Why is the Senate stalling Sports Gambling Bill?

[Boges]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-sports-gambling-bill-stalled-in-the-senate/article20714709/

It’s a rare example of pushback from an unelected body believed never to have blocked a law supported by all parties. It’s also the latest and most extreme example of a private member’s bill that won the government’s support and received little scrutiny in the House. Partly because of that lack of debate, several senators, including Conservatives, reacted angrily to the bill.

The law would give each province the power to allow single-game betting. Billions of dollars could be at stake. The Conservative leadership in the Senate hasn’t put the new law to a vote because it doubts it has the simple majority needed to pass it.

Sports luminaries such as Senator Jacques Demers, a former Montreal Canadiens coach, denounced the proposed law. Former Olympic skier Nancy Greene Raine expressed concern. Senator Frank Mahovlich, the former Maple Leafs great, said he thought today’s hockey players earn enough money that they would not be bought off by gamblers. Paul Beeston, president of the Toronto Blue Jays, told a Senate committee that legalization of single-game betting would create more problem gamblers, and send the wrong message to children about the purposes of sports.

This is less about partisanship and more about the idea that the Senate can actually de-rail really good legislation. There's no reason to stall such a bill.

The idea that unelected people, of any party, can prevent a bill that was passed by elected officials is, quite frankly, offensive.

Anyone who currently bets on sports, legally, in Canada is a mark. They require you to complete at least a 3 game parlay and often weight the money you can win based on likelihood instead of setting a line.

Allowing single betting gaming would help casinos all over the country. AND help provincial revenues. And for those that just don't want people to be taken advantage of because gambling is evil, Single-Game Gambling is way more fair than the status quo.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

If the bill wasn't fully debated and just rushed through without much consideration then it's a good thing that the chamber of "sober second thought" is actually doing it's job and giving sober second thought to a bill that wasn't carefully considered. Moreover, the Senate gives equal representation to our federalist arrangement, as opposed to basing all legislative decisions on the whims of Ontario and Quebec alone. I don't find the Senate undemocratic at all and appreciate that they actually take the time to do their jobs every now and again.

[Boges]

If the bill wasn't fully debated and just rushed through without much consideration then it's a good thing that the chamber of "sober second thought" is actually doing it's job and giving sober second thought to a bill that wasn't carefully considered. Moreover, the Senate gives equal representation to our federalist arrangement, as opposed to basing all legislative decisions on the whims of Ontario and Quebec alone. I don't find the Senate undemocratic at all and appreciate that they actually take the time to do their jobs every now and again.

Doing their job by obstructing a bill that was approved across party lines?

The reasons for opposing this bill are laughable. If they're only opposing it because it didn't go through traditional methods, then they're calling for the house to waste its time.

This bill doesn't make single game betting legal nation-wide, it just allows provinces to make it legal. So if a province doesn't want it, they don't have to legalize it. So that argument doesn't wash either.

[waldo]

The reasons for opposing this bill are laughable. If they're only opposing it because it didn't go through traditional methods, then they're calling for the house to waste its time.

traditional methods? You mean like hearing from interested parties... other than just gambling establishment owners/proponents? You mean like possibly taking it to a committee level? You mean like investigating online aspects vis-a-via the alternate self-serving vested interests of brick&mortar gambling houses of ill-repute? (ok, ok... I kid, I kid).

[Boges]

traditional methods? You mean like hearing from interested parties... other than just gambling establishment owners/proponents? You mean like possibly taking it to a committee level? You mean like investigating online aspects vis-a-via the alternate self-serving vested interests of brick&mortar gambling houses of ill-repute? (ok, ok... I kid, I kid).

Which are owned by the government. People can gamble all they want online. Introducing a sports book would actually help these casinos that are struggling because of their idiotic parlay sports betting model.

[waldo]

People can gamble all they want online.

uhhh... where are those sites located?

[Boges]

uhhh... where are those sites located?

Oh not in Canada. But the internet has few borders.

A government site won't be able to compete with current online options from Europe but at least they can make the casinos they have built more appealing.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Doing their job by obstructing a bill that was approved across party lines?

You're calling it obstructing, when that's not what it is. It's their job to review bills, recommend changes, etc. They're doing their jobs.

[Boges]

You're calling it obstructing, when that's not what it is. It's their job to review bills, recommend changes, etc. They're doing their jobs.

It's taken 2 years. Where are the recommendations?

[cybercoma]

Has it gone to committee?

[Boges]

Has it gone to committee?

Dunno, but if it hasn't I'd say it's obstructionist.

I think it's an easily debatable issue. The parties opposed are pro sports teams and anti-gambling activists. Both really don't have a leg to stand on, on this issue.

[Boges]

The irony about this case is that if it was a government bill it would be law already because Harper would whip the CPC Senators to vote for it. But because this was a private members bill from an NDPer it seems the Senate wants to show that they still are somewhat important.

[Moonbox]

Allowing single betting gaming would help casinos all over the country. AND help provincial revenues. And for those that just don't want people to be taken advantage of because gambling is evil, Single-Game Gambling is way more fair than the status quo.

Most of us couldn't care less about a casino's ability to prosper. More than anything, they're just another way for the government to increase tax revenues and drain local pockets. Even the slightest risk of game-rigging would be all the justification I'd need to shut this bill down, as I don't believe for a second that casinos are positive for most local economies.

[Boges]

Most of us couldn't care less about a casino's ability to prosper. More than anything, they're just another way for the government to increase tax revenues and drain local pockets. Even the slightest risk of game-rigging would be all the justification I'd need to shut this bill down, as I don't believe for a second that casinos are positive for most local economies.

Yeah because people going to Casino Niagara are going to bribe a millionaire athlete to throw a game.

Casinos usually go in rural communities or ones that are depressed like Windsor or Niagara Falls. Without the casinos those communities would be in trouble.

Anyone can easily bet online. Might as well attempt to keep some of that money here.

[Bryan]

The Senate is actually doing their job for once, and THAT has some people upset????

[Boges]

The Senate is actually doing their job for once, and THAT has some people upset????

Yeah because, for once, this bill had bi-partisan support.

[Bryan]

Yeah because, for once, this bill had bi-partisan support.

You mean it wasn't properly vetted. Your own link cites "lack of debate" and "little scrutiny". Now the Senate is forced to do the House's job for them.

[Boges]

You mean it wasn't properly vetted. Your own link cites "lack of debate" and "little scrutiny". Now the Senate is forced to do the House's job for them.

It's taken them 2 years? The feds role in this should be minimal anyway. It's still up to provinces to actually implement sports books and/or modify the way they take sports bets.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Boges

[Moonbox]

Casinos usually go in rural communities or ones that are depressed like Windsor or Niagara Falls. Without the casinos those communities would be in trouble.

Anyone who's been to Niagara Falls in the last decade can see that the casino has done little to revive the local economy. Outside of intersections closest to the actual Falls, the town is a disaster.

[Boges]

Anyone who's been to Niagara Falls in the last decade can see that the casino has done little to revive the local economy. Outside of intersections closest to the actual Falls, the town is a disaster.

Were they, not a disaster, before? The casinos bring people in from outside the city. (not just the falls) It's a great get-a-way for people in the GTA. You can also cross the border and go shopping.

[Argus]

The Senate is actually doing their job for once, and THAT has some people upset????

Two years is not 'doing its job', two years is refusing to do its job.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, two years does seem a bit excessive. Does anyone know what they're doing with it?

[Argus]

Yeah, two years does seem a bit excessive. Does anyone know what they're doing with it?

When a bill goes nowhere for 2 years the answer is generally that they're letting it sit because they don't want to vote on it.

[cybercoma]

When a bill goes nowhere for 2 years the answer is generally that they're letting it sit because they don't want to vote on it.

They're waiting for the writs to kill it? Any idea why though? I mean, there must be something about the bill that they find objectionable to kill it by committee.

[Moonbox]

Were they, not a disaster, before? The casinos bring people in from outside the city. (not just the falls) It's a great get-a-way for people in the GTA. You can also cross the border and go shopping.

I love going to Niagara Falls, and do so frequently. I'll be there all next weekend.

That said, the casino is nothing but depressing, much like the town it touted it would revive but clearly failed to.