Justice Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[Michael Ellison]

This section of the Criminal Code stems originally from old English law. Back at the time of Confederation, there was a general prohibition on these types of gaming and betting activities. That was reflected in our first Criminal Code at the end of the 1800s as well, so that general prohibition has always existed since the beginning of Canada, back at Confederation. Popular theories as to why it existed would suggest that there were just general concerns about morality and vice in communities and the morality of gambling.

In terms of the Criminal Code, over the past 150 years, but in particular over the past 100 years, we have seen a slow and incremental decriminalization of various betting products as Parliament has considered it appropriate. For example, in and around the Great War we saw the legalization or the decriminalization of betting on horse racing. It had been occurring in any event, but that was formally recognized and then the legislative authority was established in the 1920s, as Ms. Foss pointed out.

Again, we saw a major shift in 1969 and 1970, with the decriminalization of lotteries. That was a decision that Parliament at the time, taking into account a number of factors, considered appropriate.

Now, the latest large discussion over the past decade has been over single-event sports betting. There are a number of important influences that the committee should and will be considering and has considered before with private members' bills in the past: everything from potential match fixing to morality and other considerations that are completely valid under our consideration of what is criminal law in Canada.

I hope that answers your question.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes, thank you.

Do you think it is legitimate to think this bill has a real chance of reducing the number of illegal sports bets?

[Michael Ellison]

I think, for the department, my colleague and I can say that it is likely, depending on how the provinces and territories set up their regulated spaces for single-event sports betting, that some of that activity that is occurring today would be brought into the regulated sphere. It is highly contingent on what the provinces and territories do to set up their regulated spaces under lottery schemes, and we certainly can't put a number on the amount or volume of betting that would come into a legal system. Doing that would be dependent on our colleagues in the provinces and territories who have that expertise in setting up those systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Fortin, do you want to begin?

[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]

Again, the comments that I can offer here are to describe, essentially, very quickly, the powers that are authorized under the Criminal Code. Under Canadian law, we have only the two carve-outs for legal betting. You can bet under the parimutuel system on horse racing or you can bet under an established provincial or territorial lottery scheme.

Under those lottery scheme powers, provinces will directly conduct and manage certain schemes like OLG in Ontario and Loto-Québec. Those are the established ones that everybody knows about. In addition to that, provinces can license entities, whether they be charities—among the most popular—or, as we've seen in the last 20 years, agreements can be—

[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?

[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]

I have a second question, which is for Mr. Hansen.

To your knowledge, what programs have been implemented on first nations reserves to try to overcome gambling addiction issues?

[Zane Hansen]

Thank you, Member Fortin. Yes, we're very mainstream with our responsible gaming programs. You can look at our casinos as an example. All of our properties are members of the RG check program. We've reached national accreditation on responsible gaming standards. We are also a member of the GameSense programming that originated out of British Columbia with the lottery corporation there.

You will see in our entity that there's a 100% requirement for employee training on responsible gaming. We have very thorough programming going forward. As we look at sports wagering in the online space primarily, we'll take the fundamentals of that program and make sure those are relayed into our customer base that comes in through sports wagering. The advantage you have with sports wagering in an online context is that all of your players and customers are registered. You can continuously monitor and even put in more controls for responsible gaming that way.

Beyond that, all of the operations we conduct are highly regulated by our regulators here in the province. As you legislate and legalize single-event sports wagering, the standards rise on all fronts.

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

Okay.

In your opinion, Mr. Hansen, is pathological gambling currently leading to domestic violence issues on reserves? What is your assessment of this situation? Could you tell me about the connection between pathological gambling and domestic violence issues?

[Zane Hansen]

I think there you'd be referring to probably any form of addiction and what that can cause in other environments. Definitely that is not something we want to see. We take a long-term view of the industry. We want our players to be well informed and not to be participating in ways that cause them harm or their behaviour—

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

Okay.

So you have no statistics on the impact of pathological gambling problems on domestic violence. Do you know if any such statistics exist?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Be very brief, Mr. Hansen.

[Zane Hansen]

Yes.

There is considerable data. You'll have speakers coming up who can speak to the small percentage of society with addiction concerns that way. As for taking it beyond that, in terms of what else it may cause, I would not be familiar with any data on that front.

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

Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Fortin.

We'll go to Mr. Masse for six minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Foss, maybe I can start with you. I just want to make sure I have this correct. Is that 0.8% levy legislated or regulated?

[Lisa Foss]

Michael can help me out with that one, but that's a legislated number and it can move. In the Criminal Code, it can allow us to go up to 1%. If we were to make a change from 0.8% up to 1%, we could do that through a regulatory change.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Has that been changed in the past at all? I was listening to your numbers and wondering just how sustainable the status quo is for the department you run and the industry using it. That's what I'm concerned about. You mentioned it was created in the 1920s, which makes you probably part of the more modern part of this bill. How sustainable is it?

[Lisa Foss]

That is a great question. It's a question that keeps me up at night as well. We've been on a declining basis. We are reaching a tipping point, I would say, in terms of our funding model. We've done a number of cost-cutting exercises over the last number of years. The objective of the CPMA is to run a zero balance, if you will, where expenses equal revenues each year. We've been fairly successful at doing that in the last number of years, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.

About 65% of the budget for the CPMA is to deliver the equine drug control program, the anti-doping program. Science is expensive. Testing is expensive. Keeping on top of the science is tough. We are in a situation where there's tremendous pressure, absolutely.

[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]

I apologize; I just dropped out. Could the question be repeated?

[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?

[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—