Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 25 - Evidence for November 8, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joan Fraser (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We are continuing our study of Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).
Before I welcome our witness, I have a couple of things to say. You will have received a notice, which was then revised and sent out again. The original one said that we would be hearing from the National Hockey League this morning. The National Hockey League is again embroiled in heavy-duty negotiations, but, even more pertinently for our purposes, New York is again being afflicted by a terrible storm. Because of that, the NHL sent us a written submission but cannot appear in person. This is not, as you know, the only written submission we have received.
I wonder if somebody would like to bring a motion to the effect that the written submissions that we have received on this bill be appended to the proceedings of the committee and put up on our website. There should be a list of them.
Senator White, will you entrust us to compile the list and do all necessary things?
Senator White: Yes, I would.
The Deputy Chair: So moved by Senator White.
All in agreement? Opposed? Carried.
It is a great pleasure to welcome this morning Mr. Tim Rahilly, Associate Vice-President, Students, Simon Fraser University. He has come a lot farther than New York. He has come from Vancouver on fairly short notice.
We are grateful to you for being here, Mr. Rahilly. I think you have some opening remarks.
Tim Rahilly, Associate Vice-President, Students, Simon Fraser University: I do. Thank you very much for allowing me to be present to speak on behalf of Simon Fraser University.
[Translation]
Our president sent the committee a letter briefly describing our objections to the bill, but I would like to provide you with some context that will help you understand our point of view.
[English]
I currently, as you mentioned, serve as associate vice-president, students, and have worked in the field of enrolment and student affairs for a about 15 years. I trained as a psychologist at McGill University. I trained with one of your previous witnesses, Mr. Derevensky. I believe that I bring a certain perspective that is different from that of some of the other witnesses. You have heard from experts in gambling and addictions. My perspective is somewhat different as my focus is really Simon Fraser University students and university-age students in general.
My responsibilities include athletics, but I also have broad responsibilities in terms of students' health and well being and students' success overall.
I would like to address two issues today — the impact of this bill on SFU and particularly on its abilities to host championships and to be a full-fledged member of the NCAA. I will also make some brief comments about my work with university students with respect to gaming and gambling.
As many of you know, SFU is a large, research-based, comprehensive university. It has been ranked number one by Maclean's magazine for several years and ranked favourably internationally. We are highly engaged in our local, national and international communities. It was our desire to increase our international footprint outside of the traditional academic realm that made us interested in joining the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
We are the first non-American post-secondary institution to apply for and to be granted full membership status in the NCAA. Although we have been on track to full membership for the past five years, it was just on September 1 of this year that we became full members.
If I can say a quick word about our athletic teams, we have about 450 university-aged athletes and 17 teams. In our 47 years of history, we have won 50 championships at the national level and have participated in many more.
We are proud to have helped our athletes on their voyage to becoming engaged citizens and to have played a role in supporting athletes in general, those who have become Olympians, have medalled and have participated in other games. Some have gone on to professional athletics. We believe that being part of the NCAA arguably offers the highest level of intercollegiate athletics in the world.
Achieving our membership was not easy because the NCAA has many rules. However, we quickly came to appreciate that these rules exist to ensure fair play among the membership and to support our athletes as students. The rules have other functions, such as to promote gender equity in sport and to seek to ensure drug-free sport.
The NCAA has a clear position on illegal and legal sports wagering by student athletes, officials and administrators like myself. I am aware that the NCAA has submitted something to the committee, but, as I understand it, their concerns are similar to those of the professional leagues. They wish to protect the integrity of the game and eliminate the influence on outcomes. They are against any form of legitimization of sport wagering and wish to reduce the pressure on student athletes to use performance enhancing drugs.
These rules are firm and violations of them result in sanctions against the individual and, in some cases, the schools.
Among the NCAA rules is that championship play may not take place in any jurisdiction that has single game or event wagering in sports. Accordingly, if this bill were to pass, we would not be able to host championship play and our athletes would use lose home field advantage. Our campus community would be denied the opportunity to watch its teams play at the highest level. There would be an increased financial burden on teams who would have to increase their travel because they would not play their home games at home. The region in which we live would lose valuable tourism, and SFU would not accrue the anticipated opportunities to bring Americans to our campus in the hopes of increasing our footprint and attracting students and academics to our campus.
To host its home games, SFU would be forced to find an institution in a jurisdiction that does not allow for this kind of wagering, and SFU's competitive position in recruiting and retaining its student athletes might be diminished.
Turning briefly to the work that I have done with traditionally aged university students, we have only recently begun to track the influence of gaming and wagering on students. We see it as an emerging problem. The NCAA has undertaken two surveys of gambling among its student athletes and has found results consistent with those of others who have spoken to this committee. While problem gamblers represent only a small percentage of the population, it is a concern. Young males wager at disproportionately higher levels than older males or females.
The NCAA survey found that one of the most popular forms of gambling among men was to bet with friends. I think that this is an indication that young people are not necessarily the ones seeking any form of offshore or illegal gambling.
Accordingly, I believe that increased availability of single sport betting might well result in more students gambling. From past experience, particularly with alcohol and drugs during the past decades on university campuses, we know that increased availability means increased uptake. It is a concern as we know that the health-related behaviours that students acquire during their university years affect lifelong habits.
In summary, it is clear to us at Simon Fraser University that Bill C-290 would adversely impact our campus community, our local community and, particularly, our 450 student athletes because of the loss of opportunity to host championship play. We fear that increased exposure to legal single-sport betting may also impact our student population adversely.
Accordingly, we are not in favour of the bill and would encourage that further study be undertaken to determine its impact prior to being passed.
Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am happy to answer any questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rahilly. We will begin with Senator Runciman, who is actually the chair of the committee.
Senator Runciman: Thank you for appearing on relatively short notice and travelling from Vancouver. It is much appreciated. I am curious about some of the things you said and the positions that we have heard from major sporting leagues as well.
One thing should be put on the record. We had the NFL's written submission opposing this, and we know they are active, along with the NCAA, in fighting New Jersey's move to single-event betting. I found it kind of curious, to say the least. There was an NFL game in London two weeks ago between the New England Patriots and I think the St. Louis Rams. Following the game, the owner of the New England Patriots, Robert Kraft, had a press conference and said, "We want to have an NFL team in London, and that is the goal of the NFL." Of course, as you know, Great Britain has had single-event sports betting for decades. In fact, you can bet on individual players and on a whole range of things. I find it curious, passing strange, that they can have one position in terms of fighting New Jersey or opposing this legislation, but when they see a dollar on the horizon in Great Britain, it is not a problem. Do you have any reaction to the call not just by Mr. Kraft but by the NFL itself to establish a franchise in Great Britain?
Mr. Rahilly: I do not have a lot of background in terms of the NFL. My only commentary would be that large organizations like that often do not speak with a single voice and there are competing factions within them. It is slightly different in terms of intercollegiate athletics and amateur sport. The voice is a little clearer with amateur sport that they are not particularly interested in anything to do with sport wagering, legal or otherwise. I agree with you that it is curious that we have different jurisdictions with different rules, and there is certainly a desire to expand franchises at this time.
Senator Runciman: It is not just a single voice. It is on the NFL website as well.
When you look at the North American betting scandals, many of them have involved the NCAA. The most recent one was 1994, an Arizona State and Washington game, and it involved organized crime and players involved with illegal bookmakers. The team's captain, Steve Smith, was in debt to a bookie, and that is what led to point shaving. Interestingly enough, there was a lot of Las Vegas action on this, and that is what led to the scandal being uncovered. A regulated and transparent environment, Las Vegas, saw this unusual activity. They were able to explore it further and find out that it was players involved in shaving points.
It seems to me that when you have this kind of access to information in terms of a regulated and transparent system, it provides an additional safety measure for any league, amateur or pro. Along those lines, I asked Mr. Beeston from the Toronto Blue Jays a week or so ago about information sharing agreements with any of these legal booking operations in Las Vegas or Great Britain or wherever. They had no information sharing agreements whatsoever to be able to detect unusual betting activity that may draw suspicion with respect to what is going on in a given game. Does the NCAA have any information sharing agreements with these legal operations, either in Las Vegas or offshore?
Mr. Rahilly: I am unaware of any information sharing agreements, and I cannot purport to be an expert on such. In terms of formal information sharing, obviously there is opportunity there to detect illegal activity.
in terms of other realms, I would also submit that we are finding that just the access to information in general, without information sharing formal agreements, also has resulted in detecting. I will speak to general student behaviour of concern. The availability of the Internet is such that new things come to light quite regularly.
Senator Runciman: I think it is a head-in-the-sand kind of approach. If we look at Major League Baseball with respect to the steroid scandal and people being suspicious for years, the league itself was not prepared to deal with it until it became so obvious and so apparent that finally something was done. You do not have any information sharing agreements that you are aware of. Major league sports, we have heard, have no information sharing agreements, and their ability to detect unusual activity is minimal, at best. You also mentioned increased availability. I am not sure that providing a legal and transparent option will necessarily in any way, shape or form increase availability. The betting activity out there now is enormous, and the bulk of it is going offshore and much of it to organized crime.
The Deputy Chair: Was that a question?
Senator Runciman: If the witness would like to respond, I would appreciate a comment or response.
Mr. Rahilly: I would first respond by saying that I do not represent the NCAA, and I cannot comment knowledgeably, as a brand new member as of September 1, about its history in terms of information sharing.
I can comment in terms of the question of availability. I do not think we know a lot about how availability of legal or illegal gambling affects young people. I have not seen information to that. What I shared with you were observations, and I will certainly state that they are, in some cases, anecdotal. They are drawn from other experiences, particularly with respect to drugs and alcohol, some of which are legal and some of which are illegal. I do not know whether it is a legitimate comparison to make, but in terms of availability with young people who are in many cases away from home for the first time, without parental supervision, who are experimenting, testing limits, that this is the time they try new behaviours, and I do believe that availability will result in them trying those new behaviours.
Senator Runciman: It is there now.
The Deputy Chair: Before I go to Senator Baker, colleagues, I would remind you that we did receive a submission from the NCAA. It was circulated to all members of the committee by email on Monday or Tuesday, I am reliably informed. Copies are available here if anyone wishes.
Senator Baker: Congratulations, witness, for your testimony here today. From all of the testimony that we have had, it is clear that none of the organizations who represent athletes in any sporting event want this bill passed. In fact, they all vehemently oppose the passage of the bill.
However, you have alerted us to another problem. After the recognition, as you point out, of your university as an international member of the NCAA, now you are going to compete, but if there is a championship game, that championship game cannot take place in Canada, in your province, at your university.
Mr. Rahilly: That is correct.
Senator Baker: This rule applies to all of the U.S. states as well. Can you see any logical reason for the passage of this bill, given that fact that here we are, competing and being recognized, Simon Fraser University, for its athletes, and not being able to have a championship game? You will have to go to the United States where it is illegal to bet on single sporting events if you get to the championship. That seems to me to be incredible. Can you see any logical reason why we should pass this bill?
Mr. Rahilly: I will admit that our concerns are unique to our university as the only international member of the NCAA. Our concern is quite practical around this provision of the NCAA. The passage of this bill would result in a direct adverse impact to us. Certainly I can comment as a citizen or as an individual or as a member institution of the NCAA on gambling or betting, legal or otherwise, but practically speaking, the impact on us will be very clear. We will be viewed by the NCAA similarly to the way in which Nevada is viewed. We can hold our championships in any state except Nevada, potentially New Jersey, but we would not be able to do it in British Columbia. For that pure practical reason, we would be quite disappointed and we believe our athletes and our university would be adversely affected after having worked for many years to be the first to be international members of the NCAA.
Senator Baker: To be clear, Nevada is the only state in the United States in which such betting could take place. You would have to go there personally to make such a bet, and that is why none of these professional teams want to go to Nevada.
You mentioned another state, New Jersey, in which there is presently some progress on establishing single sport betting, but that is being opposed by everyone connected with organized sports.
Do you know of any other sporting organization apart from the NCAA that said publicly that if single sport betting is allowed in a province or in this country or in a state in the United States, they will not compete in that state in a championship game, similar to the decision made by the NCAA, to your knowledge?
Mr. Rahilly: To my knowledge, the only things I have heard are in terms of new franchises and the potential impact of new franchises.
Senator Baker: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Rahilly: With respect to New Jersey in particular, my understanding is that statements have been made that should that state be seeking professional teams, if they had single sport wagering, that might impact the way in which the leagues would view setting up new franchises in that state.
Senator Baker: You are a psychologist. You have quite a lot of scientific experience in your background. Can you see any logical reason? Who would be promoting a bill such as this as it relates to single sporting events? We can presently bet on three events, under Canadian law, but with the passage of this bill, we would be able to bet on the Olympics, on peewee hockey games, any sporting event at all. From your knowledge, what is the biggest danger facing us now if we approve this bill, apart from the fact that we will not be able to have any championship games connected with the NCAA held in any province in Canada?
Mr. Rahilly: First, I should point out I am not a practising psychologist at the moment. I am lapsed, as they would say.
My own concerns actually would be around amateur sport and the impact, because I think there are many more checks and balances at the professional levels. There are potentially more resources there in order to make sure that people are complying with the law, should this be legalized. At the amateur level, I do not think that is the case. I do not think there are the resources there. There might be greater opportunity at the amateur level for intervention in the outcomes of games, be that by various types of people. Whether that is among friends or if that is something more organized, I cannot comment.
Obviously, the advantages of passing this bill are economic. I understand that. Certainly that is not to be underestimated. If amateur sport were to be the recipient of that economic boom, I wonder if they would have a different view. I do not know.
In terms of the economics of it, I think there is an argument. It is not an argument I necessarily want to advocate too strongly. There are economic interests around amateur sport as well. I think about tourism. If SFU were fortunate enough to host a championship in the area of track and field, that could bring thousands of people to the region because it is a very large sport. However, I cannot empirically compare that to the other economic benefits that might occur in the casinos or the gaming industry.
My view here today is not necessarily about the economics of it but the impact in terms of amateur sport, particularly intercollegiate sport. We are currently the only Canadian member of the NCAA, but we know of other universities that have been examining this, and they would be affected in the same manner.
Senator White: Thank you for being here today. You may have said it, but how many years did Simon Fraser University spend attempting to and ultimately gaining entry into the NCAA?
Mr. Rahilly: A local SFU legend is that someone in 1965 said we were going to be in the Rose Bowl, but it was only in the last five years that we actively began working in earnest towards membership in the NCAA.
Senator White: How much money would Simon Fraser University have spent over that five years, in earnest?
Mr. Rahilly: That would be difficult for me to comment on. In blood, sweat and tears, millions, but in terms of actual dollars, I cannot comment.
Senator White: Understanding how much time and money you invested in this, did anyone contact Simon Fraser University when this legislation was in Parliament to ask whether or not this would impact on your organization?
Mr. Rahilly: No. This caught us by surprise. We only became aware of it a few weeks ago and immediately were concerned.
Senator White: That concerns me because that is the same response we received from a number of these professional organizations. When it was in Parliament, no one contacted them, and in fact the contact came from us. I want to congratulate the committee on that.
You referred to other universities in Canada that are considering applying for entry into the NCAA. I know you cannot speak on NCAA's behalf, but having gone through this, what do you believe the NCAA would say to those universities should we have this legislation passed in Canada? Would it be easier, more difficult or no change, from your perspective, having dealt with the NCAA for I think you told us now 37 years or something, or 47 years? That is a lot.
Mr. Rahilly: For the last five years for the NCAA. I do not know. In some ways, having the first Canadian member of the NCAA has been difficult for the NCAA. Suddenly they need to consider that we are not all Americans and are not all bound by American laws. We have had to go through a process of translating regulations that apply in the United States to make sense within the Canadian context.
I think the NCAA would be quite upfront and clear to any Canadian applicant and say, "Look, if your jurisdiction has single sport betting, you are welcome to join, but you will not host a championship." They are very clear. It is an association made up of lawyers and accountants. They are very clear people.
In some ways, I think that the desire of the NCAA, when they created this pilot program to allow non-Americans to join, was to broaden the experience for their athletes and to grow that association. At some level I think that they are disappointed that the athletes will not have that international experience. I know that Canadians often do not think of themselves as being exotic, but we are an international location for those student athletes, many of whom have never been north of the border. We went through a process with U.S. student athletes of making sure that they had passports. Many of them had never crossed the border.
I think everyone views it as a bit of a disappointment. In some ways for the NCAA, though, it probably facilitates easy championships because they will do them at all the same places they were doing them before.
Senator White: I am not sure that I understand your earlier response in relation to the NFL and the expansion into London, England. There was, I believe — and you might know this — one state in the United States that had an NBA team and legislation that allowed for single-sport betting, with the exception of the NBA, with the exception, specifically, of that team. I think it was Portland, Oregon. Do you know of that?
Mr Rahilly: I am afraid I do not; I am sorry.
Senator White: It could be a solution, I guess, for London, England.
Senator Frum: I would also like to express my appreciation that you made the trip here because you are the first witness we have had to discuss how this will impact student athletes, amateur athletes. We have not heard from anyone on that previously.
You mentioned the practical and the economic adverse effects to Simon Fraser University in particular, but I would like to ask you, as an expert on student life and as a lapsed psychologist, we know that the provinces that are particularly interested in this are Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. Can you extrapolate, in the event that this passes, on the potentially corrosive effect that this would have on campus sporting life, not just at SFU but also in general? I was thinking, as you were speaking, that student gambling has a particular quality to it where the objects of the gambling are commingling on a daily, intimate basis with the gamblers themselves. You do not have that in professional sports in quite the same way. It has a very particular quality to it. To me that seems dangerous, corrosive. It gets to the heart of the whole problem of integrity and sport. Can you comment on that?
Mr Rahilly: Thank you for the question. I have two comments.
First, in terms of the potentially corrosive nature on university campuses, college campuses or CEGEP campuses, I think we do not know. That would be my point. I can offer conjecture based on my experiences, but I do not think we know what the effect will be. I think we have a lot of things moving at the same time. Not only do we have this discussion around single-sport betting, but at the same time, we see the increase of online gaming. We see astronomical growth in the amount of participation students have in online poker sites, which is a slightly different animal. Nonetheless, we know that people who gamble often participate in many different types of gambling or many different types of sports' betting or other online gaming.
My concern is for the long-term health of this generation of students in terms of their exposure to all of these things, including gambling, legal or illegal. It is something that we need to consider in terms of the long-term health effects on this generation and the number of these people who might become problem gamblers.
I would make the argument that many students who might not become problem gamblers will hopefully have these experiences and learn their lesson. Nonetheless, these lessons can be very difficult. I have dealt firsthand with students who have — as I believe the term students would use would be — "crashed and burned " as a result of online gaming or other forms of online activity. That would be my first comment. We just do not know.
My second comment in terms of the commingling of the athletes with the spectators or the potential wagerers is that this is actually a huge concern for amateur sport because it would be very difficult to detect. It is not the kind of thing that necessarily could be resolved through information sharing. It is something where you have a group of students who are very competitive. You have students who have various financial needs. There is certainly opportunity for this kind of dialogue between the students. I think that is one of the reasons the NCAA does not like the legitimatization of any form of sports wagering.
Senator Frum: Just to follow up quickly, I am thinking on two levels. One is that the potential for corruption is higher when you have the mixing of these groups, the bettors and the "bettees." Also, it is just the intensity. If somebody does lose a bet because they bet on a quarterback — and let us say the quarterback is perfectly clean — he is going to see that bettor in class the next day. Those feelings and the intensity of that are a little bit frightening to me to think about as the mother of a student athlete.
Mr Rahilly: Corruption does not seem like a term for students. It is very rare that you hear the words "corruption" and "students" in the same sentence, thankfully, but the concern is absolutely there. Again, I would point out the relation between these opportunities and the creation of habits. When you have people who have any form of pressure, whether it is a social imperative, an economic pressure or whatever the case may be, we want to limit that. That is our desire as supporters of amateur athletics and supporters of 450 student athletes. We want to limit that.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Rahilly, we heard from representatives of the Toronto Blue Jays. I do not know if you had the opportunity to review their testimony.
Mr Rahilly: I did.
Senator Joyal: We asked them what the risk was of opening single-sport betting to professional sport, and they were quite clear in the conclusion that they drew on the risk that single-sport betting would open for the sport. Is there a fundamental difference between the student athletes and the professional sports people in terms of the risk that you just described?
Mr Rahilly: As people, I would say no, there is not a difference. What is different is the context. In terms of the temptation, the concern for those individuals would be the same.
I would go back to what I said previously. I think that for professional sports there is a feeling that because these people make more money, they would be less tempted or there would be opportunities for greater compliance or safeguards. I would argue that for the student athletes that just is not the case. They do not typically have a lot of money. We are providing them with athletic scholarships. We are supporting them. We ask them to give up a lot of their time. They travel; they are tired. As a result, that context is different for them.
Senator Joyal: Would you say that the age factor is something to take into consideration also because, at a collegiate level, some of them are under 18?
Mr Rahilly: I cannot necessarily comment on the maturity of professional athletes compared to university students. My concern, to be quite serious for a moment, is really in terms of what has been found empirically around adolescent men in particular and their gaming activity. In psychology, we know a lot about development of adolescent males. Right now, we have a prolonged adolescence. We see a difference between an 18-year-old and a 30-year-old, but it is very hard to tell the difference between an 18-year-old and a 24-year-old.
Senator Joyal: What is the factor?
Mr Rahilly: It is just pure development.
Senator Joyal: Is it because society has changed? Is it because they are not asked to take responsibility earlier in life? What is essentially the factor that contributes to that?
Mr Rahilly: There are many theories, but some of the key ones would be delayed adolescence because of the fact that people are living at home longer. There are differences in the generations and people are having children later in life so they are being parented differently. There might be others. The current economy is such that students are sticking closer to home. There is more dependence. Whatever the case may be, we see and know from the online gaming and the gambling studies that the participation rates among young men are higher, and it does taper off when they are older.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: If the logic you are using for the United States applies to Canada and you object to the bill, am I wrong in saying that you should address your concerns to British Columbia, which should not allow that kind of sports betting on its territory?
[English]
Mr Rahilly: I do not know in terms of British Columbia versus the United States how that might turn out. I am not sure I completely heard the whole question. Could you repeat it?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I understand that you object to the bill. But if we apply the United States' logic, you should meet with people in British Columbia and tell them that you object to this kind of sports betting.
[English]
Mr Rahilly: I think that we would object. I understand that this law is at the federal level and that would mean that, at the provincial level, that jurisdiction could make its own rules, but our objection would be similar, particularly in British Columbia because it affects us directly.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Of course, we have a bill, but the provinces are the ones who decide. Do you think it is fair to deprive the other provinces of the right to allow that kind of betting in order to avoid the whole thing falling into the hands of organized crime and the money ending up elsewhere in the United States?
[English]
Mr Rahilly: We do have a jurisdictional issue in terms of how this might affect things. If one province were to undertake this kind of single-sport wagering, we would see obviously some differences economically. The argument is being made economically for single-wagering betting. We would also see some differences in terms of what would happen in amateur sport as well as in intercollegiate sport. Should another university in Canada become a member of the NCAA and their province chooses not to permit single-sport betting, then there would be an advantage for that particular province in comparison to my own province, which has indicated an interest in terms of allowing this.
Senator McIntyre: Looking at professional, semi-professional and amateur sports, it is my understanding that you feel that all three are at risk of match fixing. Is that correct?
Mr Rahilly: That is the concern.
Senator McIntyre: Bearing this in mind, as a psychologist, do you feel that single-sport betting within the context of college athletes would bring undue pressure to someone, such as anxiety, for example, or depression?
Mr Rahilly: I would have two concerns. One would be for the student athletes themselves, and the other concern is for the overall well-being of the students who are members of our campus communities.
I cannot make a causal link between wagering and the cause of anxiety or depression myself. I will not make that argument. I will say, though, that there is an association between those things. We do not want to put this on the marketing material, but the reality is that going to school is very hard and in many ways is not good for you. It is not good for you in terms of your mental well-being while you are going to school. It is very difficult to go to school. You are being challenged in many respects, and you are maturing. Even for non-traditional age students who return to school, this is not an easy thing to do. Lots has been written about the increased incidence of anxiety and depression and other mental health issues when people are studying. You then add in any additional pressures. I recognize fully that it is not realistic to try to create any form of a bubble on our college campuses. That is not what I am saying. However, we do see this for those students at risk, and I would argue that any student is in some ways at risk.
That is the argument I make to the health authority when I am seeking funding for physicians on my campus. I am making the argument that when a student is having a mental health problem, or even a physical problem because of the intensity of what they are studying, if they lose a week or two, this may impact their entire semester. If I lose a week or two, my employer will cover me and it is not the end of my career.
This is all part of a broader landscape in which our young people exist, and anything that brings additional anxiety to them, pressure on student athletes, for example, in terms of any kind of pressure around their performance, is very difficult. I believe the Canadian Mental Health Association has provided some statistics, or they were cited, around this. We know that people who end up with problems gambling definitely have increased levels of anxiety and depression.
Senator Braley: I will ask you one question. We bet now on three games. What is the difference in betting on one game, from your point of view? The B.C. Lottery Corporation has already produced the software to go online. The question is whether they go online with three games or two games. They have done it for all the other provinces, from what I understand at this point, and are moving forward very strongly in that area.
Mr Rahilly: My understanding is that it is more difficult to fix three games or have influence on three games.
Senator Braley: All athletes sign an agreement that they are suspended for life if they bet on a game. That is one of the things that all professional athletes and all amateur athletes are told about when they start. It is something you just do not do. If you do, you do not ever play the game again.
Mr Rahilly: If you get caught.
Senator Braley: Yes. How can one little guy fix a game? We have about $4 billion going offshore from Canada to bet365 in England, which is over a billion. We have Africa. We have the Caribbean. I really believe that money should stay in our provincial coffers, whether it is three games or two games or one game. That is just my personal opinion.
The Deputy Chair: Was that a question, senator?
Senator Braley: The thing is, why would we not want the money in Canada? Why would we want our Canadian money going elsewhere?
Mr Rahilly: I understand the argument fully. I would wonder, if something is illegal, why we are not stopping it.
Senator Braley: I have one more question. Fifty-six per cent of my employees — because I went through and asked my employees — bet online offshore. You would have to go around with the police and put them all in jail. Are you going to put 56 per cent of the population in jail? They are usually under 35 or 40 years of age.
The Deputy Chair: Was that a question?
Senator Braley: I am asking, does that concern you at all?
Senator Baker: It was in response to what the witness said.
Mr Rahilly: Does that concern me?
Senator Braley: Yes.
Mr Rahilly: Which element? The potential of having to arrest the majority of our citizens?
Senator Braley: Yes, they do it now.
Mr Rahilly: Yes, that would concern me.
The Deputy Chair: For the record, can you tell us what sports are covered by the NCAA?
Mr Rahilly: Oh, that is a skill-testing question.
There are three divisions within the NCAA. Division I is the most competitive. Those are the big schools, where the larger amounts of money are. There is Division II, in which Simon Fraser University is a member, where we have what is called a balanced approach between academics and athleticism. Division III, which are small schools, typically liberal arts colleges. Within our division, we have football, volleyball, soccer, basketball, wrestling, swimming —
The Deputy Chair: A huge range, in other words?
Mr Rahilly: Yes, and there are sports that we ourselves do not play but other people do play. Division One has hockey. It is a range of sports for men and women. Track and field is another large one, but our big sports are basketball, football, swimming and wrestling.
Senator Runciman: For Mr. Rahilly's edification, we had before us Professor Derevensky, from McGill University, who is an internationally recognized expert on gaming issues. I will quote him with respect to this legislation. "There is no evidence it would lead to more problem gamblers. It would be a somewhat safer product, easier to monitor, identify and treat problems."
When I asked you earlier about what measures the NCAA takes to monitor gambling, they, like those of the professional leagues, seemed to be modest at best. Take a look at what FIFA is doing; they have an entire division that deals with match fixing.
I guess what I am asking you about really is a study done by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health entitled Gambling and Organized Crime that shows that legal sports books handle less than 1 per cent of America's sports betting revenues. It is a question, from my perspective, of either acknowledging it or ignoring it. They also say in the study that the research on sports scandals typically involved illegal gambling schemes.
Again, do you want this to remain in the shadows where corruption is difficult if not impossible to detect? Is that the position of your organization?
Mr Rahilly: No, it is not. My commentary would be twofold. One aspect is that, in terms of how we identify problem gamblers, it is often based on quite a period of time in order to make that diagnosis. With young people and their behaviour, oftentimes we have not had adequate time to say that it is a problem yet, but we see the behaviour.
With respect to corruption or illegal activity, of course I am completely against corruption and illegal activity. My concern around amateur sport would be that I guess if you were to take it out of the shadows in professional sport and have better control over it — which would be a good thing, arguably — what might happen to amateur sport as a result? Would that create more opportunities around amateur sport for this same kind of behaviour? That would be my concern.
Senator Baker: Of course, you have worked with the particular professor referenced from McGill University.
Mr Rahilly: Yes.
Senator Baker: You have very much worked with him. However, your main point is that — just to stress it one more time — if this bill passes and any team from your university gets to the championships in that sporting event, the home games will take place in a state in the United States of America.
Mr Rahilly: That is correct.
Senator Baker: All because we passed this bill; is that correct?
Mr Rahilly: That is correct.
Senator White: This is a follow-up to an earlier question around athletes, both amateur and professional, signing agreements on what they should and should not do. I think that — and you can correct me if I am wrong — your athletes would also sign that they would not take steroids.
Mr Rahilly: That is correct.
Senator White: I take it that every university in the NCAA would sign a similar agreement. Every athlete would sign that they would not take steroids to help to cheat to win.
Mr Rahilly: That is correct.
Senator White: We have no NCAA athletes who would cheat to win by taking steroids. Is that correct?
Mr Rahilly: Well, the NCAA has a very aggressive drug testing process.
Senator White: Has anyone ever been caught?
Mr Rahilly: I would think so, yes.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rahilly. That is very helpful. As Senator Frum observed, you are the first witness to bring this particular perspective, and it is very helpful to us. Again, since you came all that way on short notice, we are doubly grateful.
Senators, we will not proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), as specified in the notice of this meeting.
Senator Baker: On a point of order, just so the viewing audience will understand these proceedings, the proceedings in a Senate committee differ from that of a Commons committee in that a report must go back to the Senate. We do not have jurisdiction or standing under our procedures to completely defeat a bill. A report must go back to the Senate, at which time votes will take place, and that is the only time that a bill can be defeated as a bill. I wanted to point that out and to recommend to those people who are interested that this is not the final disposition of the bill.
The Deputy Chair: That was not exactly a point of order, but it was an interesting point of clarification of procedure.
Senator Frum: I appreciate Senator Baker's clarification because I think it is an important point to make. Given the nature of this bill and the way it got to us, I know there is great interest in the Senate chamber in this and it will be debated and discussed there. I would like it noted that I am very much in favour of seeing the bill go back to the chamber so that all of our colleagues have the opportunity to comment and debate on it. I want to be clear that a vote to see this bill go to the chamber is not necessarily a vote to see this bill succeed.
The Deputy Chair: Indeed. Since we are on this subject, should this committee vote against proceeding with the bill, as Senator Baker notes, that does not kill the bill. That means that this committee, under rule 12-23(5), reports to the Senate that the committee recommends that the bill not be proceeded with, and then the debate is about that. However, that is very unusual and happens very rarely, although it has been done by this committee before.
Senator Joyal: We did it on Bill S-4.
The Deputy Chair: I remember it well.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Deputy Chair: Carried, on division.
[Translation]
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Deputy Chair: Carried, on division.
[English]
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Deputy Chair: Carried, on division.
[Translation]
Shall the bill carry?
[English]
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Deputy Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to append or to discuss appending observations to this report? I see no such evidence. Therefore, is it agreed that I should report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: It is agreed. I shall do that. Wait a minute. Yes, we have carried the title, so we have now carried the bill.
As colleagues know, it is normally the actual chair of the committee who reports the bill. For this bill, because he is the sponsor, Senator Runciman has asked me to be in the chair.
Senator Runciman, do I to take it that you would prefer I do the reporting back to the Senate?
Senator Runciman: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: That is, in fact, what we just voted on.
Thank you very much, colleagues. I will do that this afternoon.
(The committee adjourned.)