Honourable senators, I serve as the critic of this bill, though I am more a proponent, I think, than a critic. It’s a pleasure, though, to speak to the bill.

Senator Wells offered a concise, comprehensive account of this bill a few weeks ago and what it will achieve, and I will not attempt to replicate his thoughtful presentation. I have five specific points I would like to make, but I may only address three of them at this stage of the bill’s consideration.

The first is a point of principle, the problematic nature of sports betting in the criminal law of Canada. The second point, and related to the first, are thoughts on the subject of sports, the integrity of sports and the positions of the major sports leagues in relation to this question of betting. The third point is that, well, gaming — gambling — presents social risks, and the ways in which this bill has the potential to mitigate or moderate rather than exacerbate those risks. Fourth is the opportunity for constructive federal-provincial relations that this bill presents. Fifth is the significant opportunity this amendment presents for people, businesses and communities, particularly Indigenous communities. I may postpone comments on a couple of these points in my remarks so that others can have an opportunity to speak this evening.

First, the nature of criminal law. At law school everyone studies criminal law. One of the first things you learn is that the criminal law largely deals with and essentially forbids malum in se, that is, things that are bad in themselves. I would like you to think about serious matters that come within the purview of criminal law — fraud, drug trafficking, sexual assault, murder, robbery and many others — but I hope you’re seeing the point. We use criminal law primarily to identify and punish serious, harmful, hurtful types of antisocial behaviour that our society denounces.

By nearly every measure, the prohibition against sports betting does not come close to this criterion. Indeed, its history is unusual and far from the criminal law norm, far from malum in se. Senator Wells noted the evolution of the Criminal Code positions in the mid-1980s, talking as well about the restructuring and lottery schemes developed then, but I’d like to go back further in history to talk about the prohibition on sports events generally.

It grew out of an era where there was moral disapproval of gambling and some match fixing did take place. The general illegality of many forms of gambling including sports betting continued into the 1980s when a range of liberalization amendments, noted by Senator Wells, were adopted. Space was created for large-scale lottery betting and revenue generation for the provinces all in one.

Directly related to the issues before us today, in 1985 we went from gambling on sports being a crime to being just fine if you bet on two or more sports events at the same time. However, betting on one event, other than between friends, continued to be illegal. When we say “illegal,” we are not talking about jaywalking or speeding. We are saying that it is a criminal offence for which, if you are caught and convicted, you would have a criminal record. Let’s think about this for a moment. Let me offer you four examples.

My grandfather was a decent, God-fearing, intensely competitive man. He ran a small plumbing and heating business in the metropolis of Kamsack, Saskatchewan, earning a modest but adequate living to support his family. He was an excellent athlete, as most plumbers are. He played hockey for the Kenora Thistles in the era when Kenora was the smallest community to win the Stanley Cup. In the excellent book on hockey and the Stanley Cup, our former Prime Minister touched on this history lightly. I, and I’m sure my grandfather, wished he would have said more on that topic. Given my grandfather’s love of sports, when he could afford to he occasionally placed bets on the outcome of sports contests, but not for one minute did he ever consider he was committing a crime by doing so.

In a larger and more modern context, as Senator Wells told us, Canadians are betting $13.5 billion each year outside the legal framework of sports betting. We are talking about tens of thousands of Canadians committing crimes. We are talking about members of our own families, putting it bluntly, committing criminal acts on a daily or weekly basis.

I taught a course in sports and the law at my law school in Saskatoon for the last decade. When we discussed sports betting, I asked the students to indicate anonymously whether they place single-event sports bets online. These are budding lawyers. Approximately half of them said they do. I asked the question anonymously because I’m actually asking them to confess to a crime, but none of them think it’s a crime, at least not in the way we think about criminal law. Many ask the same question Senator Wells raised: How can betting on one game at a time be a crime and betting on two or three at the same time be perfectly legal?

One fourth and last example: When the mayors of Regina and Winnipeg place a bet with one another about who will win the Banjo Bowl between the Blue Bombers and the Roughriders — which sadly the Blue Bombers win most of the time— maybe the bet will be for the loser to wear the other team’s sweatshirt or buy dinner. We applaud thinking of it as community building, a loyalty statement. If those same mayors were to bet $20 on the same game with an online betting agency, they would be committing a criminal offence.

The question arises, how seriously do we treat these crimes? I’ve had extensive research done on this question and, as far as we can determine, despite $13.5 billion in crimes being committed by Canadians every year in the form of criminal sports betting, we could not find a single criminal charge anywhere in Canada having been laid against anyone in the last 20 years. Not one. No one actually gets prosecuted — says something about what we think of this — but it hasn’t changed the fact that we have preserved this as a crime in our Criminal Code. You might ask why. I’m going to try to address this point, and one other, and maybe save remarks on other points for a bit later.

The answer seems to be that this legal absurdity rests less in the criminal law than in the historical concerns about gambling and the integrity of sports, particularly professional sports in North America. I turn to this as my second point. All of us had or have had some connection with sports, whether it’s a form of recreation to keep healthy or as a form of competition as sports fans or enthusiasts. Some have made significant and honourable careers in sports, such as our own Senator Smith, Senator Petitclerc, Senator Marty Deacon and many others who have served honourably in this place. Our infectious enthusiasm for sports is captured in Jerry Seinfeld’s statement, “I could watch sports if my hair was on fire.”

It is escapism for many. Famous sports broadcaster Howard Cosell once described sports as the “toy department of human life.” That is something of a self-mocking statement. Cosell himself became wealthy and famous as a pre-eminent sports broadcaster.

In fact, the world of sports is a serious project for those close to sport, in particular modern professional sports. The major sports leagues in North America are multi-billion-dollar businesses. Professional sports generate hundreds of thousands of jobs across North America, and thousands of those jobs are in Canada. Some are extremely high paying, as we know, but many thousands are good, basic jobs, whether in employment with sports teams or as employees with media organizations that do the broadcasting or the people who sell popcorn and hot dogs in the stands. So a lot, for many people, depends on the sound operation of these sports enterprises. Here I’m coming to my point.

For all sports to prosper, particularly in an era of significant fan engagement, they require a level of athletic skill on the part of the athletes, but also confidence in the integrity of the competitions themselves. This latter fundamental has been a preoccupation of leaders of major sports leagues for the last century in North America.

So now a little bit about history on this point. The significant and legitimate focus on integrity of sport in North America began almost exactly a century ago when the so-called Black Sox scandal of 1919 nearly destroyed Major League Baseball in the United States. A group of players with the Chicago White Sox had probably taken money to intentionally lose games in the World Series. Even though the players were acquitted, this chicanery had profound implications for baseball, and in subsequent decades for all major North American sports leagues.

For baseball, new and principled leadership was desperately sought, extending even to an effort to persuade the outgoing President of the United States to become the Commissioner of Major League Baseball.

The Black Sox scandal has so much resonance in the world of professional sports, even today, that when newsreels relating to the trial of the Black Sox were discovered last year, in of all places the Yukon, more than 100 years after the events in question, it was an international sports sensation. Indeed, in books and movies, one of the Black Sox players, Shoeless Joe Jackson has been immortalized by Canadian author W.P. Kinsella in his book Shoeless Joe and the blockbuster movie Field of Dreams. This anxiety about the integrity of sports teams through the decades of growth of major professional sports in North America made sports leaders rightly vigilant in ensuring the integrity of their respective sports and understandably wary of the ways in which betting on sports games could have a negative effect on that integrity.

The more insulated sports were from betting on game outcomes and the associated temptation to lure players or others into fixing outcomes of matches, the greater assurance of integrity. This helps to explain the structure of Canada’s prohibition against single-event sports betting and major leagues’ historical opposition to it being allowed.

As Senator Wells noted, from a bettor’s perspective, it’s difficult to win a bet when you have to predict the outcomes of multiple games, but on the other side of the coin — this even more important to sports leadership — it was thought to be much harder to fix multiple matches than it might be to fix a single match. So the single-event betting prohibition, at least at the margins, promoted integrity by making unscrupulous behaviour almost impossible, at least among legal bettors.

What sports leaders have come to recognize and accept is that single-event sports betting is taking place widely and under the table, most of it in shadowy precincts where the law never goes. Consequently, allowing above-the-table betting on sports teams, in the sunlight so to speak, cannot be worse than the status quo and is probably better.

These commissioners of sports leagues have also recognized that they can contribute to a more regularized and fairer sports-betting regime by making arrangements to provide betting agencies and bettors with superior, up-to-date information on games and game results. This transparency actually protects the integrity of the product on the field. Fairer to bettors, nearly all of whom are sports fans and who would remain so only if they themselves can trust the integrity of the game and the information about sports games.

This evolving perspective, combined with the liberalization of legal sports betting in the U.S. beginning in 2018, and the opportunity to achieve some limited economic benefits from these developments, has led sports leaders of all the major sports leagues in America and the leagues themselves to accept and even embrace the change.

Let me read a joint statement from the commissioners of five major sports leagues put out last year:

The National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, and the Canadian Football League support an amendment to Canada’s federal laws that would authorize provinces to offer betting on single sporting events. Sports betting gives fans another exciting way to engage with the sports they love.

These are the commissioners speaking now.

Because a legal and regulated sports betting market in Canada would be beneficial to sports and their fans, we urge prompt action to make this a reality. Sports betting already happens illegally in Canada; creating a legal framework would shift consumers from illicit, unregulated markets to a legal and safe marketplace. Regulating single-game betting would allow for strong consumer protections as well as safeguards to further protect the integrity of sports.

There are two key passages. Their message: This change would be beneficial to sports, and they are essentially speaking to us.

Second, a regulated market would allow for stronger consumer protections and safeguards to protect the integrity of sports.

Each of us may have views on this legislation, but the leadership of the major sports leagues, who have by far the most to lose, support this amendment and are satisfied that it does not compromise the integrity of their sports — the foundational concern that led to the structure of the 1985 law.

This foundational concern for the sports leadership has eroded, and if sports leaders are fine with it, who are we to say otherwise? It should cause us to at least appreciate that the structure of our existing law is needed no longer. It is a call to move from criminalization to regulation. It took these leagues 100 years to see this better path. We should too.

I want to speak ever so briefly about the issues concerning problem gambling. I had concerns myself dating back two decades or more regarding the risk to some people with gaming becoming too readily available, at a time when casinos began to appear in Canada in the 1990s. As the Deputy Attorney General at that time in Saskatchewan, I was involved in negotiating the original First Nations gaming compact in Canada. This led to the establishment of First Nations-run casinos in Saskatchewan. I served on the governors board with now-Grand Chief Perry Bellegarde for a number of years.

The conclusions I drew from that work, and work with Grand Chief Bellegarde and other First Nations leaders and government regulators, gave me confidence that a sound, responsible gaming regime can be put in place to moderate and minimize those risks.

It is true that there are some risks, but if we are primarily — and I believe we are — bringing this type of gambling out of the darkness and into the sunlight, this amendment would provide greater opportunities to identify people who are at risk and help them address their addictions. Legalization and regulation by the provinces is a far better approach, a humane approach, a public health approach, to this question and to this group of gamblers, and it is superior to the status quo.

One way of thinking about it is, there are problem gamblers out there right now, but organized crime, which has a decent role in the illegal-gambling regime, has no responsible gaming program. In fact, they probably have the opposite.

On balance, and if there is another opportunity, I will return to the question of the economic benefits, but let me close with these two or three fundamental points.

This is a simple bill. It is grounded in principle. Its goals are sensible. Its benefits vastly outweigh its disadvantages. There are risks related to problem sports gambling, but those risks already exist and are going unaddressed presently. This bill will help to correct that.

Presently, the investments in responsible and problem gambling in Canada are in the neighbourhood of $125 million a year. They would expand with this bill, especially dealing with the sports-betting world. The bill is widely supported in all of the constituencies to which it is relevant, and it was supported almost unanimously by our elected representatives from all political parties in the other place. We should support the bill and unlock its benefits for Canadians. Thank you.

I have a question for Senator Cotter, if he will take one.

I’d be pleased to.

Thank you, Senator Cotter. I agree with almost everything you have said, bringing this practice into the sunlight and amending the Criminal Code so that people are behaving within the parameters of the law.

You did speak about responsible gambling, and I want to focus on that. Is there anything in the bill or the regulations that would help us determine or would help us gather evidence around those who are at risk? In my own research with the Responsible Gambling Foundation, I have been informed that, of course, young people are at risk. I have been informed that Indigenous people are at risk, and I have been informed that South Asians and Asians are at risk.

Is there any capacity in the bill as it is written or in the proposed regulations to gather evidence based and age, gender, race and ethnicity or is this something the committee should deliberate on?

I’d be pleased to answer. Let me try to offer maybe three points to that, Senator Omidvar.

First, this is actually an amendment to the Criminal Code, and we don’t usually use the Criminal Code for regulatory purposes but more for sanctioning purposes. What this bill will do is make available to the provinces both the opportunity and the responsibility to regulate single-event sports betting in their provinces. I think that’s the first point.

Based on what has happened with the conversations around casinos being established and responsible gaming practices there, there’s a rich array of commitments by both provinces and gaming operators to meet the expectations of responsible gaming. It’s in their interest to do so. Making customers addicted and broke is not in their interest, and there would be an enormous backlash. So there’s sympathetic interest across the piece.

With respect to that, the responsible gaming leadership, including the RGCC, with which I know you are familiar, has done extensive research to understand patterns of games and patterns of behaviour. Sports betting has got a different flavour to it. It attracts a different crowd. Some of the points you made about younger people, that’s true. Interestingly enough, they’re often more highly educated younger people, mostly young men. There’s a different dimension to betting on sports. The example of me betting on the Roughriders in the Banjo Bowl is a perfect example. I’m too emotionally connected to the Saskatchewan Roughriders to make a wise betting decision. That’s a common factor in sports betting. However, the responsible gaming folks have done research already, and a significant amount of that $125 million does get focused on research.

I can’t comment on sports betting and particularly racialized communities of interest. There’s a range of vulnerabilities. I wouldn’t be comfortable putting them down to those forms of categorization. I think it’s more a pattern in certain communities — and those may be racialized communities — where there’s kind of a culture of gaming and gambling, and that might be a dimension of it. I hope that’s helpful. I’m impressed with the amount of commitment to the whole initiative and the parts about investing in prevention, investing in research, targeting more vulnerable communities and recognizing the value of investments by the Government of Canada — they would get more tax revenue out of this — and the provinces in strengthening the mental health vulnerabilities of some. I hope that’s helpful.

Senator, do you have another question?

Just a quick clarification to help me understand. So you’re telling me, senator, that this collection of data would fall within the purview of the provinces and they would do the needful. There would be no way that we could get a national picture. Or could we?

My impression of what is happening now is that there’s an enormous amount of coordination among the responsible gaming dimensions across the provinces, but this becomes a matter of provincial regulation. The exercise is basically interprovincial and interterritorial cooperation in the gaming sector, which, in my understanding, is happening very well presently. There’s a national body that accredits casinos, for example. Every First Nations casino in Saskatchewan is accredited under this national accreditation approach, which has built into it, both identifying through research and the gathering of information on problem gambling issues, and develops strategies to address it pursuant to this national model.

Thank you.

On debate, Senator Woo?

Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Honourable senators, I rise briefly to speak to second reading of Bill C-218. I thank Senator Wells for bringing this private member’s bill forward and to all colleagues for their speeches to this point.

I didn’t come to this as someone who has much experience or knowledge of the sports betting world. I did place a $2 bet on a horse race at the old Blue Bonnets racetrack in Montreal in the late 1960s. My very good friend owned a horse, and I bet on it to show. To my great surprise I won, so I pocketed my winnings and figured I’d quit while I was ahead. Fifty years later, I can proudly say I made money on my one and only bet.

However, I have read and I do understand the rationale for Bill C-218, currently before us after passing in the other place with overwhelming all-party support. In fact, the government had proposed Bill C-13, which sought to achieve the same objectives but for procedural reasons did not advance in the other place. The government committed to ensuring that those who engage in gambling can do so in a safe and regulated way.

The current laws on single sports event betting, as we’ve heard, have allowed organized crime to profit and have also created economic disparities within communities. The proposed changes to the Criminal Code in Bill C-218 will allow the provinces and territories to regulate this area and bring additional transparency to support responsible gambling. These changes would be of significant benefit to border communities with casinos that are in competition with U.S. casinos in states that have recently changed their laws to allow single-event sport betting.

Honourable senators, the gaming industry is a major employer and generator of revenue and employment across Canada. It generates over $9 billion in revenue for governments and charities every year, and it pays out more than $6.7 billion in salaries annually. However, the $14 billion single-event sport betting industry is carried out underground and often by criminal elements. This significant amount of money is not contributing to our economy and to the well-being of communities and employees. These are dollars helping to finance criminal elements in our societies, to our collective detriment.

For many years, governments both provincial and federal, as well as Indigenous groups across Canada, have been calling for the legalization of single-event betting. Currently, most provinces or territories have entered into agreements with some Indigenous communities or organizations to allow them to conduct gambling activities or to share in profits. We have a responsibility to listen to Indigenous peoples and communities on these important issues and on how this industry may impact and benefit Indigenous peoples and communities. Some form of regulation is needed and Bill C-218 offers that solution.

The Criminal Code, as you know, currently prohibits all forms of gaming and betting unless a particular form of gambling is specifically permitted. Under section 207 of the Criminal Code, provinces and territories are permitted to license a broad range of lottery schemes, including betting on the outcome of more than one sporting event — for example, betting on the outcome of multiple football games. However, some types of gambling continue to be excluded from permitted lottery schemes. One of these exclusions is that a province or territory may not conduct betting on the outcome of a single sports event, for example the Grey Cup or Stanley Cup. Bill C-218 would allow provinces and territories to regulate single-sports betting by removing that exclusion from the definition of a permitted lottery scheme.

As we’ve heard, single-sports betting has become legal in many individual states in the United States, and this change has led to major sports leagues changing their position to support the legalization of single-sport betting and to increase competition for existing gambling products in Canada. It has also led to Canadian leagues largely supporting single-sport betting. On June 8, 2020, a joint statement was issued by the commissioners of the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer and the Canadian Football League supporting the necessary Criminal Code changes authorizing provinces to offer single-sport betting.

During study of Bill C-218 in the other place, we heard from representatives of the horse-racing industry who cautioned that the bill as drafted would gravely impact the pari-mutuel system of betting used by this industry and would lead to significant loss of jobs across Canada. The Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, CPMA, is the agency that regulates all betting on Canadian horse racing. Pari-mutuel betting is a system in which all bets of a particular type are placed together in a pool. Taxes and a percentage for the venue are deducted from the pool, and the balance of the money is shared among all winning bets. Pari-mutuel betting systems are currently regulated by the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency in relation to live horse racing. The CPMA is an agency under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture, and it regulates betting on horse races across Canada. Its sole source of funding is a levy on all bets placed through the pari-mutuel betting system.

An amendment to Bill C-218 was passed in the other place to ensure that the pari-mutuel system of betting would remain under the regulation of the federal Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency. It makes the sports betting industry both competitive and safe for those who engage in it.

Honourable senators, Bill C-218 proposes 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. It is noted the industry is a major employer for thousands of Canadians and a generator of billions of dollars for communities, the provinces and the country. I believe the bill before us reflects a balanced, prudent and safe approach to the industry. Again, I thank Senator Wells for bringing this bill forward and offer the support of the government for Bill C-218 and its timely passage through the Senate.

Honourable senators, I will speak briefly about Bill C-218 at second reading to raise some concerns about the consequences of legalizing single sport betting.

Undoubtedly, this legalization will bring more money into provincial coffers because this is an area occupied by foreign or, quite simply, illegal sites.

I will be honest, I am suspicious of gambling and money. I have always felt that it was an underhanded form of taxation of the most disadvantaged in our society. Researcher Christian Jacques, of the Centre québécois d’excellence pour la prévention et le traitement du jeu at Laval University, confirms that proportionally there are more gamblers among the working classes than among the wealthy.

What has always worried me, and still does today, is the risk of addiction, the risk of compulsive gambling.

As with alcohol, restrictions prohibiting gambling were gradually lifted. Provincial governments have a monopoly on lotteries, games and online bets, but the situation varies from one province to another. There was apparently some ambiguity in the Criminal Code and each province had a different interpretation, which explains the different approaches to licensing. For example, Saskatchewan grants licences to private casinos while Quebec retains its monopoly. Ontario wants to issue licences to private foreign online gaming sites in the province so that it can get its share of the revenue.

Provincial governments, which must look after the public interest, are promoting “responsible gambling,” with all of the contradictions that term implies. Loto-Québec sent me a list of at least 25 measures for gamblers who have lost control, such as self-exclusion programs or programs that allow gamblers to request a decrease to the maximum they can spend. I should point out that all Loto-Québec customers have the right to gamble up to $9,999 per week, which seems quite high for the average person.

The irony here is that Bill C-218 is making its way through Parliament in the middle of a pandemic, just as a major survey by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec revealed that the number of people who gamble online has exploded. In fact, 20% of Quebecers have tried it, and 8% of them were trying it for the first time. The use of Loto-Québec’s online casino has jumped by 130%, increasing the risk of addiction.

According to Professor Jeff Derevensky, Director of McGill University’s International Centre for Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviours, it is clear that legalizing single-event sports betting could increase public health problems in Canada. Why? Because, he says, more young men will be drawn to this kind of betting if it is legal and regulated than to illegal sites, which some turn to for lack of anything else. He is not the only one. Researcher Christian Jacques of Université Laval’s Centre québécois d’excellence pour la prévention et le traitement du jeu also has a lot of questions and concerns, because research suggests that legalization could have harmful effects. Consensus is lacking, however. Robert Ladouceur, a professor of clinical psychology at Université Laval, is not worried about the effects of legalization, but he sees a potential risk if provinces license private operators to run single-event sports betting. The professor suggests that Crown corporations are more accountable than private enterprises when it comes to ensuring the integrity of their activities in the risky gambling sector.

Studies show that recent legalization of this type of betting in the United States led to a jump in the number of calls to problem gambling help centres. In Quebec, “a little less than 3% [of gamblers] are moderate-risk to probable pathological gamblers.” Each pathological gambler can have a negative impact on five to seven other people, which increases the number of people at risk. Professor Derevensky says that addiction to sports betting in North America affects between 4% and 25% of the adults who participate in the activity on a regular basis. Furthermore, U.S. studies show that 12% of teens experience problems related to gambling, and they are not even of legal gambling age.

Single-event sports betting is the type of betting that young men are most drawn to. The negative effects of the interaction between online betting, watching sports, live betting and mobile technology are now being documented. Researchers are finding that online gambling is a vector for problematic behaviour. Live betting from a mobile phone accelerates the process. The opportunity to gamble is available immediately, on demand, which is very appealing to those with gambling addictions.

What will be the social consequences of the passage of Bill C-218? No doubt stronger preventive measures will be needed. I will close by asking the following question. If, in the end, more young Canadians get into sports betting because of this legalization, what will we have accomplished with this bill?

I therefore hope that this bill and its potential consequences will be thoroughly examined by a committee. Thank you.

Honourable senators, my initial inclination was not to speak to this bill at this point, but having listened to the sponsor of the bill here and having read the work done in the other place on this bill, I felt I should bring some light on the areas I felt were left out of the discussion. I will try to focus on a few areas that I think are important. I will, as well, identify a few areas that I hope will be considered by those who are working on the legislation in committee.

First, I want to mention that both the sponsor and the critic of this bill have credibility in this place. That will be key in shepherding this bill through the Senate, hopefully with the due consideration to the issues that I believe shall arise. Thank you to both of them.

As I prepared to speak today, I realized there are many things I could speak to specifically relating to what I see as the result of Bill C-218, but I decided to tell you as well what I would not spend much time on it. For example, I considered talking about the impact increased gambling through single-event betting would have on families. The reality is that Canada already has a problem with gambling, being the fourth largest gambling nation in the world. Ask social workers and addictions counsellors what level of their caseload results from gambling addiction. I spoke to two such people when a similar bill was here and, again, I reached out to them. I heard that, as previously mentioned, addictions counselling for gambling eats up a lot of the caseload and has been consistently growing.

I have personally seen the impact of gambling on communities and families. I have personally arrested those who have stolen to feed their addiction to gambling. Co-workers in policing, friends and others who I have tried to help, those who have realized how far they have fallen because of this insidious addiction. But, in reality, we let that horse out of the barn a long time ago.

My focus could be on whether or not easier access to this gambling line, as the previous senator mentioned, would change the scope of the problem. We heard about the vast revenues that will come to Canadians — or should I say governments, casinos, legal gambling venues — but what about those who are addicted? We heard from the honourable member that a tax could be used by governments to provide better health services. It may be a good idea. How about an increase in health funding allocated for addictions to the jurisdictions who choose such a scheme? It is being done in other countries that have single-event betting. If we’re serious that this could help in fact, let’s make sure it does help. If it does help, we would need to ensure the funding is committed to addictions counselling — not promised, but committed.

But there is a problem here. This is one reason I am disappointed that this is a private member’s bill and not a government bill. It’s important that the government be on the hook to not only take in the taxes, but disburse the funds needed to combat the inevitable negative impact of increased gambling. That commitment cannot be made in a private member’s bill because there is a constitutional requirement that those proposing the expenditure of public funds be accompanied by a Royal Recommendation, which can only be obtained by the government and introduced by a minister.

Now I want to talk about the greatest concern of this legislation as it sits today. That is the integrity of sport in this country. With the passing of this legislation, we would put the integrity of sport in Canada in a difficult position — not because we are different from other countries but, rather, because we are often the same. You see, this is not just about betting on the National Hockey League, NBA, NFL, MLB or other major leagues. It could — and probably will — include betting on junior hockey, semi-professional soccer and other second-, third- or even fourth-tier sports, as we currently see in other countries with single-event betting schemes.

The reality is that this bill would open up single-event betting for whatever purposes the provinces want it. We already know how bad their addiction to taxes can be. They could open up amateur sports to this betting, and in fact that is something I would bet on. After all, why would they not? This is, in fact, about gambling tax revenue and not sport.

I have looked at 29 briefs and the testimony of 32 witnesses who gave evidence during the House committee work on this bill. Aside from the government department officials, the vast majority of the witnesses were proponents of the legislation and represented organizations that could gain financially from increased revenue. Yet I saw little or no evidence on the impact of increased gambling from an addictions or mental health perspective. No one argues that, from a tax revenue perspective, this would be good for a government’s tax base. But what we do to help those who fall will be what we are judged by.

We have seen cases in some U.S. states where in amateur sports such as table tennis or electronic sports — you name it — if the government is controlling it and willing to take “book” on it, they are allowing people to bet on it. Therefore, we will leave it to the tax-addicted provinces to decide. In most cases and at most bookmaking facilities, this will include professional and college football, basketball, baseball, hockey, horse and dog racing, esports, if you can imagine, such as electronic hockey and electronic football, and I can go on. It’s fine; after all, this is about providing an outlet for single-event sports betting and the ability for Canadian governments to access tax that is not now being collected. It is certainly not about whether we propagate the problem of addictions and mental illness.

The integrity in sports piece comes into play in relation to the fact that we have heard proponents of this legislation talk about match fixing. They speak to the need for transparency in sports betting if we are to combat match fixing. After all, it will be in the light of day that these athletes compete and that these teams win and lose. As a result, it is in that same light of day that we should be able to identify whether match fixing is occurring. Not that athletes would cheat, would they? The NCAA in the U.S. surveyed Division 1 football players about cheating. Of them, 1% reported having taken money to play poorly, 2% reported being contacted by an outside source to share insider information and 3% reported providing insider information about a game. Of course some players will cheat.

A players’ association survey of Eastern European soccer players found that almost 12% had been approached to consider fixing a match, while 24% said they were aware of match fixing that took place in their league. Most of the countries that engaged in the survey had single-event betting. In fact, in one country surveyed, 35% said they had been approached to fix a match, while in another country 45% of the players surveyed stated they knew of a game that was fixed.

Tim Donaghy, a former professional basketball referee, worked in the NBA for 13 seasons. He resigned from the league as a result of reports of an investigation by the FBI into allegations that he bet on games he officiated. He pleaded guilty to two federal charges and was sentenced to 15 months in jail after admitting that he made calls to affect the point spread in those games. This case is important because the player, coach or referee does not have to guarantee a win or a loss. In this case, he only had to guarantee that he would beat the spread, that he would change the course of the game and influence the number of points by which the game was won or lost.

Match fixing is a reality, and typically the fix is not found in the win-or-lose column but, rather, is found in the difference on the scoreboard between the two teams. To explain, if an Ottawa soccer team is expected to win against a Toronto team by three goals, that is what they are betting on; that is the spread. To beat the spread would mean the Toronto team would lose by fewer than three goals, instead of three. If a player, referee or coach decide to help in beating the spread, they are not actually impacting the eventual winner or loser. In fact, the impact is that while the game was fixed through the beating of the spread, it will not show in the win-loss column.

To recap, we have had betting on sporting events in Canada for quite a while, but we require in our scheme that the bettor must participate in two or more games or events, as mentioned by the sponsor and the critic of the bill, which is much more difficult to fix when compared to betting on one event or match. The odds of influencing the results of more than one event is difficult because you need multiple players, coaches or officials, on multiple teams, in multiple matches — it’s almost impossible. With single-event betting, you need only influence one player, one coach or even one official, on one team — not to win or lose but to beat or meet the spread.

In countries where single-event betting is legal — whether Europe, Asia, Australia or Oceania — we have seen many dramatic and extensive instances of game fixing in cricket, soccer and other sports — too many to name and too many to ignore.

I’ve spoken to an expert, Declan Hill, who is a Canadian journalist, author and associate professor at the University of New Haven. He wrote in his thesis and in his book The Fix: Soccer and Organized Crime specifically about the problems with match fixing in Europe. In 2013, when this legislation came forward, he was one of the only witnesses we heard who could speak to match fixing. By the way, he was not called as a witness in the other place when this legislation arrived there.

Declan Hill has looked at the impact and has given evidence and speeches in multiple fora specifically on the issue of match fixing and the impact it is having on the integrity of sport. The problem with match fixing, he states, is found everywhere there is single-event betting; it is a reality of sport when combined with single-event betting.

While uncovering match fixing is extremely important, it is also important that it be illegal to do so. Declan Hill has stated categorically — recently and in relation to past iterations of this legislation — that match fixing must be a government priority and, as a result, the priority of law enforcement. Therein lies the problem, as in Canada today it is not illegal to fix a match. This must be corrected when this legislation is passed. Declan Hill wrote about this on December 11, 2020, in The Globe and Mail. In relation to match fixing, there is something the committee must take care of when they make the changes in the Criminal Code to allow for single-event betting.

I am not suggesting that we stop the bill. I am saying there are concerns with this legislation. I have spoken to our legal experts in the Senate, and they suggest this could be accomplished through a small amendment in Bill C-218 to create a new match-fixing offence in the Criminal Code. The new offence could be added to the current sections of the Criminal Code and could be based on the offence of cheating contained in the United Kingdom’s Gambling Act 2005 or in legislation that has been adopted in the states of Australia when they added single-event betting. I had our legal experts prepare an amendment to the Criminal Code. I can share that with committee members if they wish or I can bring it to the chamber at third reading.

Regardless, it is essential that when we change the Criminal Code to allow single-event betting, we must ensure that the criminal concern of match fixing be added to those same sections of the Criminal Code.

For interest, I thought I would provide a couple of examples of match fixing in Australia.

In Melbourne, two men were charged in 2017 in relation to match fixing in a third-tier Australian football game involving under-20-year-olds.

Police laid proceeds of crime charges against an Australian table tennis player and brought down an international match-fixing syndicate in 2019 in New South Wales. This involved $500,000 that was changing hands between athletes and bettors.

Police laid charges against five people involved in match fixing in 2020 in an electronic sports event in May 2020 in New South Wales.

In essence, I believe this is an essential ingredient to a successful single-event betting bill. While I am not introducing an amendment at this time, I hope the committee will take this step as they proceed and progress, or I will do so when the bill returns from committee. While the committee is considering changing the Criminal Code to make it legal to bet on single events, I trust they will also make it illegal to fix such an event.

This would have been the end of my speech today, but something else is bothering me about this legislation. I continually hear about professional sports that are going to adopt the single-event betting scheme, but I think there needs to be consideration that the leagues have to opt in or opt out of such a scheme. They should be in control of whether their league is involved. Have them opt in if they wish their sport’s or league’s involvement, and not have it decided by someone else who does not have to deal with the fallout.

There are many tentacles to this legislation. Although it seems simple, I believe we are only looking at the beginning. While I have concerns about the legislation, it is our responsibility to counter those concerns when we can and to fix — pardon the pun — the problems before we pass the bill. I trust the committee will bring solutions to these problems. Again, I thank both the sponsor and critic of the bill.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)