<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Macleans.ca &#187; C-290</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/c-290/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www2.macleans.ca</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s only national weekly current affairs magazine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:40:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The case for legal sports gambling</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/04/the-case-for-legal-sports-gambling/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/04/the-case-for-legal-sports-gambling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C-290]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Surowiecki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maclean's Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports gambling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=356644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While the Senate considers C-290, the debate continues across North America]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/04/the-case-for-legal-sports-gambling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	While the Senate considers C-290, the debate continues across North America
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Senate considers C-290</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/30/the-senate-considers-c-290/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/30/the-senate-considers-c-290/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Runciman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C-290]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports betting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports gambling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=321823</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m told a vote on C-290 might not come until January, but third reading...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/30/the-senate-considers-c-290/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	I&#8217;m told a vote on C-290 might not come until January, but third reading...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Questioning and defending C-290</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/26/questioning-and-defending-c-290/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/26/questioning-and-defending-c-290/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brad Trost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C-290]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawrence Toet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Chong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nathan Cullen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports betting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports gambling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=319190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two more Conservative MPs join Michael Chong in publicly opposing C-290, the sports betting...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/26/questioning-and-defending-c-290/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Two more Conservative MPs join Michael Chong in publicly opposing C-290, the sports betting...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Senate&#8217;s last stand?</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/16/the-senates-last-stand/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/16/the-senates-last-stand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C-290]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports betting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports gambling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Windsor Star]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Windsor Star says if the Senate defeats C-290 it will be another reason...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/16/the-senates-last-stand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	The Windsor Star says if the Senate defeats C-290 it will be another reason...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How did the House end up passing C-290 unanimously?</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/16/how-did-the-house-end-up-passing-c-290-unanimously/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/16/how-did-the-house-end-up-passing-c-290-unanimously/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C-290]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Comartin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Chong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Van Loan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports betting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports gambling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Among Michael Chong&#8217;s objections to C-290, Joe Comartin&#8217;s sports betting bill, is the manner...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/16/how-did-the-house-end-up-passing-c-290-unanimously/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Among Michael Chong&#8217;s objections to C-290, Joe Comartin&#8217;s sports betting bill, is the manner...
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The case against C-290</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/13/the-case-against-c-290/</link>
		<comments>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/13/the-case-against-c-290/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Wherry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond The Commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C-290]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Braley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Comartin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Chong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports betting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports gambling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=314421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael Chong explains why he opposes the sports betting bill.
Finally, single game betting...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/13/the-case-against-c-290/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	Michael Chong explains why he opposes the sports betting bill.
Finally, single game betting...
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
