David Menzies and Catherine Swift argue Canada’s offshore sports betting ban—like the Super Bowl—costs jobs and revenue, with Bill C-290 failing for three years due to opposition like MP Michael Chong, despite his NHLPA ties. They blame the Liberals’ fiscal recklessness, citing $18–$20B annual deficits, stalled GDP growth, and a potential USD decline to 62 cents, warning new programs like PharmaCare or daycare will deepen debt. Past broken promises on Indigenous issues and feminist policies underscore Trudeau’s lack of accountability, while his "budgets balance themselves" claim is dismissed as delusional. The episode suggests legalization could be a distraction from mounting economic and political crises. [Automatically generated summary]
You're listening to a free audio-only recording of the Ezra Event Show.
And on today's show, we have my monologue on my hope that the Justin Trudeau Liberals will finally approve single-game sports wagering in Canada, something that's been so overdue and something that would be a win-win-win for all.
And of course, we have Catherine Swift of Working Canadians.
She's going to weigh in on what her predictions will be regarding Bill Morneau's budget tomorrow.
Now, if you like listening to this podcast, then you would love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to premium content.
That's what we call our long-format TV style shows here on The Rebel.
Subscribers get access to watching my Ezra's Daily Show as well as other great TV style shows too.
It's only $8 a month to subscribe or you can subscribe annually and get two months free.
And just for podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to therebel.media slash shows to become a member.
And please leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Those reviews are a great way to support the Rebel without having to spend a dime.
And now enjoy this free audio-only version of Ezra's show.
Trudeau's Gambling Dilemma00:05:06
Tonight, will the Trudeau Liberals legalize gambling on single-game sporting events?
Don't bet on it.
It's March 18th.
I'm David Menzies and this is the Ezra Event Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government a lot of publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Once upon a time in Canada, there was virtually no such thing as legalized gambling.
Aside from a church bingo game or the crown and anchor wheel down at the local summer fair or maybe a smuggled in Irish sweepstakes ticket.
It was slim pickings for those who like to wager unless you are heavily invested into horse racing.
If one wanted to gamble at least legally, doing so meant purchasing a plane ticket to Las Vegas.
Today the gambling landscape is radically different from lotto tickets and table games, the slot machines and daily lotteries.
One is free to squander one's money with the complete approval of the government.
Actually the government is both the house and the bookmaker.
But as much as Canada has morphed into Las Vegas North, there is a notable exemption.
I speak of wagering on sports matches.
Oh sure, for more than 20 years now, this has been facilitated by the Pro Line Provincial Run Lottery.
But the thing is, a sports betder on a parlay, meaning he or she has to choose at least three games.
To this day, wagering on single game sporting events is illegal.
Think of how cosmically stupid that is.
For example, if you wanted to bet on the single biggest game of the entire sports calendar, namely the Super Bowl, you couldn't do so via any of the provincial lottery corporations.
Of course, that doesn't prevent Canadians from betting on the Super Bowl.
It only meant that one had to seek out a bookie or, in my case, open up an account with an offshore betting company such as bet365.com.
Who knows how many billions the government has lost out on when it comes to forfeiting single-game wagering?
But recently, Ontario Finance Minister Vic Videli wrote to Federal Finance Minister Bill Marnot asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada, one that would indeed legalize single-game sports wagering in Canada.
This is a win-win-win on so many fronts, from creating jobs and increasing gambling revenues to attracting American gamblers to Canadian casinos.
But where do the federal liberals stand on this issue?
It's kind of hard to gauge.
When they were in opposition, they supported a private member's bill, Bill C-290, as did all the other parties.
That bill, which would have made single-game wagering legal, actually passed third reading and was sent to the Senate.
Alas, it languaged in the upper chamber for three years and died on the order table when the 2015 federal election was called.
But again, why?
Why are Canadians not adult enough to bet on a single sporting match?
Or was there something more to the assassination of Bill C-290?
For example, consider Conservative MP Michael Chong, who used to be Minister of Sport.
He publicly opposed Bill C-290 because in the bill, that bill would allegedly hurt children, low-income groups, and people with addictive personalities.
Plus, it would supposedly ruin the integrity of sports.
Now, how many paternalistic senators, I wonder, also had similar views.
But does this rationale pass your sniff test, folks?
The fact that parlay sports betting protects kids and gambling addicts, whereas single-game wagering will see junior squander his candy bar money on Wednesday's Leafs game?
Give me a break.
Oh, by the way, it should be noted that Chong once worked for the National Hockey League Players Association.
So why do I get this feeling Chong is less concerned about the family milk money being sacrificed and more concerned about his old millionaire cronies being shut out from new gambling revenues?
Bottom line, like it or not, when it comes to the gambling business in Canada, the government is already the biggest pimp daddy in the land thanks to its lottery and casino interests.
And sorry, when it comes to sports wagering, there's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant.
So here's hoping that the Trudeau Liberals will reverse themselves yet again when they hand down the budget tomorrow and throw their support behind single-game sports wagering.
Government's Role in Gambling00:11:00
It would be the right thing for them to do, especially since it's abundantly clear the budget is not going to balance itself.
Then again, would you ever bet on this particular government doing the right thing?
I think the odds against that would make even the most reckless gambler cringe.
Well, tomorrow is budget day, and this is an election year.
So why do I get this queasy feeling that Finance Minister Bill Mourneau will resemble Santa Claus in a budget that will likely be jam-packed with goodies and freebies?
But as we all know, given our obese deficit in debt, nothing is truly free.
And joining me now to discuss what might be coming down the pike tomorrow regarding this budget is Catherine Swift of Working Canadians.
Welcome to the Ezra Levin Show, Catherine.
Thank you.
Listen, Catherine, do you share my queasiness?
Oh, yes, I do.
Sadly.
And what I found rather, I mean, it would be funny if it weren't so awfully sad and serious.
But, you know, leading up to this budget, there was all this mention in the media.
Well, all the economic indicators are looking pretty rough right now.
So this will give Morneau and the Liberals an excuse for a big spending budget.
But when have they not had a big spending budget?
When the economy was, you know, doing not badly, say last year or the year before, they still had big spending budgets.
So I sort of didn't understand why this was different.
But there's no question in the wake of the SNC Lavalin fiasco and the ongoing situation there.
We're going to have, I would think, the Vice Admiral Norman scandal, which looks like it's at least as ugly, if not more so, in the next few months.
They're clearly looking to turn the page.
I think even without all that, it would be a big spending budget.
But they're probably looking for even more bells and whistles.
You know, the squirrel, look over here, Canadians, tactic to try to distract from all of their many, many scandals and fiascos.
I heard just, I feel I haven't been listening to the news now for five minutes.
So something else has probably happened in Ottawa in terms of somebody resigning or, you know, the clerk of the Privy Council resigned this morning, or retired, but you know, really resigned.
You know, it is chaos in Ottawa right now with this government.
And this budget is very scary because, of course, all governments try to bribe us with our own money.
But this one in particular has developed a real talent for it.
And it's not a talent any Canadian should really be appreciating.
Oh, I agree, Catherine.
And to go back to something you said about some of the grim economic indicators that have been reported very recently, for example, Bank of Canada reporting the GDP has slowed to a near stall and that in December, Canada recorded its widest trade deficit in its history and also predictions that the dollar might fall to 62 cents U.S. or even below.
That would be a record as well.
What do you make of this?
And, you know, let me ask you this, Catherine.
Given those kind of grim indicators, if you were in Bill Murnau's seat, what would you be doing as opposed to what we can expect is going to happen, which is almost a game show-like atmosphere in terms of giveaways?
Yeah, well, I certainly wouldn't be introducing the rumored new PharmaCare, which is a massively costly program.
We'll have to see how it's structured, but it doesn't matter.
It's massively costly no matter what.
I think a real difference would have been if I were in those shoes, those shoes that apparently are resold this year, not brand new ones, I would not have behaved like he behaved in the previous budgets.
Because really the time for sensible, I won't say restraint, but sensible spending control was then.
Things are slowing now.
And the whole notion, I love it when the left sort of the political spectrum cite Keynesians.
And I'm an economist, as you probably know.
And, you know, the perverse thing about Keynes was he actually recommended that you save money in good times so that you have some in the bad times.
And this government has spent ourselves, because it's our dough, stupid in the good times, which leaves us hugely vulnerable.
So, I mean, again, I don't see any reason to introduce brand new sparkly things like PharmaCare, especially when things like the evidence out there shows that there's a very small minority of people that don't have coverage.
Why don't we target them instead of having this massive new national program that's going to be mega tens of billions of dollars?
And it's probably just going to make people unhappy anyway, because I bet a lot of stuff isn't going to be covered by it.
We've also heard they're going to supposedly do things to help millennials buy houses.
Well, frankly, you look at the market now and the rate of millennial home ownership is quite high.
Thank you very much.
Doesn't mean there aren't some people that would like to buy a house that can't right now.
But again, these kinds of measures are not going to solve the problem.
They might be sort of the sparkly baubles that somebody who isn't thinking in a long-term sense would find attractive.
And that's, of course, what they're hoping.
But I mean, I think in terms of different behavior, that should have happened over the past few years.
We should have a nice cushion now as we see indicators going south in the economy so that we can lessen the impact of the recession coming.
Oh, indeed.
And that's the thing.
I mean, the price, don't get me wrong, I'm not heartless.
I mean, it would be wonderful to have a pharmacare program for all Canadians, but there's a price to that, Catherine, as you and I and our audience well knows.
Nothing is free.
And I mean, there's been some other rumors too, perhaps a national daycare program.
There would be another multi-billion dollar boondoggle, I should think.
And even there was some pledge about guaranteeing that Canadians, all Canadians, that is, will have access to high-speed internet by 2030.
I always love those promises, picking a date in which this crew will be long gone from politics.
But what do you make of these other rumors that are in the mill in terms of what the price tag will mean to Canadians, Catherine?
Well, it looks like deficits almost in perpetuity, which is worrisome, always worrisome.
And if people don't realize what a burden that imposes on our children, our grandchildren, down the road, it's disgraceful.
Everything's being financed by debt now.
And the deficits, I hear rumors, and I guess we'll see tomorrow, but I hear rumors, the deficit's supposed to be coming in about $2 billion less than was forecast in the latest forecast.
Mind you, these numbers are fiddled with, as we know.
But apparently corporate tax revenues seem to be up.
And so that's accounting for a somewhat lower deficit.
But as in my long career of studying the economy, when things go south, they go south really fast.
And we're looking in supposedly decent economic times at $18 to $20 billion deficits.
Those are going to skyrocket more than double, possibly triple, when the economy, which invariably will happen, does go bad.
And I just really hope Canadians will sort of have some perspective here because obviously, you know, you can't spend with borrowed dollars forever.
We all know we can't do that in our household accounts.
Governments can't do it either.
One thing I wonder about from just looking from a political standpoint, where the heck are Paul Martin and Jean-Chrétien right now?
They faced the demon debt wall back in the mid-90s, had to make all kinds of cuts.
They imposed all kinds of cuts on the provinces.
They took almost $60 billion out of the EI fund at the time, which was a misuse of that money, but they did end up getting rid of the deficit.
Why aren't they advising the current crew that it's deja vu all over again?
Oh, indeed.
Well, to paraphrase the old Oldsmobile ad slogan, this isn't your father's Liberal Party, that's for sure.
But you know, Catherine, I want you to take off your economist hat and put your political hat on for this question, which is this.
A lot of people understand what's going on.
You know, people aren't stupid.
They see that this is an effort to buy votes.
And yet I can't think of, say, families on the margins, maybe a single mom struggling to make ends meet and hearing free daycare, free pharmacare.
You know, this makes a difference in my life here and now, and I'm voting for this.
What do you do think this, you know, actually tilts the game in the Liberals' favor come October?
It's hard to say because a lot of their so-called brand has been ruined.
Certainly, their constant touting of the middle class.
Well, there's an awful lot of very good research showing that that has not borne out.
That has not been true.
In fact, middle-class people are facing tax increases under this government.
And how could it be otherwise?
How can it be otherwise?
There's all manner of promises they've made, they've reneged on.
And I guess it's the old Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football.
Why should we believe them now?
They've done very little that they said they were going to do for the entire time they've been in government.
They've betrayed a lot of the Indigenous file, the so-called feminist file, and so on and so forth.
So why should we believe them now?
And even to that lower-income person, they have to be noticing now that they're not better off.
And I think this is the ultimate thing.
We can tout studies and research all we want.
But there's an awful lot of public opinion polls and other information that are showing your average Canadian doesn't feel better off right now than they felt three and a half, four years ago.
They're feeling worse off.
They're feeling more insecure about their future.
And again, that affects everybody at every part of the income spectrum.
For sure.
Well, for now, you know, Catherine, it's all conjecture.
We're going to find out all the true nitty-gritty tomorrow when it comes down.
So one final question before we wrap.
And again, I think for this, put on your economist hat once again.
I'm still to this day, he said it many years ago, and I've thought about this for years and I still haven't figured it out.
But tell me, Catherine, when Justin Trudeau said the budgets will balance themselves, what in blue hell did he mean by that?
Please tell me as an economist.
Trudeau's Budget Balancing Act00:02:22
Well, I'm sorry, but I can't.
And all I can say is it was proof positive that Justin Trudeau not only knows nothing about the economy and government finances, but he has had a long history of blurting out grandiose statements that mean nothing or are outright silly.
And that might, that's probably one of the silliest.
Yeah, for sure.
It sounded to me, it sounded to me like another way of saying wishful thinking, keep your fingers crossed.
And oh my goodness.
Well, Catherine, hopefully it won't be as bad as we think it is.
And but I wouldn't put anything past this government.
So thank you so much for weighing in with your analysis.
My pleasure.
You got it.
Thank you, Catherine.
And that was Catherine Swift.
And folks, keep it here.
More of the Ezra Levine show to come right after this.
On my monologue last Wednesday about Justin Trudeau loving to apologize, except for his own mistakes, Paul writes, ah, the Trudeau apology.
I have reflected on what happened.
They experienced it differently.
It's a learning moment for everyone.
Canadians need to do better.
Wow, Paul, you could be Justin's official apology writer with such Wordsmith acumen because a Trudeau apology is all about fancy pronouncements and nothing about personal responsibility.
And Ice Line Man writes, he's an embarrassment to Canadian people kind.
Indeed, not to mention all the Fisher folks from coast to coast.
And C. White writes, I'm trying to figure out the logic of the most recent apology.
Jr. apologized for the liberal governments of the time evacuating TB victims to where they could be treated and not spread contagion throughout isolated communities.
Well, wait a minute, C. White, you're trying to piggyback that goofy thing known as logic to something Justin Trudeau does or says?
That was your first mistake, my friend.
Well, that's the show for tonight, as we'll be back for tomorrow.
Thanks so much for putting up with me and thanks for watching.