The best case against C-290, New Democrat MP Joe Comartin’s private member’s bill that would allow betting on individual sports matches, rather than two or more at once, is that it didn’t receive proper scrutiny in the House of Commons. “It had one day at committee, and they really didn’t study the bill,” Liberal Senator George Baker told CBC News earlier this month. “They didn’t invite the stakeholders who will be impacted by the bill.”
That is certainly problematic. But if the unelected Senate, which is expected to reject the bill, is to take a more activist role in nixing flawed legislation passed through an elected house — there is no shortage of such legislation unfortunately — this seems a rather odd place to start, especially since the stakes seem so low.
In a recent op-ed urging the Senate to reject Bill C-290, Conservative MP Michael Chong argued that gambling is “a very inefficient and costly revenue stream” that comes at “great social cost”; that it doesn’t create “skilled jobs”; that “provincially regulated casinos will never be able to offer the same odds as off-shore or illegal operations”; and that, as both the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball have protested, “single game betting undermines the integrity of professional and amateur sport.”
We can dispense with the last argument first, using Mr. Chong’s own reasoning: Given the massive sports book industry run out of Las Vegas, online out of various off-shore jurisdictions and in any number of shady unofficial locales — the industry against which Canadian casinos ostensibly cannot compete — it seems ludicrous to suggest that little old Canada’s gambling population could steer us toward another Black Sox scandal.
(On Thursday, Conservative Senator Bob Runciman also trenchantly noted that the NHL allowed Rick Tocchet, convicted in 2006 of running a sports gambling ring, to coach the Tampa Bay Lightning. “It seems to me that these leagues are doing a pretty good job of threatening the integrity of sports all by themselves,” he said.)
Of course it is true that gambling addiction is a scourge on some Canadians families. But we allow lotteries, casinos, racetracks and accumulator betting on sports. Drawing the line on single-match betting would be no less arbitrary than allowing roulette while banning craps. And again, as Mr. Chong says, there is no real impediment to single-match betting for those most determined to seek it out. That problem will remain to be addressed, no matter what happens to Mr. Comartin’s bill.
Having allowed so many forms of gambling, moreover, there is a simple issue of personal freedom to be considered. Why should John Q. Canadian be free to bet (some day, maybe next season) on the Canucks to beat the Canadiens and the Red Wings to beat the Maple Leafs, but not either of those outcomes individually?
It is quite obvious what the various “stakeholders” think about this, even in the absence of proper committee consideration. We are confident that the provinces, which would be free to allow single-match betting or not, can iron out the kinks. Senators should pass this legislation. This is not a suitable hill for them to die upon. But even if C-290 doesn’t pass, there will still be a strong case to allow single-match betting in Canada: Quite simply put, there is no compelling case against it.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/04/let-the-single-match-betting-begin/
National Post
That is certainly problematic. But if the unelected Senate, which is expected to reject the bill, is to take a more activist role in nixing flawed legislation passed through an elected house — there is no shortage of such legislation unfortunately — this seems a rather odd place to start, especially since the stakes seem so low.
In a recent op-ed urging the Senate to reject Bill C-290, Conservative MP Michael Chong argued that gambling is “a very inefficient and costly revenue stream” that comes at “great social cost”; that it doesn’t create “skilled jobs”; that “provincially regulated casinos will never be able to offer the same odds as off-shore or illegal operations”; and that, as both the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball have protested, “single game betting undermines the integrity of professional and amateur sport.”
We can dispense with the last argument first, using Mr. Chong’s own reasoning: Given the massive sports book industry run out of Las Vegas, online out of various off-shore jurisdictions and in any number of shady unofficial locales — the industry against which Canadian casinos ostensibly cannot compete — it seems ludicrous to suggest that little old Canada’s gambling population could steer us toward another Black Sox scandal.
(On Thursday, Conservative Senator Bob Runciman also trenchantly noted that the NHL allowed Rick Tocchet, convicted in 2006 of running a sports gambling ring, to coach the Tampa Bay Lightning. “It seems to me that these leagues are doing a pretty good job of threatening the integrity of sports all by themselves,” he said.)
Of course it is true that gambling addiction is a scourge on some Canadians families. But we allow lotteries, casinos, racetracks and accumulator betting on sports. Drawing the line on single-match betting would be no less arbitrary than allowing roulette while banning craps. And again, as Mr. Chong says, there is no real impediment to single-match betting for those most determined to seek it out. That problem will remain to be addressed, no matter what happens to Mr. Comartin’s bill.
Having allowed so many forms of gambling, moreover, there is a simple issue of personal freedom to be considered. Why should John Q. Canadian be free to bet (some day, maybe next season) on the Canucks to beat the Canadiens and the Red Wings to beat the Maple Leafs, but not either of those outcomes individually?
It is quite obvious what the various “stakeholders” think about this, even in the absence of proper committee consideration. We are confident that the provinces, which would be free to allow single-match betting or not, can iron out the kinks. Senators should pass this legislation. This is not a suitable hill for them to die upon. But even if C-290 doesn’t pass, there will still be a strong case to allow single-match betting in Canada: Quite simply put, there is no compelling case against it.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/04/let-the-single-match-betting-begin/
National Post
