THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, TRADE AND COMMERCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Friday, June 4, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met by videoconference this day at 11 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).
Senator Howard Wetston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, let me say good morning to everyone. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, witnesses, as well as those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Howard Wetston from Ontario, and I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
Before we begin, a quick reminder: Keep the microphones muted, please, unless recognized by name by the chair. Before speaking, please use the raise hand feature. We are continuing today our consideration and review of Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).
I would now like the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chairs. I’m not sure if we can hear from Senator Wallin. She was having some difficulties. If she does get on, she can introduce herself at that time. She’s the deputy chair from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, independent senator, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
Senator Bellemare: Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan. I am from Regina. I recognize I’m on Treaty 4 territory, homeland of the Métis of Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: We also have Senator Cotter. Do you want to introduce yourself, please?
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, everyone.
I want to make a few opening comments. There is a slight change in procedure today. I hope that we can move forward on this basis. I need not say anything more than that we are time-constrained given the circumstances of where we’re at in the Senate schedule. Obviously, we have this bill, and we want to move forward with it. We would like to do so expeditiously.
My thought was, in moving forward, that you give some consideration to the following: We have five organizations here today, and we clearly would like to hear from them as thoroughly as we can. In order to do so, I’m going to ask senators to be careful about their questions in the sense of not using long preambles, if possible. Let’s get very specific and focus on the question so we can get through the witness testimony today. We have very important witnesses before us today.
The second part I would like you to consider is that there may be an opportunity — as you all know in dealing with a bill of this sort, if we get to that point — to make observations associated with this bill, if and when we report it back to the Senate.
The third part of my comments today would be — once again, if we are able to achieve this — that it is a short bill, but an important bill, and it has a lot of implications. My hope is that, given the time constraints we have moving forward in the Senate agenda, that we may be able to get to clause-by-clause consideration in today’s meeting. If so, that will allow for more opportunities for debate in the Senate and to deal with any potential amendments, should there be any, on a moving-forward basis.
Obviously, my hope is that we can proceed on that basis. At first blush, unless there is an objection to that approach at this point — you might have one a little later — I would very much like the opportunity to proceed with the witnesses. As I say, we have very important groups appearing today, and I would like to proceed with our first panel.
May I move on that basis?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I am hearing no objection. Thank you so much.
We’re going to hear from our first panel. There are three organizations. I would ask that we start with Mr. Phillips from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. We would then move on to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation and then to Ms. White with the Responsible Gambling Council.
I’d like you to introduce yourselves. Please keep your statements brief. We want to hear from you, but we want the opportunity to ask you questions. And I want to thank those who provided briefs to us as well. It is much appreciated.
David Phillips, Chief Operating Officer, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. On behalf of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today in support of your deliberations on Bill C-218.
My name is David Phillips. I am the Chief Operating Officer of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which is a provincial agency mandated to regulate Ontario’s alcohol, cannabis retail, horse racing, lottery and gambling sectors.
The commission has nearly three decades of experience regulating Ontario’s gambling industry, which today includes land-based casinos, charitable gaming halls, lottery, online charitable raffles, and the province’s lone regulated online gambling site, operated by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.
We maintain a very strong mix of capabilities at the AGCO to deliver on our regulatory mandate: policy experts in such fields as responsible gambling and anti-money laundering; technology professionals who ensure gambling systems are safe and secure before they enter the market; licensing specialists who conduct due diligence investigations on gambling operators and suppliers before they enter the market; and an in-house bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police, deployed across the province to keep crime out of the legal gambling industry.
The AGCO also maintains an extensive network across the international regulatory community — from New Jersey and Nevada to Singapore and the United Kingdom.
These relationships are codified through a memorandum of understanding, allowing for high levels of cooperation and strong, seamless sharing of information on matters of common concern.
The Government of Ontario has conveyed its strong support for the legalization of single-game sports betting in Canada.
Today, billions of dollars are wagered each year on unregulated offshore sports-betting sites. If passed, this bill carries the potential to rapidly convert this market so that Canadians have access to safe, secure and domestically regulated offerings.
As the committee may be aware, this bill is being considered at the same time as Ontario is moving ahead with its commitment to become the first Canadian province to introduce a competitive and regulated online gambling market. We’re confident in our ability to deliver strong and regulatory oversight over this market.
In preparation for the opening of Ontario’s online gambling market and the potential legalization of single-game sports betting via Bill C-218, the AGCO has been immersed in updating our regulatory framework. This includes the area of responsible gambling, where we have recently released updated regulatory standards that limit advertising activities, mandate self-exclusion programs and require operators to have systems in place to detect signs of problem gambling. It also includes new standards and licensing requirements that will require operators and suppliers and their partners to stop all commercial activities in Ontario’s unregulated market.
Finally, we are actively working to develop specific standards for sports betting to limit the risk of manipulation of betting markets through match fixing and insider betting. The fight against international match fixing requires a highly coordinated effort between regulators, law enforcement, sports leagues, operators and independent market monitors. The AGCO’s strong presence in the international regulatory community will most certainly serve us well in this regard.
I would like to close by once again thanking the committee for this opportunity, not just on my behalf, but on behalf of the entire AGCO team. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. Phillips for the content and brevity of your remarks. It is much appreciated. I think we’re going to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation at this time.
Stewart Groumoutis, Director, eGaming, British Columbia Lottery Corporation: Good morning members of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Here with me is Jamie Wiebe, Director of Player Health.
Since 1985, approximately $25 billion from BCLC’s revenue has gone back to B.C. to support important investments like health care, education and community programs. B.C. has 16 casinos, 17 community gaming centres, 3,500 lottery, retail and hospitality locations and playnow.com, which captures two thirds of B.C.’s total online gambling market.
We believe single-event betting represents a significant opportunity for B.C. and all of Canada. While more than $1 billion is estimated to be wagered annually in B.C. on sports, we know B.C. players are already making single-event sports bets by heading south of the border to Washington State casinos or using unregulated offshore websites. Neither of these options return revenue to the province of B.C., nor do they support B.C. jobs. In fact, we estimate that $250 million in revenue has left the province over the last five years and been lost to offshore websites because we are unable to offer single-event betting and betting on racing and fighting.
With the approval of single-event betting, we estimate the total market for sports betting in B.C. would be between $125 million and $175 million in revenue. We believe BCLC could capture the majority of that market. If legalized, BCLC would be able to provide these offerings to players almost immediately on playnow.com, creating a suite of new sports-betting opportunities already being offered on offshore websites. In the mid- to long-term, we would also introduce single-event betting to land-based casinos and in our lottery and hospitality markets.
We also believe regulated provincial gambling organizations are uniquely positioned to provide single-event betting in a safe and secure way that prioritizes player health.
As part of our enhancements to player health on playnow.com, BCLC is working to identify indicators of high-risk and problem gambling, proactively intervening when we believe players are experiencing harm and exploring incentives for healthy play behaviours through player rewards. These new initiatives will work in tandem with the player health safeguards we already have on our playnow.com.
Playnow.com is also the only online gambling website in North America, and one of the few in the world, with dedicated player health specialists available to our online players via phone and live chat to provide informed decision making and help support them with healthy play.
We believe single-event sports betting in Canada is something we are all ready for. We urge you and your colleagues within the Senate to work collaboratively to make this a reality for the benefit of Canadian players and our provinces. Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you for your testimony once again. Content and brevity are much appreciated. I think we’re moving on to the Responsible Gambling Council, is that correct?
Shelley White, Chief Executive Officer, Responsible Gambling Council: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Shelley White, and on behalf of the Responsible Gambling Council, I would like to thank you for your invitation to provide our perspective to you on Bill C-218.
I would like to introduce my colleague Tracy Parker, Director, Standards and Accreditation, RG Check, Responsible Gambling Council, who is with me today.
RGC is a Canadian, non-profit charitable organization whose purpose is to prevent problem gambling and reduce its impacts. Canada is regarded as a leader in responsible gambling, and we are proud to be part of this.
Over the last few years, sports betting has grown in popularity, and the body of evidence to suggest who is gambling and how, which can support a safer sports-betting industry, has grown along with it.
In 2020, our organization conducted a longitudinal study on the impacts of COVID-19 on Ontarian gambling behaviour. In this study, we saw an increase in online gambling and with that a significant number of people engaging in sports wagering. Importantly, 47% of sports bettors positively screened for problem gambling and 13% for severe anxiety. We also saw increases in player alcohol and cannabis use. And while this study was about gambling during COVID, we know that the impacts will be long-lasting. This study clearly underscores the importance of prevention safeguards as a priority going forward.
While gambling has existed in Canada for many years, it’s important to note how sports betting differs from other forms of gambling. Sports betting ties gambling to a favourite pastime enjoyed by millions of Canadians. This association normalizes the gambling activity.
Added to this, the emotion associated with the heat-of-the-moment game play, combined with the potential simultaneous use of alcohol or cannabis, can make informed decision making about spending and time spent playing more difficult.
Left unregulated, as it is currently, vulnerable people are at risk. It’s with these people in mind that we speak to you today. RGC believes that it’s in the best interest of Canadians and Canadian society that Bill C-218 should be passed.
This would permit provincial authorities to establish a regulatory framework for single-event sports betting, with consumer protection at the heart of the regulations.
The legalization of single-event sports betting must include a robust regulatory framework that requires provincial regulators and each operator to prioritize and integrate consumer protection within their strategies, including adherence and accountability to the highest standard of responsible gambling.
Second, the federal government continues to champion mental health and well-being and the prevention of addictions in accordance with the Mental Health Commission strategy. This can be achieved by prioritizing consumer safety and supporting the provincial authorities to continue to build their capacity to educate and support individuals and their communities.
The good news is that when it comes to iGaming standards, we don’t need to recreate the wheel. Most of the standards already exist and are in place for land-based gambling.
In closing, honourable senators, Bill C-218 would ensure that risk-mitigation strategies are in place and those who are vulnerable are protected. This thoughtful and intentional approach will demonstrate Canada’s commitment to safer gambling for all Canadians. Thank you very much. Tracy and I are happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you once again, Ms. White. I appreciate that.
Senator Smith: Maybe I could ask the Responsible Gambling Council just to continue on the discussion. You’ve talked about assisting people who have fallen into the trap of illicit gambling, where major players are oftentimes tied to organized crime. Do you feel that Bill C-218 will help squeeze out illegal operators and players?
And maybe after you give a comment, we can go to the other witnesses to get a comment from them.
Ms. White: Thank you for your question, senator. As I said in my opening remarks, we believe strongly that a robust regulatory framework, with careful selection of operators who possess the appropriate eligibility criteria and who put a high priority on consumer protection, would definitely provide Canadians with the opportunity to select operators who are legitimate and will enable the system — policing system, regulators, et cetera — to eliminate the illegal operators.
Senator Smith: How long do you think it would take for you, in conjunction with provincial authorities, to set up the infrastructure required to implement this new system?
Ms. White: We’re already working with the AGCO, as Mr. Phillips said, on developing the iGaming standards that include a robust set of responsible gambling standards within them. My understanding is that AGCO would like to begin the launch of online gambling and potentially sports betting beginning at the end of this year. Then, depending upon when the other provinces are available, that would determine the timeline for the expansion into other jurisdictions in Canada.
Senator Smith: Ms. White, you suggested that your association or council would support the initiative of Bill C-218?
Ms. White: Yes. Regulation is absolutely imperative to protect the vulnerable populations and ensure that strong regulations are in place and that consumer protection is embedded into those standards and regulations.
The Chair: Thank you. I think we should move on. I know the witnesses will have comments in this area as we move on. If we do it through the broader questioning, we give all senators an opportunity to ask questions.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Let me say right off the bat that I am not someone who bets. I know little about the betting world, and even less about online betting. I realize that the gambling and sports betting sector will likely grow. It’s safe to assume that sports betting will develop a public component, as is already the case in the lottery sector.
Will each province do business with those in its own market, or will provinces compete against one another? How will current stakeholders carve out a place for themselves in the private sector, in particular, online sports betting operators in Indigenous communities? How will that work? Will they be provincially regulated? Will sports betting overseen by the public sector —
[English]
The Chair: Who is going to take that on? Mr. Phillips, go ahead.
Mr. Phillips: I’m certainly happy to start off. With respect to your first question, as to whether or not you’ll see provinces competing against one another, generally speaking, what you will see is that each of the individual sports betting markets, just like the rest of the gambling market, will be ring-fenced to each province. That’s achieved in a number of ways. Obviously, in a bricks-and-mortar casino, the gambling activities take place within a premises. When it comes to online gambling — it’s certainly mandated in Ontario and, I think, in the rest of the provinces — I can safely say that geolocation technology is required to ensure that Ontario residents are only playing on Ontario-regulated sites and not beyond. Some call it a walled garden, where it’s entirely ring-fenced to a particular province.
With respect to the question of the interplay between provincial regulation of gambling and First Nations, there is no one, simple, straightforward answer to that. It all depends, quite frankly, on the provincial regulatory framework that is set up. It also depends on the type of gambling that we’re talking about, whether it be land-based gambling, charitable gambling or online gambling. So it’s not a straightforward answer.
What I can say is that in Ontario, where we are working aggressively to open up the competitive and regulated online gambling market by the end of this year, the Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General of the province are going to be engaging in direct consultations with our Indigenous communities for the purpose of working through questions like that.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other comment before we move on? Okay.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our panel of witnesses for being here.
One of the major concerns is maintaining the integrity of the sporting events in this bill. Where we are most vulnerable is through the lowest-paid individuals in sport. Everybody is concerned about athletes, but it’s not the athletes; it’s the officials, such as referees and umpires. We have seen it in the European leagues where there has been match fixing that went on for years, and it happened through the referees.
Staying on the foreign jurisdiction piece, are there any particular lessons from other countries that you can share with us that Canadian law and policy-makers should consider in this bill to maintain sports integrity, based on your experience?
The Chair: Is that directed to the entire panel, Senator Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: Anyone who has experience, so the entire panel, yes.
Mr. Groumoutis: I can respond on BCLC’s behalf. I think one of the key things to recognize with match fixing is it doesn’t know any borders. While an event could be happening in British Columbia with a Vancouver Canucks game, bets could be placed in New Jersey or in the United Kingdom. So I think the key to a match-fixing solution is that it needs to be international. The leagues need to come together with the operators that are regulated to start putting frameworks in place. The challenge is that in most cases where there’s match fixing, the actual wagers are not occurring in the same jurisdiction. While we might see wagers in our jurisdictions and other locations around the world, we need to partner with other jurisdictions as well.
I think the key to all of that is to bring all sports betting under regulation and then bring together the regulated operators to start to put together frameworks. The U.K. is the most advanced in determining where there are wagers that are unexpected and sharing that data across operators. That’s the only way you can track it down.
Senator Wells: I just have a really quick question. I’m looking for a quick answer in the interest of time, and this is to Mr. Groumoutis from BCLC.
Is there provision in your expenditure stream now to assist amateur sport bodies — I’m not so much worried about the CFL or the NHL — who may not be as well-funded on issues related to match fixing or that aspect of the sport?
Mr. Groumoutis: We do have community funding and some that goes to sports leagues. At this time, we don’t have anything that’s directed specifically at match fixing. I believe that’s something that could be explored. I think it’s also something that falls under the provincial requirements. As the province starts to recognize the benefits of single-event sports betting, we also need to recognize the importance of investing back to support the leagues.
Senator Wells: Excellent. Thank you. I have no more questions.
Senator Moncion: My question is going back to vulnerable people who are more at risk. I know that you’ve answered a question so far on this, but I’d like to go back to it.
You often talk about the robust regulation that’s going to be in place. I want to know what other measures are in place to protect these vulnerable people. I would like to know about the investment that you are making in the education portion of responsible gambling. What will the investment back into the system be?
Ms. White: Senator, thank you for your question about responsible gambling and about protecting vulnerable individuals in Canada.
From a responsible gambling perspective, there are a myriad of prevention education programs that exist from province to province across Canada. This is a high priority. Those include prevention education programs for young people and for adults who play. Some of those programs are available in the communities and the school systems. Others are actually available within the casinos themselves or online, if we look at an organization like OLG.ca, for example. So there is a very high priority placed on prevention and education, as well as early detection programs and treatment programs for individuals who are actually having challenges.
We would recommend, as the Responsible Gambling Council, that built into the revenue models of each province, each operator is required to contribute to a responsible gambling fund so that there are more funds available to invest in expanded prevention education programs, early detection, ongoing research and evaluation and training programs to ensure that we continue to build on the existing capacity that already exists within Canada and to engage all the current stakeholders who are involved in these activities.
Currently, about $125 million is spent on responsible gambling across the country, and, certainly, an additional investment would be important, given the expansion and diversification of gambling.
Jamie Wiebe, Director, Player Health, British Columbia Lottery Corporation: At BCLC, our internal budget last year that was focused on player health efforts was about $10 million. In addition, BCLC, along with the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch, or GPEB, provides funding for the UBC Centre for Gambling Research, which was a $1.25-million commitment.
In terms of strategy, this field, although it’s young, has received an extensive amount of attention when it comes to research, and every year the learnings are massive. What we know is that while information is always important to help players make informed decisions, it will never be enough. That’s why one of the things we focus on at BCLC is marketing and products. Every time a product is purchased or a marketing initiative goes out, there are assessments from a player health lens. Information is key, but so is the integration into how we actually do business.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests. I have three questions for each of the Ontario and B.C. commissions or agencies.
Can you tell the committee how many casinos are in your province and how many of those are Indigenous-owned and/or controlled?
I am sure that many of the gaming entities or casinos in your provinces will be interested in participating in single-event sports betting. I’m wondering what the process is to activate them, should this bill come to pass. For instance, maybe in B.C. it will just reside with BCLC.
To dovetail off the last question, what proportion of the new revenues from single-event sports betting will be directly invested in responsible gaming programs, education and sports to address problem gaming?
Mr. Phillips: I’ll start by staying that in Ontario there is a bright line between the regulatory agency and the commercial arm that’s parked with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, which is the commercial operator.
We currently have 28 land-based casinos across the province. It’s my understanding that none of those are owned and operated by Indigenous communities, but we certainly have two — in the cases of Casino Rama and Great Blue Heron Casino — where there are commercial relationships with the local community.
At the same time, Ontario has a long-standing revenue-sharing relationship in place with First Nations. A significant number of First Nations are together in a revenue-sharing arrangement with the province. This arrangement continues to be in good standing and has been substantial over a period of time.
With respect to the question of sports betting being introduced into casinos, ultimately that question will be answered by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Cooperation through negotiations and discussions with the five private operators that run the 28 casinos on a day-to-day basis.
Not to speculate too much, but I think we will see sports books introduced into our brick-and-mortar casinos. How many, I can’t say. There will probably be a longer tail than, for example, online gambling because there will be a requirement for infrastructure changes and so on. I think it is a safe bet that we will see sports books in at least some of Ontario’s casinos.
With respect to the question of what percentage of revenue will be dedicated exclusively to responsible gambling programs, I will start by saying that — as I think the good folks from RGC can attest to — Ontario has a long history of contributing significant public funding, as a share of gaming revenues, to responsible gambling programs on the research and treatment side, and this is being explored right now. We have brought in Birgitte Sand, former head of the Danish Gambling Authority, to lead engagement on a number of issues, one of which will be our revenue model, including the question of how the revenue share will work. I don’t have a precise answer, but it is under consideration.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. I’d love to hear from BCLC.
Mr. Groumoutis: We have 16 casinos and 17 community gaming centres. I am not sure of any that are owned or partially owned by Indigenous communities. BCLC does have a fund, a percentage of our revenue, which is invested in Indigenous communities. I don’t know the exact percentage. Unfortunately, I’m not an expert in that area.
What I can say is that we have a plan to make single-event sports betting available to casino operators, retailers and hospitality. How that rolls out is not yet defined, but we see it as a product offering in a number of our locations.
Finally, like all products, we will invest back into player health and responsible gambling. It is about an investment but also, as Jamie Wiebe said earlier, it’s about a culture, a belief, and embedding player health in everything we do. If it is stand-alone, it truly never becomes part of the fabric of an organization, and that is what we strive to achieve.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for the Ontario and British Columbia representatives.
In Quebec, online gambling organizations advertise heavily, especially on TV networks and during sporting events. What these organizations do to evade regulatory authorities in Quebec is set up their servers on Indigenous reserves.
Are you seeing the same thing in your provinces? How are these online betting organizations affecting your revenues?
[English]
Mr. Groumoutis: We have a model where we’ve tried a number of different tools or ways to get illegal operators out of our market. Unfortunately, we have not found a solution for that, like the United States has.
In all products, we compete head to head with them. For the majority of products, such as online casino, we are able to dominate the market because we’re able to show people that the funds go back to the province of B.C. For sports, we have not been able to dominate the market because we can’t offer an equivalent product. With the ability to offer an equivalent product, I believe that, just like with online casinos, we can dominate the market.
Mr. Phillips: Ontario is similar to the case in Quebec. We are seeing a significant number of online gaming advertisements in Ontario. They are what we call “dotnets,” which are their free-to-play sites.
Of course, the ownership groups are those that offer cash betting as well. These are gambling operators located around the world, the offshore operators. Interestingly, many of them are domestically regulated in many jurisdictions in the United States and the European Union. That is why, in Ontario, we are moving aggressively over the course of this year to introduce a competitive and regulated online gambling market for the purpose of channelling both the patrons and the operators into the regulated space so that some of the issues you spoke to will be eliminated.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Phillips, I know the Akwesasne reserve, in Ontario, is home to big casinos. What is your relationship with those casinos like? Do you have a good relationship? You were saying it was fairly complicated.
[English]
Mr. Phillips: From our standpoint, there is no formal relationship and they certainly don’t fall under our regulatory oversight or our framework.
Senator Marshall: Is there a role for the federal government in this, or is their role confined to enacting the legislation? I realize they may have some involvement in funding for various health issues, such as addictions or gambling, but do they have any role in the regulatory framework that you’re talking about?
Mr. Phillips: You see different models around the world, but Canada is similar to the States in that the day-to-day regulatory responsibility for the gambling industry is heavily devolved to the provinces. Generally speaking, the day-to-day regulation of the gaming market across Canada rests exclusively at the provincial level.
Senator Marshall: Is there an issue with regard to consistency of regulations as you go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Or is every jurisdiction on its own and the feds stay out of it?
Mr. Phillips: I’m sure British Columbia can add to this as well. You definitely see distinct regulatory regimes province to province and different rules and approaches to regulating.
At the same time, there is a regulatory community out there with which we work closely on a regular basis, for example, in British Columbia, there is the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch. Sometimes we do joint due diligence investigations on operators that are coming into both of our markets at the same time.
Generally speaking, you see individual provinces developing their own rules and having their own agencies and their own approaches.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: I have two questions for Ms. White and one for Ms. Wiebe.
Ms. White, I read a bit about your organization. Who funds your operation? Where does the money come from to allow you to do your work?
Ms. White: Thank you very much, Senator Massicotte, for your question. Our funding is diversified. We do receive some funding from the Government of Ontario through the Ministry of Health and through OLG to provide services. From the Ministry of Health, it’s to develop and deliver a myriad of public education programs associated with responsible gambling. With OLG, we operate PlaySmart centres in the 28 casinos across Ontario and in the iGaming facilities.
The rest of our funds are self-generated. We operate a responsible gambling accreditation program that we deliver for operators across Canada and in jurisdictions such as Singapore and others that generates revenue for us.
We also conduct research and evaluation, and we have contracts with a number of Crown and regulatory organizations and operators throughout the world that provide us with funding to conduct that responsible gambling research.
Senator Massicotte: You give a very strong impression to anyone listening to this that if the casino operator or the gaming house does this right, there will be no consequences on society or vulnerable people.
I was involved in a business for several years in the gaming industry, and we had all the modern well-known programs in place to identify problem gamblers on so on. But, as you know, with a new product, if your revenues go up, you will probably have a greater negative impact on those people.
So I’m a little surprised that you have strong comments saying, “If we do it right, don’t worry, Mr. Society. It’s okay; it won’t be an issue.”
I say that if you increase gambling, it will be a bigger issue. I am not saying we should not manage it, but am I not correct that if you do increase the attractiveness of a product, you will increase the issue of vulnerable bettors?
Ms. White: You raise an important point, Senator Massicotte, and that’s why we are advocating strongly for investments to be made in prevention education and early detection. The sooner we can start this, the better in terms of providing Canadians with information.
You are right. There are individuals in society, unfortunately, who are at risk of developing a gambling disorder due to a myriad of reasons, and what is essential is that we identify those vulnerable populations. We know, based on research, that young people, young adults, men who gamble across a number of gambling channels and individuals who are going through some sort of mental health experience or who have a mental health condition are at a greater risk. It is imperative as we develop responsible gambling and harm prevention programs that we develop them and tailor them to ensure that the messaging these populations receive is relevant, accessible, culturally sensitive, et cetera going forward.
You make excellent points, and I hope that my response has addressed your question.
Senator Wallin: I want to follow up on the point that Senator Marshall was honing in on, which is the role of the federal government in the sense of the actual laws. Would it be of help to all of you in your business if there was a specific Criminal Code law that would make match fixing illegal? Right now, the law is vague on that. Would it help if that were in the federal Criminal Code?
Mr. Phillips: As a fully recovered lawyer, I will not express a particular legal opinion on the question of whether or not the current Criminal Code provisions are sufficient. I know that the panel including Donald Bourgeois, who is perhaps the most qualified gaming law expert in the country, can certainly opine on the question. Undoubtedly, he will reference the Riesberry case, which went right up to the Supreme Court a few years ago. This case came out of a criminal and regulatory investigation conducted by our predecessor agency, the Ontario Racing Commission, which we have now merged with. The Criminal Code fraud and gaming law provisions were used to address a situation of race fixing, which is analogous to the issue raised here, so we do have a precedent within the country where circumstances of fixing, in a betting context, have been addressed through the criminal laws.
Again, I will leave it to Mr. Bourgeois and others to opine on its efficacy.
The Chair: We will have the opportunity to ask the expert. Senator Wallin, is that satisfactory?
Senator Wallin: Yes, it is, and I will pose it next round at the beginning if I can.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, witnesses. I have a question for Ms. White. I see that the Responsible Gambling Council is only operating in five of our provinces or territories. Could you give me some insight as to whether there are similar organizations that are helping to provide the same services an accreditation in those other provinces, or are they entirely unregulated?
Ms. White: Senator Deacon, those provinces that are not participating in the RGC’s accreditation program are regulated, and they are just choosing not to utilize the RG Check accreditation program. Many of them use the World Lottery Association accreditation and may have other evaluative measures, but there are not any other responsible gambling accreditation programs in the country that they would utilize.
RG Check is a valuable program. It’s one that all the provinces should use because it provides a third party verifiable approach to ensuring that each operator is implementing the highest quality responsible gambling standards that exist.
Senator C. Deacon: You answered my question better than I asked it because I was looking for the third party accreditation. Thank you very much.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Massicotte asked a question, and I have a short follow-up question for Ms. White. Are you a for-profit or a not-for-profit organization?
Ms. White: Senator, we are a not-for-profit charitable Canadian organization.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Ms. White: You are quite welcome. And proud of it.
The Chair: I think being proud is an important characteristic.
Senator Massicotte: Ms. Wiebe, I think it was you or a previous witness here said that approximately 1% to 3% of people become problem gamblers. Talk to me about those people. I think their habits involve more than just betting or wagering. It is probably more characteristic of their nature, probably also involving the use of credit cards. Talk to me about those people. What nature are they, and why should we be concerned?
Ms. Wiebe: I’ll be brief here. There are many pathways to having a gambling problem, but there are some general characteristics. Those with a gambling problem tend to gamble on everything more. There is often morbidity. There are those major health and social determinants. It is complicated, like any other addiction. There are many pathways to it and that’s why it is so critical, even starting in schools, that people get education around how this thing works and being prepared to make informed decisions when they do turn of legal age.
I think it’s also important to know what we can and cannot influence. At BCLC we are evidence based. We want to measure everything. We want to see our impacts and know the risk levels of our players. We use things like the Problem Gambling Severity Index. We are really focusing on outcomes now so we have transitioned from just looking at whether we have X, Y and Z to looking at whether we are making a difference. It’s complicated. It’s hard to make a significant difference all the time in someone’s behaviour, so you have to take those baby steps, and you have to know what you can and cannot influence.
Some days it is complete success: someone is more aware of how a game works than they were the day before or we raise self-awareness about time and money spent. Because the thing with gambling is you can get lost in the moment. We have a lot of tools around keeping people reminded about, “Hey, you have now spent this much.”
Unfortunately, some people get to a point where the best thing is to take a break or not to gamble at all, and for that we have GameSense Advisors, who are specially trained and available online, as well as in all the venues, to provide support.
You have to look at gambling and potential harms associated with gambling across a continuum and that there are so many pathways of getting there. That wasn’t that succinct; it was an attempt.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
That concludes the evidence of this panel, unless I see another senator who believes a burning question is required at this point. I think we’ve covered a lot of territory here. I would like to thank the panel very much for the testimony, and I would also like to thank senators for moving very quickly through this. We have, I think, been able to accomplish a great deal with this panel.
Your testimony today is much appreciated. Thank you for coming. I realize it was on short notice.
I believe we are going to move on to the next panel.
We have Donald Bourgeois, as well as, from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Paul Melia. We will begin with Mr. Bourgeois. I believe we will have an opportunity to examine match-fixing issues in greater detail with Mr. Bourgeois and potentially with Mr. Melia. Let’s begin. Short statement from you, sir, if possible.
Donald Bourgeois, Barrister and Solicitor, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation. I want to start by saying that I think the bill is an excellent step forward that will assist both law enforcement and regulators to address issues such as match fixing. Modern regulators, such as the AGCO, have the tools and experience to identify and prevent risks to bettors arising from match fixing and similar illegal activities. These tools also assist law enforcement to obtain the evidence that is needed to investigate allegations.
Before I get to my specific rationale for that, I would like to provide a little background on myself. I have been involved in the gaming sector since the 1980s, both in government and, more recently, in the private sector as a policy advisor and lawyer. I was General Counsel and the Deputy Registrar for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission and an Ontario representative to the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials Working Group on Gambling. Gaming is also an area which I have written and taught about as an adjunct professor and Co-Director of Osgoode Professional Development.
More recently, I’m also the co-chair of the Canadian Gaming Association’s regulatory working group that is specifically looking at what the regulatory structure should look like across Canada with the different regulators, suppliers and operators.
I mention this because I think one of the few advantages of being as old as I am is that you develop relevant experience on what works and why it works. In both law enforcement and regulatory regimes it’s important to have risk-identification and risk-mitigation measures to prevent, detect and sanction inappropriate activities.
I think this bill is an excellent step forward. Match fixing and similar inappropriate activities have been adequately addressed in the Criminal Code if they occur within a regulated regime. Match fixing is illegal under 209, as well as 380, which are fraud provisions. The Supreme Court of Canada in Riesberry is very clear. To me, it has put to bed any concerns that may have existed that match fixing is not covered within Canada. I can go into details about it later, but the court was very clear that dishonest activity is what triggers the match-fixing charges, the cheating-at-play charges.
There are two important points, I think, from the Riesberry case. One is that the public can assume compliance with a governing regulatory regime. Second, Mr. Riesberry was caught because of that regulatory regime, and his dishonesty was measured against that regulatory regime. Without that regulatory regime, it’s doubtful that there would be a case named after him.
The opportunity that Bill C-218 provides is to allow for a robust governing regulatory regime that is not currently in place. The bill does not authorize anyone to do a book. What it authorizes is for the Crown corporations to conduct and manage lottery schemes that involve single-event sports wagering. The single-event sports wagering that is offered will be highly regulated. Some of the previous speakers the other day, as well as today, have commented on that regulatory regime. The lawful gaming sector in Canada is very regulated, and it views that regulation as one of its most important assets. The regulation provides that level playing field that allows bettors and the general public to feel confident in the lottery schemes.
The AGCO and other regulators like the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch, or GPEB, and others have risk identification, risk mitigation, prevention measures in place. They determine who is allowed to provide gaming services in this area and what games are allowed. It’s not just any game. There are not going to be lottery schemes or betting on children’s sports or on sports that do not have within themselves some sort of regulatory model and disciplinary system, as the NHL, NFL and others have. The speaker from the CFL commented on some of theirs. This is not a back-room type of bookie system. This is a highly regulated system.
The other key thing is that within this modern regulatory structure, there are connections to law enforcement. Information that is generated through the regulatory structure is available to law enforcement to carry out its role within the Criminal Code.
My final comment is that this is not the 1920s. These are not the days of the Black Sox. The last century has seen substantial change in the gaming sector. The need for prohibitions against regulated single-event sports wagering are long gone. The conditions that allowed for the match fixing that was evident 100 years ago in the Black Sox are no longer there. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bourgeois.
Senators, I’d like to interrupt the next witness, Mr. Melia, for a moment. I hope you don’t mind me suggesting this. Senator Wallin needs to leave, unfortunately, and I know she wants to pursue this issue, so I’m going to give her the floor to ask Mr. Bourgeois a question. Then we can move on to Mr. Melia and, of course, a full discussion with the two witnesses. Thank you. Go ahead.
Senator Wallin: Thank you very much, chair, because I really only have one option for planes.
I just want to get a very specific answer, and everyone says, Mr. Bourgeois, that you’re the expert on this. Do we need a specific Criminal Code acknowledgment or section that specifically makes match fixing illegal?
Mr. Bourgeois: No.
Senator Wallin: You think it is covered by regulation?
Mr. Bourgeois: I think it’s covered in two ways. One, there is an existing Criminal Code provision in section 209, which combines with section 380, dealing with fraud. The Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly stated that dishonest activity, not just during the game but leading up to the game, is sufficient.
The second aspect is that the regulatory structure, combined with a connection to law enforcement, as well as others within the sector, allows the regulatory structure to prevent the problems arising from match fixing.
Let me give you an example. No Criminal Code or regulatory structure is going to prevent people from doing dishonest things. Can you identify the risk and mitigate against that? Can you prevent it or reduce the incidents occurring? Second, can you prevent the person who is the criminal from benefiting from that?
In a sports-wagering system, you have a regulator that is monitoring what is going on; you have operators monitoring what is going on and identifying those conditions that create the risk. If it’s Don Bourgeois, match fixer, trying to place a bet that creates an anomalous situation, the operator can identify that using the data that they have access to. They are obliged to report that to the regulator. In addition, the operator does not pay out to Don Bourgeois until after they’re satisfied that there has not been match fixing.
In a regulated industry, you start to reduce and remove the ability of the cheats to actually benefit from their cheating.
Senator Wallin: I appreciate that answer. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, I know you have to leave soon, and you can think about that on the plane for three and a half or four hours as you travel.
Mr. Melia, we turn to you for your brief statements. Sorry to have interrupted you.
Paul Melia, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak with you today.
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, CCES, supports Bill C-218, as we believe a regulated framework is needed to appropriately manage single-event sport betting in Canada. Technology and organized crime have combined over the years to render Canada’s current laws against single-event betting all but meaningless. Legalizing and regulating single-event betting in Canada would be an effective harm-reduction strategy. However, it also comes with associated risks to the safety of our athletes and the integrity of Canadian sport through the threat of match manipulation.
Match manipulation is linked to organized crime. It takes advantage of vulnerable athletes, officials, coaches and other support staff in order to fix the outcome of a sporting competition or some incident or activity within a sporting competition for betting purposes. This is a global issue, and it is already occurring in Canada. Importantly, it is not an issue that only impacts professional sport. In fact, match manipulation is often targeted directly at lower-level sports where athletes are not paid or not well paid and are, therefore, far more vulnerable.
CCES commissioned leading sports data, betting and integrity service provider Sportradar to undertake an analysis of Canadian sport to assess risks related to match manipulation. Sports found to be at high risk included badminton, combat sports, cricket, e-sports, Canadian Football League, certain leagues of the Canadian Hockey League, the Ontario Hockey League, the Western Hockey League, soccer and tennis.
Once this legislation is passed, the risk to these sports may grow even higher. The risk level of sports currently assessed as low to moderate may increase, and new sports may find themselves suddenly at risk, including university sport, college sport or the Canada Games. Many countries, such as Australia, Great Britain and Germany, are actively addressing match manipulation through legislation designed to prevent, detect and punish match fixing in sport. No such legislative framework currently exists in Canada.
The CCES recommends that the Government of Canada, through Sport Canada, be required to develop a universal sport policy addressing match manipulation, which must be adopted by all sports organizations. This policy should include definitions of match manipulation, education of athletes and others, confidential reporting, investigation, sanctions and appeals, and a policy administered by an independent sports organization — similar to the way in which we address doping in sport in Canada.
The CCES further recommends that Canada examine the value of signing on to the Macolin Convention as a way to further ensure we are protecting the health and safety of our athletes and the integrity of sport.
Before concluding my remarks, I’d like to emphasize one further point that was brought forward by the Canadian Olympic Committee Secretary General David Shoemaker during the hearing of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The COC co-presented with the CCES to that committee.
This one further point stresses the importance for the Senate committee to consider how some of the incremental revenue that will result from single-event sport betting can be applied to amateur sport in Canada. These very sports are the ones that will be wagered on in increasing amounts as a result of the legislation. It only seems appropriate that the proceeds from the increased gambling should at least in part go back to support amateur sport in our country.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Melia. I take it you were speaking about the House of Commons committee?
Mr. Melia: Yes. Correct.
Senator Smith: Maybe between our two witnesses, I can bring up the visit of CFL Commissioner Randy Ambrosie earlier this week. He pointed out the CFL constitution, which makes specific references to and prohibits any form of game fixing.
I’d just like you to expand on some of the comments that both of you have made. Being a former player in the CFL for nine years, I can tell you that your biggest fear as a professional CFL athlete in Canada is that you’re evaluated every game. You can get cut very quickly, and there is no guarantee at all. So there is a sort of certain inherent prohibition.
The other thing is that the players’ association is very strict. Having been a rep on that association for nine years, I can say that game fixing is taken seriously. It’s important to have balance in all of our comments. I also chaired the Canada Games Council for 10 years. There’s a strict code in dealing with the members who host games regarding the rules of etiquette, the rules of play, et cetera. There’s a great opportunity to develop that infrastructure.
I wanted you both to comment on key steps to create that infrastructure to help prohibit any form of attempting to game fix.
Mr. Melia: I’m happy to begin if that’s okay. Thank you for the question, Senator Smith.
Again, I mentioned in my remarks that I think that, from a sports perspective, we could model our approach to match manipulation on the work that has been done on anti-doping. What we understood and learned very early in anti-doping was that, of course, sports don’t want athletes doping and don’t want their sport tarnished by doping, but at the same time they have a conflict of interest. They want the image of their sport to be good. They want their athletes to be successful. So in doping we understood it was important to create an independent organization that could administer one policy addressing doping.
That’s what we’re advocating here today: one policy against match manipulation that all sports could adopt. This policy would have definitions of what match manipulation is; would require mandatory education for athletes, officials, coaches and others so everyone is educated on their responsibilities under that policy; and would provide a confidential reporting mechanism so that anyone who was aware match manipulation could report it. Investigations could be undertaken, violations could be asserted, due process could be afforded and sanctions could be handed out.
That’s not a legislative approach; it’s a sports policy approach. It has served us well in doping, and it could serve us well here.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Bourgeois: I don’t think there is any inconsistency between developing sports policies and other policies to prevent, detect and educate people with respect to what their roles and responsibilities are in any regulated single-event sport wagering. The issue to me is working together in order to achieve those final objectives.
The second part of my comment is that Crown corporations and operators are not going to be offering lottery schemes or single-event sports wagering on any and every sport. They will be the sports that people generally want to deal with. My colleague commented about cricket, et cetera. There will be a risk analysis to determine whether this is a sport we want to offer in Ontario for sports wagering, whether this a sport we want to offer in British Columbia and so forth. So that is all part of that risk-analysis, risk-mitigation approach to sports gaming.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests. The questions I wanted to ask were largely answered in your presentation, so thank you for that. From my estimation, betting fraud is covered under the Criminal Code.
I want to pick up on one thing that might be directed to Mr. Melia, but certainly Mr. Bourgeois can jump in as well.
Provinces control gaming laws and regulations, and I’m wondering how a national program could be organized to provide national-level oversight and fraud detection in a way that recognizes the provinces’ autonomy or jurisdiction and provincial gaming acts. They mostly are regulated by their own provincial gaming acts. Would there need for unanimous consent from the provinces and territories to sign on to some agreement?
Mr. Melia: Thanks for the question. This is certainly a function of our federal system. Again, if I refer to our work in anti-doping, it starts with the national sports organizations, which are funded by the federal government, being required to adopt the anti-doping policy: the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. Then we have a federal-provincial-territorial policy against doping in sport that flows from that, and each province and territory then has the opportunity to adopt that policy or not so that they can exercise their jurisdictional responsibility in that regard.
We found that there is unanimous support for the work against doping. I would like to think that we could achieve that kind of unanimity around this issue as well.
Mr. Bourgeois: If I can comment on the regulatory side of things as well. That is already in the works. The working group that I co-chair is developing what we hope to be a national approach to the regulatory structure. It will determine the risks and the techniques to mitigate those risks, and it will determine which sports would be available for sports wagering. Again, people do not want to bet on all sports or all levels of sports, and regulators will not permit this to occur.
The other aspect is to try to develop a national understanding around advertising, around responsible gambling and so forth. Thus far, the regulators who are represented on the working group have shown strong support for developing a national approach to dealing with this issue. The enforcement will occur by each regulator within the province.
Also, for 20 or 30 years there has been the Canadian Gaming Regulators Association, which meets on an annual basis but continues to have discussions. This association, as well as the AGCO, have an international memorandum of understanding with a number of major regulators throughout the world, from New Jersey, Nevada, U.K., Malta, et cetera. There is an understanding of what works and what does not work and how to deal with risks. So I think, senator, those type of elements are in the works at the national level and are building on existing relationships that have been in place for 20 years or more.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. Very enlightening answers.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Bourgeois. The Criminal Code prohibits drug trafficking, but as you would agree, it happens anyways. Similarly, cannabis is still trafficked illegally, even though the sale and consumption of cannabis is legal in Canada.
Hence, the fact that match fixing is prohibited under the Criminal Code does not prevent it from happening. If we assume match fixing will take place, how will the bill help police tackle a type of crime that could grow when sports betting is opened up? Since the idea is to amend the regulations, we can take a more stringent approach. Organized crime is suspected of being behind match fixing, while operating on Indigenous reserves or countries outside our jurisdiction. Given your experience, do you think the provisions in Bill C-218 will have an impact on organized crime?
[English]
Mr. Bourgeois: For part of the answer, I think I’d like to go back to prohibition days for liquor. When I was growing up, you could identify people who were selling liquor illegally. Whenever I ask people whether they have bought from a bootlegger in the past two years, no one says they have.
The liquor industry in Canada is a highly regulated industry, and it has effectively removed the incentives for the vast majority of bootlegging. Will we ever as a society eliminate bootlegging 100%? No.
With respect to cannabis, the federal change to the legislation a few years ago has started to have an impact. Is it having 100% impact today? No. I think we can apply these examples, by analogy, to single-event sport wagering. It’s not a question of eliminating 100% of criminal activities, of organized crime. The issue is whether we can we move the majority of Canadians who are interested in sports wagering from engaging in illegal activity into regulated activity. I think, senator, that is what this bill allows us to do. Most people want and will opt for the lawful, regulated gaming site, the lawful regulated gaming opportunity for sports wagering, if that option is available to them.
With respect to the follow-up on issues around illegal activity that arises from people, we can now devote resources to combatting illegal activity. We’re collecting this information. If illegal activity occurs within the regulated environment, regulators are able to take that information and pass it on to the OPP or to the RCMP.
In Ontario, the Investigation and Enforcement Bureau, which operates as an OPP bureau, is embedded in the AGCO. They’re physically in the same building. That ability to share information in order to develop a case against people who are cheating in the regulated industry is very strong.
Will this eliminate 100% of criminals? No. Will it eliminate, over a fairly short period of time, most people wanting to engage in criminal activity? Yes.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for our expert panellists Mr. Bourgeois and Mr. Melia from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. So welcome and thank you for being here.
Can you share some of the policies or best practices from foreign jurisdictions where single-sports betting is legal? In these jurisdictions, how prevalent is match fixing being part of the Criminal Code? If so, how does it differ from our laws?
Mr. Bourgeois: Let me start on that. Each country deals with these issues differently. In the United States, for example, match fixing and such criminal activities are dealt with at the state level. There’s also a relationship with the gaming side. The U.K. and Australia, which are significant single-event sports wagering jurisdictions, deal with these issues in their own fashion.
The key, though, is to have the risks identified in the regulated marketplace, to be able to eliminate those risks, and to have information sharing from the league to the regulator and from the regulator to law enforcement in order to identify who the cheats are. That’s the basis for success in controlling risks.
The other aspect that Ms. White and others commented about is the education side of things. That also is an important part of dealing with the match-fixing side.
I fully agree with my colleague that education for athletes, professional and amateur, is part of what needs to be put in place. That is what the sector is attempting to do through the Crown corporations.
Mr. Melia: I agree with my colleague who speaks to the legislative-regulatory side. I think what we’ve seen around the world, in countries like Australia and Finland and others, when they’re looking at how to equip sport to better address the issue, are policies that include a definition of match manipulation, mandatory education for athletes and others, sanctions that are proportionate and effective, and a process by which confidential information can be brought in and investigated to pursue those kinds of violations.
In Canada, we’ve done none of that, absolutely none of that, within the sport system. That is what I continue to draw our attention to.
Senator Wells: Thank you to our witnesses.
Mr. Bourgeois, I have a question that drills down a bit more from Senator Wallin’s earlier question. You’ve already talked about the necessity and the advantages of having a regulatory structure in place, and this bill would give us that. More specifically, on the specificity of a law that mentions match fixing, is there a risk in having a specific law versus the statutes that are currently in legislation in Canada regarding bribery, fraud, cheating-at-play provisions, those sorts of things? Can you talk a bit about that, please?
Mr. Bourgeois: Certainly, senator. I think the issues that have been identified by my colleague on the panel, as well as previously, are addressed under sections 209 and 380, and some of the other provisions in the Criminal Code, and these are combined with the regulatory side of things that prevent, detect, et cetera.
When you start to become very specific in criminal legislation, you run the risk of the Crown not being able to prove each of the elements. So the risk of having a very detailed provision is that you will not be able to gather the evidence, and you will not be able to prove all of the specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The more specific you get, the more the Crown has to prove specific elements in order to get a successful conviction.
I think there is a risk, especially when, after the Riesberry decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, we have a very clear indication from the Supreme Court as to what constitute elements of the offence. Again, as I indicated, the only reason we know that Mr. Riesberry exists is there was a regulated structure that gave the information that was necessary in order to get a conviction.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much for that. That’s helpful.
Mr. Melia, given the necessity that Mr. Bourgeois noted on having the regulations in place and also given the desire for Canada to sign on to the Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, can you comment on the necessity of getting the regulations in place first and then urging Canada to sign on to the convention after they have some sort of agreement with the provinces? We know there are jurisdictional issues. Could you comment on the sequence of that — getting the regulations in place versus signing on to the convention?
Mr. Melia: I think the passing of Bill C-218 and the regulatory framework that would support it is a necessary first step. I think it would be important for Canada as a country, though, to look at the Macolin Convention and consider signing on, if not ultimately ratifying it, because it does provide best practice when it comes to some of the steps that a country can take legislatively and within their sports system. I think that would be extremely valuable for us as a country to consider going forward.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much. I have no more questions. I appreciate your input.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the committee for providing me the opportunity to sit in and pose a couple of questions to this panel. It’s been a great set of presentations and thanks to you both.
My question may be for both of you. Mr. Melia, you spoke about high-risk sports. I see that in the 23 U.S. states that have moved toward legalizing sports betting, 15 of them have created frameworks and boundaries for the kinds of sports that can be legally bet on and have made it illegal to bet on college sports and some minor league sports. I also have the sense, from what I’ve been reading, that a lot of that betting in the legal regulatory framework is not particularly busy or profitable for sports-betting agencies.
Mr. Melia, is it possible in the Canadian framework, assuming this bill is adopted, that the regulators would make similar kinds of choices and be guided by the research that the centre has done to say these sports should be kept out of the mix because the athletes are liable to be more vulnerable and so on in relation to the issues that you posed?
I will pose my second question and then I’ll shut up and listen. I’ve read and I’m familiar with the convention, Mr. Melia, signed in 2014. It appears to be an excellent framework for wide-ranging strategies to address match fixing, eduction, you name it, but only seven countries have ratified it in Europe. It is a bit of a mystery to me why that is since it’s a somewhat more European-focused convention but beneficial to Canada. Do you know why it has not moved along rapidly in terms of adoption in Europe as one might have expected? Thanks.
Mr. Melia: Thanks for both of those questions. With respect to your first question, as my colleague on the panel has pointed out, it sounds like the gaming industry, the lottery commissions and the working group that Mr. Bourgeois is participating in are actively looking at those kinds of measures to mitigate and lower risk by controlling what sports and what outcomes within a sport can be bet on. I think those would be really important measures to be taken to reduce the threat of match manipulation.
While I wouldn’t disagree with the analogy to prohibition and the efforts of a legalized single-game gambling regime in Canada becoming increasingly popular, it will not immediately eliminate the online single-game betting, which is driven to a large extent by organized crime and targets lower-level sports, that currently goes on and will continue. I would assume that online single-betting would continue to target lower-level sports within Canada and would target particular occurrences within a sport; for example, in tennis, the athlete will double fault in the second game of the second set. These are the manipulations that go on. It’s easy to seduce a lower-level player to participate because they don’t feel they are compromising the integrity of the match. They take the money and do it, but then they are drawn into that web, and it’s difficult for them to extricate themselves. In NCAA basketball, this goes on quite a bit as well.
The strategy would be important and ultimately, I think, as described by my colleague, effective in the long term. However, in the short term, I do think we need the sports policies I have been talking about.
With respect to the convention, I can’t answer with informed knowledge as to why only seven countries have ratified the convention. I think it is 31 countries that have signed on. I assume that through signing on, they continue to explore the appropriateness of ratifying it in their country and their jurisdiction.
As you mentioned, there are a lot of good strategies and approaches outlined in the convention that I do believe Canada should consider as a country.
Senator Cotter: Can I ask a follow-up question? Maybe both witnesses will have insights as to why Canada has not taken more serious consideration of that convention, or so it appears to date.
Mr. Melia: We are certainly aware of it. We are aware of it within the Canadian government because we do participate in the Council of Europe meetings with respect to this issue and anti-doping. My organization is aware of it. I know the Government of Canada is aware of it as well. I cannot speak for them and whether they have been discussing anything about the appropriateness of advocating Canada sign on to that convention.
I would simply observe that there are many competing priorities in Canadian sport at the federal level that the Government of Canada is addressing: limited resources and limited capacity. Also, we haven’t had a major scandal in match manipulation like we did with Ben Johnson doping during the 1988 Seoul Olympics, which created the impetus to do something about doping. My hope is we won’t wait for such a scandal to happen in Canada before taking serious and significant action with respect to match manipulation in sport.
Senator Cotter: One of your speakers at your conference on match fixing a couple of years ago made the point that perhaps what we need, tragically, is a catastrophe in match fixing to cause us to move more proactively. Thanks.
The Chair: I believe that concludes the evidence of our two witnesses. We very much appreciate your evidence today. Once again, if there is a burning question, we are happy to receive it. If not, we can conclude the evidence and move on to the next part of our proceeding. Thank you once again for the evidence today.
I believe there are two matters that we may address, one of which will likely be in camera. I’m hopeful we can now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-218. Is it agreed that the committee proceeds to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cotter: I’ll take my leave at this point. Thank you for including me in the presentation and thanks to the witnesses.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments and questions.
Senator Massicotte: I’ll do the same given I’m a non-voting member.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Massicotte, for your participation.
Senator Ringuette: As a voting member, I have to leave to attend a very important briefing, but I have read the bill, my questions were answered and I’m satisfied. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your questions and your participation as always, Senator Ringuette. Thank you for informing us. We have a quorum, so I believe we can continue.
Shall I ask the question again, senators?
Is it agreed that the committee proceeds to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title of the bill stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Moncion: I have a question. We received information from the Mohawk group. Is it something that we want to look at, or is it something that we want to disregard?
The Chair: Does the Senate committee wish to discuss this matter?
Senator Wells: Thank you, I did, in fact. I have had a number of meetings with Chief Deer and others from the Mohawk community. I received their proposed amendment that they gave to the House. I spoke with her this morning at around 9 o’clock. Their big issue is the jurisdictional issue with the Government of Quebec. While we can talk about it, I don’t know if there is a lot we can do about it. I expressed that to Chief Deer. They also spoke of their letter exchange with Minister Lametti on the federal side, but it’s out of our control. It’s not germane to the bill. I asked if there was anything we could do, even in observation. In that discussion, she said that unless you can delay the bill, it’s not that helpful. I encouraged her to keep reaching out to the Quebec government.
That’s the only thing I can contribute on that. The House saw fit not to entertain their amendment. They didn’t officially propose an amendment to us. I do have a copy. I would agree with that.
Senator Moncion: How harmful is it to add or not add their amendment to the bill? How does it change the legislation? I fail to see the issue. I understand the provincial issue, but I fail to see what the issue is within this bill.
The Chair: I wonder if I could momentarily interrupt the discussion, because I think you raise a very important question. We’re all sensitive to these issues, and I think we have awareness of the issues associated with the relationships within the Province of Quebec with respect to what we are discussing.
It would be my suggestion — and I see Senator Klyne has a comment — that we potentially consider this as part of observations and that we discuss this in camera so we can have a fulsome discussion of these issues and any of the other implications associated with the bill. It would be my suggestion that we consider doing that at this stage.
If you wish, we can go in camera and discuss that at this point and come back and conclude whether or not we are prepared to report the bill, with or without observations. Would that be acceptable to the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Klyne, your hand is up. Would that be acceptable to you?
Senator Klyne: Yes, and I just wanted to support what Senator Wells said. It is very much a jurisdictional issue, and I support your comment that we make an observation of what has been presented.
They are largely asking the federal government to dive into provincial jurisdiction here. How it got this far, I have no idea. As we know, the provinces have responsibility for gaming and its regulation, but somehow the Mohawks have set a precedent and carried on. They didn’t set the precedent. When it was set, the Quebec government didn’t saying anything about it.
If we want to accept it, then we would have to vote on it, and I don’t know which way that would go, but I think there are a number of good reasons why we should carry on with the bill. Making an observation to make an amendment now would kill that bill. It’s a private member’s bill, we must remember.
The Chair: I’m not necessarily hearing that, but it would be appreciated —
Senator Klyne: I fully support what you are proposing, Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wells: We just did two observations for Bill S-3, and we used the words “we cannot compel,” unless we do an amendment to the legislation and send it back to the House and back to the Senate. In observations, we can use words like “we urge” or “we encourage” or “we support.” We can use that kind of language.
In fact, when I was thinking about observations that might come up, I penned one regarding the Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions and wrote: “The committee encourages the federal government to consider signing on to that treaty in order to align with the international practices on combatting match fixing and to work with provinces that have jurisdiction over gaming in this regard.” I would be happy to give it the first shot. We could come up with wording that doesn’t enter into compelling anyone to do anything, but we could encourage the provinces to work with relevant authorities within their jurisdiction, that kind of wording. Senator Moncion, what would you think about that? In fact, I could work with you on the wording, if you like, and we can come back by email.
Senator Bellemare: Chair, we are not in camera yet.
The Chair: I understand that. I wish we could conclude this discussion and go in camera.
Senator Moncion: I thought we were because when you started this conversation, you said we were going to go in camera.
Senator Bellemare: No, it’s public.
Senator Moncion: Sorry.
The Chair: That’s quite all right. We have done nothing but discuss important issues, but I think we could conclude our views of them in camera. I think that would be more appropriate and acceptable at this time.
Madam clerk, I wish to proceed for an in-camera discussion regarding observations, and then we can return to the public meeting after that. You will need a couple of minutes to go in camera, I take it. Thank you. Go ahead.
(The committee continued in camera.)