Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-218 on single-event sport betting. I have read the committee testimony and listened intently to the speakers before me, and I thank all of them for their individual speeches and their addition to this debate. The reason I decided to speak to this issue today is that I don’t believe that we, as senators, have given this bill the time and deliberation needed to understand all the impacts of what this legislation entails. I am in no way against the idea of single-event sport betting, but I am a firm believer that this is a bill that must proceed with caution after more fulsome study.

As the evidence has made clear, Canada already has a match-fixing problem. As Declan Hill, one of the foremost experts on match fixing and corruption in international sports and who was earlier referred to by Senator White in his speech, stated in The Globe and Mail in past December in an op-ed piece:

At international police conferences, the Interpol delegates would single out Canada as a bastion of match-fixing. They led a delegation to our country in 2015 to share their knowledge of the problem and, specifically, which games were being fixed.

The response of Canadian authorities? A giant metaphorical shrug of the shoulders.

I think it is worth noting, honourable senators, that the senators with previous police experience who make up a portion of this chamber voted in favour of Senator White’s amendment, and I would say that was for a reason. It’s on the police to collect the evidence in order for the Crown attorney to prosecute, and I can attest that cases of fraud are difficult enough to lay, let alone to result in convictions. Senator White, who spent significant time policing fraud, spoke to this and his concerns in answer to Senator Cotter’s question.

From testimony in the other place on February 25, 2021, I would like to refer to an exchange between Member of Parliament Fortin and Mr. Michael Ellison, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice. In his question, Mr. Fortin was asking, if Bill C-218 were passed, would the Criminal Code or Canadian legislation make it possible to properly control problems that are potentially related to the fixing of single-event sports, and, if not, what we could do to improve it. In reply, Mr. Ellison said:

Currently, the Criminal Code has two offences that are charged in these circumstances for match-fixing that is identified. Those offences typically are cheating at play, which is a potential one, but more commonly, fraud, which is under subsection 380(1) of the Criminal Code.

He went on to say:

Those offences have been successfully prosecuted, including recently a case that went to the Supreme Court, in 2015: the Queen v. Riesberry. Therefore, we have offences in the Criminal Code that can combat this activity. Of course, there are other issues that have to do with detection.

Mr. Fortin said:

Is that enough?

Could we improve that?

And Mr. Ellison replied:

At this time, my comment would be that the Supreme Court has ruled that these offences are applicable, but I would say that the committee could look to other jurisdictions and also measures at the UN and other international organizations where there are calls for specific offences.

Mr. Fortin asked, “Are you sure that, if Bill C-218 was passed, we could avoid the fixing of single-event sports in Canada?”

Mr. Ellison replied:

I think it would be fair to say that match-fixing already occurs and it would still occur after, and that provinces and territories and the prosecution services and investigation services would have to focus on learning more about match-fixing and preventing it. As with all crime, it would be impossible to completely eliminate it.

I cite this because it goes to the heart of my concern. Indeed, a white paper in response to the international Symposium on Match Manipulation and Gambling in Sport, co-authored by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and McLaren Global Sport Solutions, recommended the following in their report of October 2019:

A review of relevant sections of Canadian Criminal Code should be undertaken including amendments to address the prosecution of corrupt practises focussed specifically on match manipulation in Canadian sport.

Senators, I don’t wish to re-engage in an already defeated amendment, but I think the topic of match fixing may not have received full consideration as this bill made its way through Parliament. I believe this matter should have had the benefit of clarity, particularly for those in the policing community who will be tasked with obtaining evidence — which, in the case of match fixing, would be extremely difficult to detect in most cases.

Another missed opportunity is around associated addictions. Many international regimes are already in place, which could be studied in Canadian context, but in my view this expertise has been lacking in the bill’s progression.

In the same article by Declan Hill, he speaks of a conversation he had with a colleague who ran a European sports book with about 1 million clients. Mr. Hill asked him how many clients won, rather than lost, over a one-year span. The response was “five.” Out of roughly 1 million clients, only five won money over the course of a year. Colleagues, that is a lot of people losing money.

Now let us look at the U.K. for some startling figures. Last July, our colleagues in the House of Lords published a report entitled Gambling Harm — Time For Action, which deals extensively with problematic gambling. Their findings reveal that approximately 333,000 people in the U.K. are problem gamblers and that, on average, one problem gambler commits suicide every day.

But more than this, it found that 55,000 of those problem gamblers are aged 11 to 16, and the rate of problem gambling for girls in this age group is twice that of adults, and for boys it is three times that of adults. For this age cohort, gambling is illegal, but efforts to curb this reality have been unsuccessful.

The Independent newspaper in the U.K. reported that the number of young people struggling with gambling addiction has quadrupled in the past two years. The news reports states:

As a result of growing concern that child gambling is being fuelled by online gaming sites and targeted adverts, NHS England has announced plans to launch The National Problem Gambling Clinic in London which will offer specialist help for children and young people aged 13 to 25.

However, there are wider consequences to problem gambling that also affect families. For every problematic gambler, on average, six people are directly affected.

Opening up single-event sports betting without these considerations in mind could see a similarly troubling circumstance in Canada. This type of betting is quick and easily accessible to anyone who has internet capabilities. It is easy to understand and easy to do, and we should expect an increase in gamblers of all ages once — and if — single-event sports betting is opened up.

If we look back to the House of Lords report, it says that “60% of its profits come from the 5% who are already problem gamblers, or are at risk of becoming so.” Let me put the emphasis on “at risk of becoming so.” Single-event sports betting will increase the number of people at risk of becoming addicted to gambling.

While we know there are supports already in place, we don’t know the extent to which more supports will be needed in the case of single-event sports betting. Remember, colleagues, this is an expansion of legal gambling options that we are creating, and when we do so, we should do so with rigour and with sufficient time to review.

Senators, I am of the belief that had Bill C-13, a government bill, been in front of us rather than Bill C-218, a private member’s bill, we may have seen more scrutiny in the other place and perhaps here in the Senate. It is unfortunate that we are so pushed for time on this issue. Perhaps we would have heard from more witnesses. Perhaps we could have learned more from international experts — both those in favour and those against — and they would have been able to give us a broad range of views. I would like to have heard from law enforcement about the intricacies of the law and the choices that would have to be made.

This amendment to the Criminal Code seems minor in nature, but its implications are more wide-reaching than have been discussed thus far. These are but two areas in need of further clarity, neither of which were attached as observations to the report. I fully appreciate that the committee was under time restraints.

I also believe that a more prudent approach may have been to wait for the final report of the Cullen Commission in British Columbia. This independent commission has been tasked with looking at money laundering in certain sections; gaming and horse racing being one of them. It will assuredly reach helpful conclusions that apply to single-event sports betting, before us today. It would be beneficial for provinces to have this information before crafting or amending associated regulations. I do not see why we can’t give the appropriate time to the commission to develop the recommendations before moving forward with this bill.

Honourable senators, as I said, I am not opposed to single-sports betting itself. I commend the work of MP Kevin Waugh, the sponsor of this legislation. I also want to thank Senators Wells and Cotter for their contributions here in the Senate. However, in my view, unfortunately not enough deliberation has occurred for me to feel comfortable voting in favour of this bill.

I am unmoved by an argument that revolves around, “It’s already being done in the shadows, so we might as well bring it into the light.” Colleagues, if we’re going to bring it into the light, let’s do it with our eyes open. This is not about denying people a small wager on their favourite NHL team. This is about addressing the risk of match fixing and addressing and understanding the implications of more options for Canadians to gamble. If we are to vote on this bill at third reading, let’s make sure we have a full understanding of its impact. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Are senators ready for the question? It was moved by the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, that the bill be read a third time. If you are opposed to the motion, please say “no.”

I hear a “no.” All those senators in the chamber who are in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

All those senators in the chamber who are opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

Is there agreement on a bell?

Honourable senators, pursuant to paragraph 16 of the order of October 27, 2020 concerning hybrid sittings, the vote stands deferred until 3:30 p.m. on the next day the Senate sits, provided that, if that day is a Monday, the vote will be at the end of Question Period. In both cases, there will be a 15-minute bell before the vote.