Kennedy Stewart

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions during Private Members’ Business on May 10, 2016: has the government received a legal opinion or analysis regarding the constitutionality of Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (gender equity), and, if so, (i) by whom was it written, (ii) on what date was it prepared, (iii) on what date was it received by the Office of the Minister of Democratic Institutions and the Office of the Minister of Status of Women?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to funding for basic scientific research and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Main Science and Technology Indicators: what was Canada’s “basic research expenditure as a percentage of GDP” for each year since 2000?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the government’s consultations on establishing a Chief Science Officer and the Minister of Science’s testimony on April 14, 2016 at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all individuals and organizations that were contacted as part of the consultations; (b) what is the complete and detailed list of all individuals and organizations that provided a written response as part of the consultations; (c) what is the complete and total list of organizations and individuals that the Minister met with in person as part of the consultations; (d) what questions were asked to consultation participants regarding the Chief Science Officer; (e) what is the summary of the input and responses received as part of the consultations; (f) how many responses mentioned that the Chief Science Officer should be independent; (g) how many responses mentioned that the Chief Science Officer should be permanent; (h) how many responses mentioned that the Chief Science Officer should be established through legislation; (i) how many responses mentioned that the Chief Science Officer should report or provide advice to all Members of Parliament; (j) how many responses mentioned that the government should establish a Parliamentary Science Officer; (k) what is the exact method the government is using to analyze and evaluate the consultation results; (l) will the government be releasing these consultation results, including analysis and conclusions, to the public; and (m) apart from the consultations, what are the other factors that the government is considering in the creation of the Chief Science Officer?

[Statistics Canada, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Wayne Smith, Canada's chief statistician, resigned Friday and blasted the Liberal government for failing to protect the independence of Stats Canada.

The Liberals promised to restore Stats Canada's independence, but Mr. Smith said:

...that independence has never been more compromised.

I ask the minister to resist the urge to simply blame the Harper Conservatives because Mr. Smith was referring to the Liberal government.

How does the Liberal government defend this breach of independence and this clearly broken promise?

[Petitions, June 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to lump sum payments of long-term disability and registered disability savings grants. The petitioners call on the government to request that Revenue Canada automatically apply the T1198 form to the previous year's income taxes and show the true income amount for each tax year, as well as a number of other measures.

I ask the government to consider both of these petitions seriously.

[Petitions, June 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition is from residents in my riding of Burnaby South. It is calling on the federal government to add coverage for hospice palliative care as a medically essential service under the Canada Health Act. I have heard from many constituents that this issue is very serious, and I urge the government to take this matter seriously.

[Housing, June 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there is a housing crisis in British Columbia, and during the last election the Liberals promised to build more affordable housing. They promised to remove GST on new capital investments.

Since then, housing prices in Vancouver have grown by 30% in the last year alone, and the rental vacancy rate is under 1%. The housing crisis in B.C. and across Canada grows increasingly urgent, yet the Liberals broke their promise to provide much needed help. Cities like Vancouver and Burnaby need action now.

Why are the Liberals breaking their promise to remove the GST on new housing investments?

[Housing, June 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there is a housing crisis in Burnaby, there is a housing crisis in Metro Vancouver, and, indeed, there is a housing crisis in many communities in British Columbia. The sad fact is that the government does not seem to care about it at all.

Housing prices are so high that young people are leaving greater Vancouver in droves, according to a recent study the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Seniors are worried about their future housing, especially those in rental housing who are on fixed incomes. Of course, what is starting to happen is that the housing crisis is so intense that local employers are very worried they will not be able to retain their current staff.

I know about these stresses. In the late 1970s, my family lost its home because of high interest rates. Not only did it shatter my family for that period of time, but actually a ripple effect through our entire lives.

I am very concerned about the impact these high housing prices will have on people.

[Income Tax Act, June 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech and, of course, his deep knowledge in this area of tax and revenue.

I wonder if the member could expand on his comments concerning the so-called middle-class tax cut. I wonder if he could expand on why the title does not actually match the measures that are being put forward by the government.

[Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-221, an act to amend the Criminal Code on sports betting, put forward by my colleague, the MP for Windsor West.

Before I start, I would like to say a few things about the MP for Windsor West.

I cannot think of a better champion for his or her community than that MP, the dean of the NDP caucus. Not only is he a voice of reason in our party and in the House, but he is also a tireless defender of his community. This bill shows he has a deep understanding of how his region works, the needs of his region, and is prepared to put forward positive ideas and proposals to make the local economy better.

This bill, in brief, proposes to modernize the Criminal Code to allow provinces to regulate single-event sports betting. In doing so, the member argues, in putting his bill forward, that it would add economic benefit to not just his community, but many Canadian communities, and reduce the influence of organized crime.

I will speak a bit about those two points. I am supporting the bill for a different reason, which I will share shortly.

Bill C-221 would amend the Criminal Code by deleting a section in it which explicitly prohibits provinces from allowing wagering “...on any race or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest”. The bill would allow for wagering on the outcome of a single sporting event, and many Canadians are probably confused that we do not already have this. This is a throwback law that has been in place for a long time, and in a lot of people's views, unnecessarily.

There has been a shift in how betting laws are regulated in Canada. The federal government has decentralized a lot of this control to the provinces over the years. Provinces are currently responsible for operating, licensing, and regulating all legal forms of gambling, including the lottery schemes. This is really because each region, each province, has individual needs and, of course, different cultures for gambling and related events.

Perhaps there are different views among the populations that have to be reflected in provincial laws, which makes sense. It is not as if we do not have unregulated betting at all. It is handled by the provinces.

There was too much regulation at one point, and now we are kind of reaching a point that we have decided that the provinces will take care of all of this. Therefore, each province determines the type, amount, and location of gaming activity that is available in their jurisdiction, which seems right to me.

Since 1985, gaming facilities have been established in most provinces, offering a diverse range of options, including slot and video machines, card games, and games of chance such as Roulette and Craps. In greater Vancouver, we have seen a kind of flourishing of the gaming industry, but a moderate flourishing. When this started, a lot of people thought it would be a very bad and intrusive industry that would change the very nature of our communities. However, it does not seem to have had that impact, although it has had both positive and negative impacts.

The key is that at least it is regulated now. At least the provincial governments get a significant amount of revenue from these industries. Not only provincial governments but municipalities and charities also receive a significant benefit from gambling.

Gaming is one of the oldest activities in the world. It is proper to regulate it, again, much like marijuana. It is something that happens, and government involvement is important. Also, it would lead us to recover some of the revenue so we could help support things like addiction services and counselling when people have trouble with these activities.

Oversight in this industry has been decentralized to the provinces, but the Criminal Code still applies to some aspects of the gaming industry, including single-event sports betting. Therefore, if this proposed law were in place and single-event sports wagering were permitted, each province would determine how and if it would be implemented.

It is not like passing this law would all of a sudden open up single sports betting right across Canada. It would still be up to the provinces to decide if they were going to allow it and what the laws would look like in each province.

The public is not losing control of this industry or oversight of this industry, it is just being decentralized to the provinces, who, I would say, are in better shape to make decisions about those more localized communities.

We heard some arguments today about the economics of this industry. Gaming is an important contributor to the Canadian economy. It is the largest segment of the entertainment industry, and supports more than 128,000 full-time jobs, with another 283,000 indirect jobs. It generates almost $9 billion in revenue for government and community programs. It is nothing to sneeze at, and it is something to take very seriously.

I am glad my colleague from Windsor West has brought the bill forward. It allows us to have these kinds of debates. Again, it puts pressure on the government to consider if, indeed, we are regulating this industry in the correct way.

The reason why single-event sports betting is important is that it would give the Canadian gaming industry an edge over the American gaming industry. In British Columbia, where I am from, although there are local casinos, most people talk about going to Las Vegas. Lots of British Columbians fly to Las Vegas to bet down there. One reason is single-event sports betting, which is allowed in Las Vegas but not in British Columbia.

One could imagine the reverse flow of residents and gamers if this were allowed in British Columbia, starting here with this law and then regulation by the province. It would reverse the flow of that money. That is an important consideration. We all know we are in tough economic times. This would be important.

Now in Vancouver, with a fairly robust economy, maybe this would not make a huge difference, but in some communities along the border, this would make a difference, especially from what I am hearing from my colleagues in Windsor. No other states have legalized single-event gaming operations, so this would give Canadian gamers an edge. My colleagues have said it very well, that this is occurring. These betting activities are occurring, but mainly illegally in Canada. What this allows us to do is capture the revenue that we are losing.

Again, the government has made the same claims about legalizing marijuana, saying that when it is an illegal substance it is only dealt with in an illegal way and all the profits remain in the hands of organized crime. That is why they are arguing they should legalize marijuana. It would allow the government to regulate and capture this revenue. The same case could be made for single-event sports betting.

We have heard opposition from the other side, and we have heard a number of Liberals say that they are not going to support the bill. They have in the past, and I am hoping that they again reflect on what they are denying Canadians by voting against the bill.

In terms of organized crime and the effects of organized crime in this area, illegal sports wagering includes both illegal bookmakers and illegal Internet betting companies operating in North America. It is hard to estimate the size of black markets, but according to the American Gaming Association, Americans spent almost $140 billion on illegal betting last year. In Canada it is harder to get a sense of what illegal gambling brings in, but it is estimated that it is between $14 billion and $15 billion, only on single-event sports betting.

One can imagine the amount, if this entire industry were regulated, in two ways: first, if we were able to capture revenue on the $14 billion to $15 billion, and second, if we were able to attract some of the American betters.

I am not a huge fan of gambling. It may seem strange to say that after this speech but I have talked to my constituents. I opposed a mixed martial arts bill that came from the Senate in the last session. However, I voted for it because my constituency told me loud and clear that this was what they wanted. The same applies to this bill. I have talked to a number of people in my constituency, elected officials and local residents. They have said they want me to support the bill, and that is what I am doing.

I am standing up today to support my colleague from Windsor West and his private member's bill. I hope everyone here in the House will as well.