable with Canada losing $14 billion to criminal activity in this country. He is comfortable with sites such as Bodog and bet365 taking $4 billion out of this economy and paying nothing back.

The member has also confirmed tonight that he does not care about the problem gamblers, because those involved in criminal activities and these websites certainly do not care about that. There are people down in their basements betting every night on these uncontrolled sites. By regulating this through Bill C-218, it will be done by the provincial governments. The provincial governments have been regulating gambling for the last 30 years.

He is absolutely intent on leaving $14 billion, which could be put into the Canadian economy for health, education and gambling addiction. That is despicable to me.

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

moved that Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to stand in the House today and begin the conversation we need on the safe and regulated sports betting act, which seeks to legalize single-event sports wagering in Canada.

The gaming industry in Canada is a multi-billion dollar industry. Casinos, racetracks and other gaming facilities operating across the country directly employ tens of thousands of people. The economic activity created in these communities with gaming facilities generate tens of thousands of dollars more.

The gaming industry pays $6.7 billion in salaries per year and generates over $9 billion in revenue for governments and much-needed charities every single year. However, none of that includes the single-event sport betting industry, which is a $14-billion industry in this country. Unfortunately, all of that activity is taking place underground. Offshore websites like Bodog and bet365 take in billions of dollars a year, and criminal organizations operating black market betting rings across the country are taking in billions of dollars more.

As we look at this, none of that money is going back toward the public good, and much of it goes toward funding other forms of criminality. It is true that in this country some form of sports betting is taking place legally, and I mentioned that. Horse racing is one. It takes place all across this country. There is also what is known as parlay betting in this country. It is what programs like Proline and Sport Select have, requiring bettors across the country to correctly place wagers on multiple events. If a bettor does not get them all right, then the ticket is unsuccessful.

Parlay betting delivers about $500 million in revenue nationally each year in this country, but that is a mere pittance compared to what single-event betting brings offshore and to the criminal enterprises in this country.

In my province of Saskatchewan, the provincial government uses the revenue from parlay betting products to fund sports body government industries, the youth and amateur sports, and we also use that money for the amateur arts in our province. Imagine what we could do with our share of $14 billion.

Legalization of single-event betting is something that, for many years, governments along with indigenous groups across Canada have been calling for. The legalization of single-event betting is supported by provincial and many municipal governments across this country. I have spoken with and received support from provincial cabinet ministers coast to coast.

Travis Toews, the Minister of Finance in the province of Alberta, wrote to me in an email, “The current restrictions do not allow the provinces to compete on an even playing field, thus allowing substantial revenues to flow to unregulated, illegal operations and offshore Internet sites without providing any financial benefits to Canadians. Removing these barriers to allow for provincially regulated alternatives would not only provide the provinces with financial benefits for their communities and social programs, but would also provide gaming consumers with security and integrity that is inherent in provincially regulated gaming.”

That is the sentiment that is echoed by other provincial governments in this land, and I think it really speaks for itself. We need regulation. The provinces want to regulate it, and they have the expertise on regulating gambling and betting. They have been doing it for the past 30-plus years.

I have also spoken several times with the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, also known as SIGA. It believes that single-event betting would be a valuable addition to its businesses and would greatly benefit indigenous communities across my province of Saskatchewan.

SIGA's casinos are run to the highest regulatory standards of the Indigenous Gaming Regulators and are accredited by the Responsible Gambling Council of Canada.

This is done as a non-profit company that gives 100% of profits back to indigenous nations of Saskatchewan, to community organizations in Saskatchewan and to the Province of Saskatchewan. These are the organizations that we want running our betting operations, not the criminal enterprises in unregulated offshore websites that we have now in Canada.

I am going to address the elephant in the room: problem gambling and addiction. As it currently stands, there is absolutely no consumer protection or support for those struggling with gambling addictions built into the illegal sports betting systems that we have today in this country. The Hells Angels do not have a program for problem gambling.

Minister Toews mentioned in a letter to me that legalizing single-event wagering would allow governments to put strict standards and protections in place to protect consumers and offer assistance to those who need it. It would also give governments, as we all know, much-needed new sources of revenue that they could use to fund social programs, such as mental health programs, mental health research and addiction treatment, and broader sectors, such as education and health care.

The final thing we must consider is the context that we are debating the legislation in. I have had a few people ask me what the difference is between now and when the bill was introduced in the last Parliament. First of all, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the Canadian Football League and Major League Soccer have all asked for Bill C-218. In a joint statement made by these five professional leagues back in June, they stressed the importance of a legal framework for sports betting that could shift consumers from unregulated black-market betting to the legal and safe marketplace that this would provide. This would allow for strong consumer protection and safeguards, and would protect the integrity of the game.

We must also consider that our current laws put Canada at a significant competitive disadvantage. Since the proposal was last considered in Canada, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down their national ban on single-event wagering. Now nearly every state south of the border, 48 to be exact, has either legalized single-event betting or has a bill before the state legislature seeking to do so.

These include the border states, such as New York and Michigan. This poses a unique threat to our communities of Niagara Falls and Windsor, whose economies rely largely on the cross-border tourism. Gaming is a big part of the tourism sector. It is a big concern for these communities that if they are not able to offer this service, they will lose a significant amount of business to their competition in the United States.

As a federal government, we need to be giving our local industries and communities the resources they need to be competitive. We must also consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has had a profound effect on many industries and communities in this country, and gaming and sports, the two industries most talked about in the context of sports betting, are no exception to that.

I am sure that many of my colleagues are familiar with the situation in the National Hockey League as it resumes its season in the tightly controlled bubbles of Toronto and Edmonton. No one was allowed in without first isolating for two weeks. Once their isolation was done, teams spent additional weeks or months in the bubble away from their homes and families.

This system worked. There was not a single positive test of any player inside the bubble in Toronto and Edmonton the entire time. All things considered, the National Hockey League's return to play was a great success.

However, anyone who follows sports closely knows that this model simply is not sustainable. The total loss of revenue from the lack of tickets sales of any kind will take a toll on many teams. Asking players to separate themselves from their families for months at a time just is not feasible. Even if fans can return to the stands sometime in the near future, the teams will need additional resources of revenue to begin their own financial recovery.

There is the Canadian Football League, adored, of course, in my home province of Saskatchewan. As many know, the rough Riders are the heart and soul of sports in the province of Saskatchewan. Every weekend, fans travel from across the province to pack Mosaic Stadium to the brim and cheer on the beloved Rough Riders.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Football League was forced to cancel its season this year, and I might add the only professional sport league in North America that has not played this past year. The prospect of having no fans in attendance meant too much of a revenue loss to sustain alongside the cost of a season.

We are still not sure what is going to happen with the smaller sports leagues. When I look at the Canadian Hockey League or the American Hockey League, the teams in those leagues are often as important to their communities as the big league clubs are to the big cities. These the leagues, similarly, had to cancel their season due to COVID-19 and the inability to generate any revenue without fans in the stands.

My mind goes to the small market community-owned hockey clubs that lost out on the revenue this past year, on which they desperately relied, teams like Prince Albert, Owen Sound, Peterborough, Baie-Comeau and many more. As we know, many other teams that represent their communities on the ice serve as a role model for countless children in their communities. That was also lost this past year.

Single-event sports betting is not a cure all, but it can be an important part of any plan to support our gaming and sports industries. It can provide not only a significant new source of revenue for sports leagues, but it will drive increased interest in individual games and events. This is a step that the federal government can take to support Canadian sport coast to coast.

Canadians in Winnipeg and Quebec City know what it is like to lose a beloved sport franchise. Winnipeg lost the first version of the Jets in 1996, and it did not get another team until 15 years later. Quebec City lost the Nordiques in 1995. Sadly, it is still without an NHL team in that city. Not only does it hurt the fans, but it hurts the city as a whole.

I will summarize a few points of the bill.

First, single-event sports betting is already taking place in Canada to the tune of $14 billion a year. However, instead of safely regulated, these activities are run by the black market gambling rings and offshore websites. None of this money, absolutely none of it, goes back into the public coffers and none of it goes to addressing issues like problem gambling or mental health support.

Second, the provinces, our indigenous communities and major leagues want single-game sports betting in Canada. Fourteen billion dollars is a lot of money and it does not just mean more economic activity and new, well-paying jobs. It also means new tax revenues to invest in education, health care as well as the more specific investments like mental health treatment, consumer protection and problem gambling programs that are much needed in the country.

Third, this is an opportunity to assist our sports and gaming industries in their recovery from the damage done by COVID-19. As we speak, gaming institutions across this country are operating at a greatly reduced capacity or not at all.

It is a common sense change. I hope my colleagues will support Bill C-218

[The Chair, Liberal, Ginette Petitpas Taylor]

No. Thank you so much for that. That's great.

Perhaps now we can proceed through each item. To be efficient with our time, we could maybe just go through them item by item, and if there are no questions or comments, we can dispose of them fairly quickly. We'll be able to address the ones for which there is debate.

Does that sound appropriate to everyone?

We'll start off, then, with Bill C-210. Does anyone have any issues or comments about that one? No.

Next is Bill C-238.

I see there are no comments, so we'll move right along to Bill C-224. Good.

Next is Bill C-215. No comments.

Next is Bill C-204, and now Bill C-229.

I'm not going to jinx it, but we're on a roll.

Now we have Bill C-218 and a motion, M-34.

Next we have Bill C-214, Bill C-220, Bill C-221, Bill C-222 and Bill C-213.

I love working with women.

Next is Bill C-223, followed by M-35.

Now we have Bill C-206, Bill C-216, Bill C-208, Bill C-205, Bill C-237, Bill C-225, Bill C-228, Bill C-236, Bill C-230 and Bill C-232.

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

Madam Chair, last week five of the largest professional sports leagues in North America put out a statement of support for my private member's bill, the safe and regulated sports betting act. Given the struggles that clubs and leagues are facing due to COVID-19, including having no fans at all in the stands for the foreseeable future, the legalization of sports betting would be a welcome opportunity not only to engage fans but to generate much-needed revenue.

Will the government commit now to supporting the sports and gaming industries by supporting my private member's bill, Bill C-218?

Proceedings of the House and Committees

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

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones in the last number of weeks. Many of them never had the opportunity to go to the hospital. I have spent the last eight or nine weeks, since returning home on March 13, phoning my constituents.

I remember one conversation I had at the beginning of April. I was phoning houses and, when I identified myself with my name as the member of Parliament for Saskatoon—Grasswood, one lady told me she had lost her husband in late March. “A week ago”, she said when I talked to her in early April.

She went on to say that she and her husband had been married for 62 years and she did not have the opportunity to say goodbye to him. He left the house and spent a number of days at RUH, Royal University Hospital, in Saskatoon. It was 62 years and she never had the chance to say goodbye to her loved one.

Those are the stories that we are dealing with in this country. We have had, unfortunately, eight deaths in our province of Saskatchewan. That is eight too many. Our provincial government has done a very good job, in my estimation, of dealing with this pandemic.

This time has been very difficult for many. Sometimes, in our conversations about social distancing and flattening the curve and all the words that we have used since we left here on March 13, it is easy to forget about these stories. These are not numbers. They are people. When I look at the catastrophe that I have seen in this country with thousands dying from this pandemic, I just shake my head. I look at Ontario and Quebec and today, the long-term care home report. Wow, we have a lot of work to do in this country. We have let down the people who have built this country. This is the time that all of us in the House need to do heavy reflection on how we can correct this.

That being said, I have to move on with the matter at hand. Of course, we are going to talk about the permanent return to Parliament, not a committee of the whole but the return to Parliament and what that will look like.

Virtual sittings have worked a bit. It is going to be interesting, because the Liberals in committees always want to bring people in. When we get back to real business in the committees, I am going to watch the Liberals. They want to champion virtual sittings, and they had better not be bringing people into committees on airplanes every week. We are going to watch that.

We were advocates on this side, long before this pandemic, for virtual sittings in committees. We see people coming in by the droves for every committee. They get airplanes, hotels and meals, sit in a committee for a seven- or eight-minute conversation, and then leave. We are going to watch the Liberals and the government when we get back in the fall, to see how much they love virtual sittings, because a lot of virtual sittings have not worked.

On this side of the House, we have talked about opposition days, or motions, or legislation or statements in the House, but I want to talk about the private members' bills. When we all gather around for the selection, every four years, of private members' bills, it is a big moment in the House of Commons. I know of some MPs who, in 14 or 15 years, have never had a private member's bill. This year, Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens gathered around, and guess what? The Conservatives got six out of the first 10 spots, nine out of the first 15 and 12 out of the first 20. Is there a conspiracy? I just shared the numbers: six of 10. I am number seven. My bill would give tremendous hope for tourism in this country: Bill C-218.

I do not know if I will ever get a chance to present it again. It had first reading in March, like many others, but I am not sure the bill will get to second reading.

The member for Calgary Confederation got his bill passed in the House of Commons, in the 42nd Parliament, on organ donation. The member for Calgary Confederation lost his wife a number of years ago and she had prayed with him to bring this bill to Parliament. It passed in the 42nd Parliament. Guess what happened? He got picked number one overall. There was somebody looking over the member for Calgary Confederation.

I bring this up because we lost Hugo Alvarado, an artist in my city, this week. He phoned me in February with a plea that Parliament start private members' business. Recall that the member for Calgary Confederation had a bill on organ donations. Hugo, at 71, needed a double lung transplant. He drove to Edmonton and waited, and during that time he phoned me in February with a plea that the House of Commons start the process on private members' bills.

I talked to him 10 days ago. Hugo asked again what we were doing in Ottawa. There are hundreds of people who need transplants, who are dying. Ten days later, Hugo Alvarado died because he did not get his transplant.

This is the sort of thing we are talking about in the House of Commons. It is important. Committees of the whole are great: we bring down certain numbers of MPs. However, as a member of Parliament, one of the biggest factors is presenting a private member's bill, one's own idea, in the House of Commons.

I bring this up because six out of the first 10 happen to be Conservative bills, and we are hoping we can debate them in the House of Commons. There are some very good private members' bills from all parties that need to be moved to the Senate, but we cannot do that now. We are locked down.

This is what Canadians should know: The committee of the whole is not Parliament. We are missing one of the most important features of a member of Parliament, the private member's bill, because it comes from the heart and 337 others have a say as to whether a private member's bill is accepted or not.

I do not know what we are going to do over the summer. I do not know if we are even going to talk about private members' bills. It was not even going to be brought up until I brought it up in a conversation. It means everything to a member of Parliament to get a chance to present an idea for legislation in the House of Commons, whether it passes or not. Now, because of the committee of the whole that the Liberals and NDP agreed to, we will probably not get the chance in 2020. We are going to miss a whole year because it takes some time to get passed in the House of Commons and the Senate.

I have one other story, and then I am going to move on. We have all talked about fraudulent cases. I got an email from a woman informing me that her 92-year-old mother received three CERB cheques worth $6,000. She is 92 years old and getting these cheques. I said, “Really?” She photocopied them and sent them to my office. This is why we need to come back to Parliament. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions, per month are being handed out by the government.

I just gave one example. This woman is getting $6,000. She is 92 years old and has not worked in decades. Her daughter phoned me and asked what she was to do with them. I told her not to cash them.

Is this not a story? This is a story in Saskatoon, and it will be a story in every city in this country. That is why Parliament needs to come back. There has to be opposition to keep the government accountable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Good.

I've been on this for about a decade. For members who aren't aware, this is what I'm leading to, because the evidence is coming in. In Canada, it's illegal to bet on a single event, a game. It stops provinces such as Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario from offering a legal product, so $10 billion goes to the underground economy or to organized crime.

New York State has already legalized it. Michigan could be doing that in a matter of days, or actually I think they just did it, as well as several other states. Therefore, there's an issue over tourism loss there.

You voted against changing that law in the last Parliament. We have a chance now. My colleague, Mr. Kevin Waugh, has tabled Bill C-218, which would actually allow the provinces to regulate this. It would be done on our phones, as it's done in Europe and the United States. Will you support Bill C-218, and if not, what is your cabinet going to do to support communities such as Windsor, Niagara Falls, Sault Ste. Marie and other places that are going to lose tourism?

The evidence is in from the industry that it is driving up tourism, so if you are not going to support the bill, what are you going to do?

Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in the House this morning to introduce the safe and regulated sports betting act.

I have gotten great support from across the House. I would like to thank the member for Windsor West in particular for his assistance with this legislation and for the seconding of the bill here this morning.

There are others in our caucus who have given great support, such as the members for Essex, Niagara Falls and Calgary Shepard, and I would like to thank them.

This is a historic moment. This is the third time this bill has come to the House. As members know, it passed in 2015 but got stopped in the Senate. Last time, in the 42nd Parliament, it did not make it out. This is third time lucky, as we will join forces with everyone in the House to see if we can move this bill forward.

Let me be clear that single-event sport wagering already exists in this country, and if members do not think so, they are behind the curtains. The Canadian single-event sport wagering industry is worth over $14 billion, but most of it, 95% of it, exists underground on the black market or through offshore websites. These are unregulated sport-wagering sites. None of that activity is subject to government regulations or taxes; none of it is creating jobs in this country or economic opportunities; and none of it is contributing to consumer protection, education, harm reduction initiatives or support services, which are badly needed in this country.

This legislation would amend the Criminal Code to repeal the federal ban on single-event sport betting and allow the provinces to implement a safe and regulated betting environment within the provincial wagering and lottery systems. By passing this bill, we can put a stop to the billions of dollars going to organized crime and put that money back into our communities.

To wrap up, it has all changed since 2018. The United States has allowed it. Sport leagues, like the NHL and NBA, are in favour of sports betting being regulated. It is time this country follows forward. I will have more to say on this bill, but it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House this morning and introduce it.

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