Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 57 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Monday, March 1, 1999

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, met this day at 2:42 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is now in session.

Senators, this week I was invited, on your behalf, to a luncheon in Toronto. You all have a copy of the press release that emanated from that. The Writers' Union of Canada presented me with a framed award for the committee, which reads:

In Celebration of Freedom to Read Week, THE WRITERS' UNION OF CANADA recognizes The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for upholding freedom of expression, through their role in the defeat of Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime).

It is signed by William Deverell, Chair of the Writers' Union of Canada. Since this was presented to the committee as a whole, I will present it to our clerk to hang in her office.

We have with us this afternoon Mr. Ralph Mercier, the Mayor of Charlesbourg and former chair of the CUQ, and Mr. Marc Gagnon, the General Director of the St. Laurence Economic Development Council.

Please proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Ralph Mercier, Mayor of Charlesbourg, Past President of the CUQ: Thank you for agreeing to meet with us to hear our views on the proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Code, and provisions pertaining to cruise ship casino operations.

As a representative of the Quebec Urban Community and a board member of the Greater Quebec Tourism and Convention Bureau, I would like to present the position of our organization and its thirteen mayors -- on behalf of whom I am speaking today -- with the help of three quotes drawn from studies conducted on St. Lawrence River cruises over the past ten years.

According to a number of industry observers, were it not for Quebec City, there would not be a St. Lawrence cruise ship route at all. Although their view may exaggerate Quebec City's importance as a port of call, it does call attention to the unique experience the city offers visitors.

This quote was taken from an analysis of the cruise ship and boating industry on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and their connected waterways, specifically from page 26 of Volume I of the main report. The analysis was prepared by the Economic Planning Group for Tourism Canada and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in March 1991. On now to my second quote:

A recent study of companies running cruises to Quebec found that restrictions on shipboard casino operations were the number one problem in cruise ship navigation on the St. Lawrence and an obstacle to cruise industry expansion [...].

This quote was also taken from the previously mentioned analysis, specifically from page 29 of volume I of the main report. My third quote is as follows:

A ship carrying 1,000 passengers on a seven-day trip from New York to Montreal must close its casino for two to three days [...] These losses are factored into the comparative analysis of both the zone of deployment and the choice of itinerary. In addition, closing the casino heightens the impact of a less than hospitable climate [...].

This quote was taken from chapter 3.2 of the technical paper Casino Cruises prepared in 1994 by SODES, the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council.

These three quotes succinctly explain why the Quebec Urban Community and all its regional economic partners unreservedly support the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada in Bill C-51 that would allow cruise ship casinos to operate up until one hour before docking, and again after departure.

As indicated earlier, several studies have shown that the Quebec City area represents a major draw for companies looking to run cruises between New England and Eastern Canada.

The same studies have also shown that Criminal Code restrictions on shipboard casino operations hinder the development of this economic activity by substantially reducing revenues for cruise operators as soon as they hit the St. Lawrence.

In fact, studies concluded that these restrictions were largely responsible for the slow growth that has plagued St. Lawrence cruises for over fifteen years.

The Quebec Urban Community invests many millions of dollars annually in tourism promotion and development. We believe that the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code will result in a significant increase in the number of cruise ships calling at the port of Quebec.

Ocean cruises already make a major annual contribution to the Quebec City area economy, one estimated at $5 million in tourist dollars alone. However, ocean cruises offer even greater potential for future growth for a number of reasons. Here are a few of them. The Greater Quebec Area Tourism and Convention Bureau and the Port of Quebec have invested heavily to promote tourism for many years, including to position Quebec City as a cruise destination. The increase in cruise ship size means that Quebec City is the end point for a number of cruises, creating the potential to develop the area into a departure/arrival destination. The cruise sector is undergoing some major changes as new products like northern cruises are developed. These changes could position Quebec City as a departure point for new cruises to Labrador.

All of this explains why it is important for the Quebec City area to offer cruise operators conditions that are conducive to future partnerships, not only for attracting existing cruises but also for developing new products.

This has the potential to generate positive economic spinoffs for a wide range of industries and service providers while serving to promote the use of Jean-Lesage International Airport and strengthen the air links we need to assume our place in the global economy.

In conclusion, on a number of occasions, the Quebec Urban Community has made its opinion known to the Government of Canada on amendments to liberalize Criminal Code provisions governing shipboard casinos.

Please allow me to draw your attention to motion C-94-231 passed on June 21, 1994 at a meeting of the Quebec Urban Community Council and expressing support for SODES in its efforts to have such an amendment passed, as well as to a letter dated November 20, 1995, and addressed to the Honourable Allan Rock, then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and to a letter dated August 14, 1996, and addressed to the Honourable Stéphane Dion, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, outlining our support for the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code.

I sincerely hope that this opportunity to express in person our unreserved support for the amendment will be decisive. Your gesture will allow the Government of Canada to support the Quebec City area in its efforts to capitalize on the cruise industry to expand not only its port, but its entire economy.

On behalf of the Quebec Urban Community's regional partners -- the Greater Quebec Area Tourism and Convention Bureau, the Board of Trade and Industry of Metropolitan Quebec, the Port of Quebec, Jean-Lesage International Airport, and many others -- I would like to thank you for your kind attention.

[English]

Madam Chair, I should like to conclude my remarks in the language of Shakespeare.

On a number of occasions, the Quebec urban community has made its opinion known to the Government of Canada on amendments to liberalize Criminal Code provisions governing shipboard casinos.

Please allow me to draw your attention to motion C-94-231 passed on June 21, 1994 at a meeting of the Quebec Urban Community Council, expressing support for SODES in its efforts to have such an amendment passed, as well as to a letter dated November 20, 1995 addressed to the Honourable Allan Rock, then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and to a letter dated August 14, 1996 addressed to the Honourable Stéphane Dion, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, outlining our support for an amendment to the Criminal Code.

Mr. Gagnon will make some remarks on the situation.

[Translation]

He will present the position of SODES to you, following which we will be happy to answer your questions.

Mr. Marc Gagnon, Director General, St. Lawrence Economic Development Council: On behalf of the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, or SODES, I would like to speak to the committee at this time about section 7 of Bill C-51 respecting amendments to the Criminal Code. Speaking on behalf of its members, SODES fully supports the proposed amendment and I appreciate this opportunity to outline the reasons why.

SODES is a non-profit, apolitical and bilingual organization representing the St. Lawrence shipping community. Our members come from all sectors of the St. Lawrence shipping industry and include port authorities, shipowners, outfitters, professionals, cruise companies, shippers, municipalities, organizations and public and parapublic agencies. Our mission is to promote the development of the St. Lawrence as a water route and as a driving force behind the country's development.

On this issue of shipboard casino operations, we have receive a mandate from the Port of Montreal and the Port of Quebec to defend this view. Furthermore, we are supported by all of our members.

In the fall of 1989, SODES gathered all stakeholders in the international cruise ship industry on the St. Lawrence in Montreal for a meeting. One fact clearly emerged, namely that the growth of the industry in Eastern Canada was hampered by two things: the climate and the ban on shipboard casino operations in Canadian waters. While we could not do anything about the climate, we did turn our attention to the second obstacle and that is the reason for our presence before the committee.

For nearly ten years now, SODES, backed by its members and in particular by the port and tourism authorities of Montreal and Quebec City, has been calling on the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec to support our economic development efforts by amending the legislation. We have urged the federal Justice Minister to amend the Criminal Code and, since the provinces are responsible for enforcing the Code's provisions, we have called on the Quebec government to adapt its laws to ensure compliance with any future amendment.

The ban has become an impediment to the growth of the cruise industry on the St. Lawrence, the reason being that in 1983, the QPP conducted a raid on the cruise ship Regina Maris. From that moment on, the cruise ship industry flagged the St. Lawrence as a destination to be avoided. We have pleaded our case to four different Justice ministers, attended numerous meetings with government officials, drafted a brief outlining the situation in detail, attended interdepartmental meetings, and so forth. I mention all of this to underscore how very pleased we were when Bill C-51 was passed by the House of Commons on November 17 last.

In our dealings with the government over this issue, we have always stressed that the desired amendment to the Criminal Code was a purely economic measure which more than likely would apply only on board foreign cruise ships, 99 per cent of which carry passengers from other countries. All of the studies carried out have shown that there is virtually no risk of criminal activities affecting Canada. The QPP considered the matter carefully and expressed its support for cruise ship casino operations.

Moreover, this initiative, which will not cost governments a penny, will put substantially more money into their coffers.

The resulting benefits to the shipping, port and tourism industry on the St. Lawrence are apparent: an increase in the number of cruise ship passengers in the region and increased economic spinoffs.

Mindful of the important issues associated with gaming in Canada, we asked the federal government to consider our request, confident that casino operations would have a positive impact on the economy and no adverse social impact on the country.

The popularity of cruising has exploded around the world, particularly in North America. Since 1970, when the cruise ship industry carried approximately 500,000 passengers, the North American cruise ship industry has grown by nearly 1,000 per cent. Between 1980 and 1998, the industry grew at an average annual rate of 8 per cent. A total of 5.4 million people took a cruise in 1998.

The Cruise Line International Association predicts that the number of passenger will hit the six million mark this year. The industry's growth potential is enormous, considering that only 11 per cent of Americans have ever taken a cruise.

It is estimated that cruising will become a $50 billion plus global industry in the next few years.

The St. Lawrence represents a key section of the Canada/New England cruise route. Ocean cruise ships ply the St-Lawrence on their seven-day trips between New York and Montreal. The Saguenay, Quebec City and Montreal are the points of interests along the St. Lawrence route.

The economic spinoffs associated with cruise ship operations on the St. Lawrence were pegged in 1993 at $10 million in terms of passenger spending and at $6 million in terms of spending by shipowners. Cruising generated an estimated $2.4 million for the Quebec government and $1.2 million for the federal government. Approximately 320 person-years were created.

It should be noted that we are talking here about the direct injection of foreign currency into the national economy, since virtually all ocean cruise ship passengers on this route are foreign tourists. This is not money that would otherwise have been injected into the country's economy, but something akin to export revenues. The jobs that have been created must be viewed as basic jobs.

We anticipate that this Criminal Code amendment respecting shipboard casino operations will generate anywhere from $65 million to $215 million in revenues for the local economy. Of course, this is only an estimate. One thing is certain, actual revenues will fall somewhere within this range.

I want to emphasize that these estimates apply only to the St. Lawrence route. Since virtually all ports of call in the Atlantic provinces are on the route, we also need to factor into the equation the economic benefits that will flow to the Maritime provinces and to Newfoundland.

I would also like to mention that further to our talks with the Justice Department and to our direct intervention, the Government of Quebec formally expressed its support for our position on this matter.

Moreover, in 1996, the Quebec government passed Bill-129 amending the Act respecting Lotteries, Racing, Publicity Contests and Amusement Machines as it pertains to international cruise ships. The purpose of the legislation was to bring provincial laws in line with any future Criminal Code amendment. It will come into force when the amendment provided for in this bill takes effect.

It would also appear that the Government of Quebec will henceforth unofficially allow casino operations on international cruise ships from Anticosti Island to the mouth of the Saguenay, just like British Columbia which, for several years now, has been allowing gaming on cruise ships to commence as soon as the vessel pull outs of Vancouver.

The development of international cruise ship operations on the St. Lawrence is closely tied to the development of the Maritime provinces. The primary northeastern North American cruise route, known as the Canada-New England route, links Montreal and New York, with Charlottetown, Sidney, Corner Brook, Halifax and Saint John serving as ports of call. An increase in cruise operations on the St. Lawrence will directly impact the ports and cities in Atlantic Canada.

Furthermore, the passage of the bill will help British Columbia make its industry practices official. The international cruise ship industry has a tremendous economic impact on this province. Vancouver welcomed nearly 900,000 passengers last year and over $200 million in spinoffs were generated. By comparison, 43,000 passenger called at Quebec City, and 35,000 at Montreal.

The St. Lawrence shipping community, on behalf of whom we are here today, wholeheartedly supports the Criminal Code amendment contained in the draft legislation before the committee. The ports of Montreal and Quebec are sufficiently concerned about the current situation to have asked us to give it priority consideration. Our mission is simple: to remove this impediment to the growth of the international cruise ship industry on the St. Lawrence, an impediment identified by the cruise lines themselves.

SODES also has the support of St. Lawrence international cruises committee which has a mandate to foster cooperation between stakeholders with a view to actively promoting cruise ship operations on this waterway. The committee is composed of representatives of the following bodies: the Port of Quebec, the Port of Montreal, Economic Development Canada, Tourism Quebec, the Greater Montreal Tourism and Convention Bureau, the Greater Quebec Tourism and Convention Bureau, Aéroports de Montréal and the Société des casinos du Québec.

Finally, SODES is supported in its efforts by the Government of Quebec, in particular by Tourism Quebec, but equally by the departments of transport, finance, revenue and public security, and by the Quebec Urban Community and the Montreal Urban Community.

In conclusion, we would again like to express our support for this bill and to thank you for your attention. We hope that the standing committee will present a report recommending that the Criminal Code be amended to allow shipboard casino operations. Such a move will have a positive economic impact on the development of the St. Lawrence and of other port and tourist communities in Canada.

Senator Beaudoin: First of all, I would like to thank you for your extremely clear presentation. From an economic standpoint, you have unquestionably made a strong case for amending the legislation. I assume the study you referred to was conducted in a scientific way, according to certain principles. I am interested in the connection with the Criminal Code. Did you say there was no danger that the proposed change would result in an increase in crime in communities along the St. Lawrence? Is that your position, namely that crime will not increase and that tourism will benefit?

Mr. Mercier: That is exactly what we are saying. Crime will not increase, either on the St. Lawrence or in shoreline communities.

Remember, the QPP has intervened in the past to halt activities of this nature on board certain ships on the St. Lawrence because they were illegal. The law had to be enforced everywhere in Canada, including Quebec. The QPP conducted a raid on the ship mentioned by Mr. Gagnon earlier. Until now, cruise ships on the St. Lawrence have operated within the strict letter of the law, and I would hope the same is true of cruise ships operating in other parts of the country.

Mr. Gagnon: Having been involved in this issue for the past decade, I can tell you that we did consult with law enforcement officials and, while we may have been given the green light by the Quebec Department of Public Security, the latter's approval was not given right away because officials saw casinos as a source of criminal activity.

The RCMP was consulted at the time, as were customs officials and port authorities. All felt that the public on shore would not be affected by casino operations, since these activities were confined to the ships and involved foreign passengers. There are no cruise ships under Canadian registry, with the exception of an outfit in Kingston.

Senator Beaudoin: I have no intention of reopening the debate on casinos. That is quite another matter. The Criminal Code was amended and casinos can now operate legally in Canada. However, before we authorize shipboard casino operations, we need to address one of my concerns, namely the attendant risk of social unrest. The purpose of the Criminal Code is to ensure some order in our society. If the authorities have no objections, if all aspects of this issues have been considered and if there is no increased risk of crime, then this must be an acceptable proposition.

I can also appreciate that this will benefit tourism. For foreign cruise ships travelling up the St. Lawrence or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, this is certainly an important consideration from an economic standpoint, but not the only one. The other issue is crime. If the evidence is clear that this activity poses no increased risk of criminal activity, then I will certainly not oppose it.

Mr. Mercier: Quite right. I do not think that there will be any problems, given the studies done by various law enforcement organizations. New money will be injected into our economy. Most passengers are American or foreign tourists, which means that we are not talking about redirecting funds already in our economy. This is new money. An increase in the number of cruise ships in the St. Lawrence has some very interesting economic possibilities.

Senator Beaudoin: You piqued my curiosity when you said that there were no cruise ships under Canadian registry. I am surprised. Why is that?

Mr. Gagnon: Canada has a protectionist law on the books, the Coasting Trade Act, pursuant to which a ship must have been built in Canada and operate with a Canadian crew in order to fly a Canadian flag.

Experience has shown that it is impossible to operate a cruise ship at a profit for several months of the year because of the climate. Because of this protectionist law, there are no ships under Canadian registry given that for six months of the year, they could not be in service because of the climate. We cannot import a foreign vessel as this would be a complex and costly undertaking.

Senator Beaudoin: Are you telling me that laws must take geography into account?

Mr. Gagnon: Exactly.

[English]

Senator Bryden: You indicated that Quebec City is becoming a cruise ship stop as opposed to Montreal. Is that correct?

Mr. Mercier: Yes, depending on the size of the ships. Presently, Quebec is an interesting destination. Most of the ships entering the St. Lawrence do so at the beginning of autumn -- that is, starting in September. At other times of the summer they are elsewhere, for example, in the Caribbean, where the weather is rather nice. However, in the fall, when one may encounter the stormy season in the Caribbean, or elsewhere, they prefer to enter the St. Lawrence, and they go, in particular, to Quebec. In some cases, of course, ships also dock at Montreal.

If any of you have had the opportunity to go on a cruise on the St. Lawrence, you know that it is something special to see. Quebec is not an exception, in that Montreal is different. Both have their attractions. That is what we are saying here.

Senator Bryden: This is determined largely because the cruise ships are getting larger and the large ones cannot get into Montreal; is that not correct?

Mr. Gagnon: There are four ships that, because of their size, will not be able to go to Montreal in 1999. In Trois Rivières, there is a bridge that they cannot pass under. For example, the Queen Elizabeth II cannot get to Montreal. The industry is continually building larger ships, and some of them simply cannot go to Montreal.

As Mr. Mercier said, Quebec City is the attraction in the New York-to-Montreal route.

Senator Bryden: Is Quebec a destination on the fall cruise because of the fall colours?

Mr. Gagnon: That is partly the case. However, in the summer, most of the ships travel to Europe and the Mediterranean. In the winter, they travel to the Caribbean. At other times, they must go somewhere else.

Senator Bryden: If it was just the fall colours that they wanted to see, I thought I would suggest that they would be better to stay in Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Mercier: Upon entry to Quebec City, they see the Château Frontenac and can imagine that it is someone's castle.

Senator Bryden: I wish to address the suggestion that revenues will be increased by allowing casinos on cruise ships to operate within reasonable proximity of the port. Those revenues that are generated for the area -- the region and the province, that is -- are as a result of activities once the ship docks. That is to say, there is no gain in revenues to the region or to the province from the proceeds of the casinos on the ships; is that correct?

Mr. Gagnon: That is correct.

Senator Bryden: It is my understanding that, if licensed by the province, casinos can be operated in Quebec without violating the Criminal Code.

Mr. Gagnon: Yes, if they are operated by the province. However, the Province of Quebec does not license other companies or individuals to operate casinos. That is the problem in Quebec -- namely, that they do not do this.

Senator Bryden: They could, however?

Mr. Gagnon: I suppose they could. They could not operate casinos on cruise ships, however. That is the problem.

Mr. Mercier: Up to now, Quebec has been restrictive as to where they would permit casinos to operate. I do not think they will permit them on ships, because they would then come in direct competition with their own local casinos, which are strategically situated. I do not think the government would agree with that solution even in the future.

Mr. Gagnon: That is why we did not ask for any ship -- for instance, tour boats -- to be permitted to have a casino on board. We knew that the Government of Quebec would not allow competition to these casinos from those tour boats. However, this is an entirely different situation where these casinos are for foreign tourists entering Canada.

Senator Bryden: Has any social-impact analysis been done by any level of government or by any association that would indicate whether these amendments pertaining to gambling on cruise ships would have any adverse effect on the promotion of increased gambling?

Mr. Gagnon: Studies have been conducted in the United States, where they have casino boats on the Mississippi, but again that is a different situation. Those studies have indicated that there may be some social impact. However, having casinos on board the cruise kinds of ships, as we do in Canada, is more in the nature of a service that is provided on the ship, such as the swimming pool, the restaurant, the bar or some shops.

The people who buy tickets to go on a cruise may want to go to the casino, but that is not their prime destination. They may go to the casino one night and the next night they will see a show. These are not casino ships. Therefore, there is no impact. The people on these cruises are mostly middle-aged Americans who go on cruises for the scenery, not for the casinos. There would be little social impact for them or for the Canadian public. It is much too expensive to go there only to play.

Senator Bryden: In reading the amendments, it is my understanding that they prohibit the ship from boarding Canadians in Montreal and cruising them to Quebec. With the amendments, that is restricted.

Mr. Gagnon: Yes. That is restricted not only by the amendments, but also by the cabotage law. They cannot do that. They must go to another port.

The Chairman: Yes, but they could board people in Halifax, for instance, and stop at St. Pierre and Miquelon on the way and then enter Quebec.

Senator Bryden: That is a route that I had not thought about.

Mr. Mercier: The chairman has found a way around it.

Senator Bryden: My point is that the money that would be spent in casinos located on board cruise ships -- that is, if it is prohibited that it be spent within the St. Lawrence waterway -- would probably be spent once the ship had set sail anyway.

We are not talking about coming into the St. Lawrence to pick up new customers and, therefore, create business particularly as it relates to Canadians.

Mr. Gagnon: You are right. The shipowners find the law bothersome, first, because they lose revenues. Second, this is a service that is usually provided to the customers and they are not able to do this in the St. Lawrence. Right now, the casino shuts down around Anticosti Island. They cannot operate in the Gulf, and that covers about one-third of the route of the voyage. That is a long time to close down one of the services on the ship.

Senator Bryden: This may not surprise you, but at one time, if you were travelling on an aircraft in Canada, the bar was open depending on the air space being crossed and depending on the time of day. It seems as though I am always picking on Ontario, but as an example, if you were over Ontario and "Toronto the Good," the bar was closed; if you were over Quebec, the bar stayed open until two o'clock in the morning.

I take it that the cruise ships are trying to provide a complete package of services. If one of those services is shut down for a substantial time, it results in customer dissatisfaction. Customer service suffers.

[Translation]

Senator Fraser: Until now, cruises have not been advertised as casino cruises. Gambling has been advertised as an additional feature. With these legislative changes, do you think there is any danger that we will see real casino cruises targeting gamblers with the promise of round-the-clock gambling with stops at the casinos in Pointe-au-Pic and Montreal? Do you see any chance of this creating a new industry with its attendant social problems?

Mr. Gagnon: The Quebec Department of Public Security was concerned that companies might start building ships like this. We have demonstrated beyond any doubt that this would be impossible Two factors come into play: firstly, there is no viable domestic cruise ship industry in Canada; and secondly, Canada has protectionist laws on the books.

Canada has adopted protectionist laws precisely because protectionist provisions were removed from NAFTA, at the US' insistence. The situation is not likely to change for the next 50 years. Therefore, we do not see any chance whatsoever of a viable domestic cruise ship industry emerging.

Senator Fraser: Do any American cruise lines operate here?

Mr. Gagnon: There may be some gamblers who go on cruises, but considering the proliferation of casinos in North America, it certainly is not necessary to spend between $500 and $1,000 a day per person to climb aboard a cruise ship for the sole purpose of gambling. We are talking here about luxury cruise ships. One of the problems we are having on the St. Lawrence is finding ways of attracting other categories of ships to the area to extend the season. Unfortunately, our efforts have not proven successful. That is the way the industry is structured.

We checked to see if there was some other way to reassure the department, but we know that running these types of cruises would be too costly, given the accessibility of the casinos in Montreal, Windsor, Hull, Charlevoix and elsewhere.

Senator Pépin: Are you satisfied with the proposed amendment?

Mr. Gagnon: Yes, very satisfied. As Mr. Mercier pointed out, it would mean an injection of foreign currency into the economy. Our goal is to develop our ports so that port communities can reap the associated benefits. Consider Vancouver, which has enjoyed spinoffs of $200 million, or even Halifax, which is expecting over 100,000 cruise ship passengers to visit this year. It is well worth it.

[English]

Senator Wilson: I understand that, on the understanding that exemptions contribute to the public good, in 1959 the Criminal Code was amended to permit exemptions. I wonder how you would define the "public good" in this instance.

As well, I understand that the "law of the sea" is the legal code governing the conduct of ships on the open seas and not the legislation of any country. What is the enforceability and the policing of these conditions?

Mr. Gagnon: When a ship enters Canadian waters, it is under the jurisdiction of Canadian justice or law.

Senator Wilson: What if that contravenes the law of the sea?

Mr. Gagnon: It does not, because when a ship enters, say, Canadian waters, it falls under Canadian jurisdiction, and so on.

As for the public good, that question arose, when we first spoke to the federal and provincial governments, in an effort to determine if they could derive some benefit from this. We demonstrated that it was impossible except by having those very positive economic impacts for the tourist industry and for the port industry. Therefore, the clear profits that the shipping lines will make on the casinos will stay in private hands. This is an international industry and, as such, we could not see how the provinces could receive a part of the profits from, say, a shipowner coming through the St. Lawrence or coming into Canada. That is not feasible.

There will be some increase in this activity in Canada and we feel that that will be enough for governments and will benefit the economy in general, without having any negative impacts.

Senator Wilson: You are evaluating it solely on economic grounds?

Mr. Gagnon: That is right.

Mr. Mercier: This modification will permit an increase in the number of cruises on the St. Lawrence; hence, people coming into these ports, whether it is Montreal or Quebec, will go into the local stores. That economic impact is very important. It can keep people in jobs or get people into new jobs.

Senator Wilson: I was interested in your response to an earlier question on whether there have been any social impact studies done, and your response was no.

Mr. Gagnon: That is right. It is not our goal to determine whether there is any impact on foreigners. This is an industry where 99 per cent of the customers are foreign; 95 per cent are Americans, mostly from the Midwest.

Senator Wilson: Your colleague was just outlining the wonderful benefits to Canadians.

Mr. Gagnon: That benefit comes in the form of related jobs.

Senator Wilson: There must be some social impact when there is interchange. I am nervous about launching into this without any clear picture of what is happening in other areas and what is happening in Canada, as well as what could happen in Canada.

Mr. Gagnon: When I think about social impacts, I think about the impacts of gaming.

From the beginning of this file, we have said that this is not a gaming issue but an economic issue. It does not happen here in Canada. It does happen in Canadian waters, but there is no impact on Canadians.The police also say that. When we asked them about their position on this, they did not agree at first; however, after studying it, they agreed that, because there is no chance of developing a Canadian industry, there is no chance of it impacting Canadian citizens.

The Chairman: Senator Wilson, I believe your questions are probably more aimed at clause 6, which is introducing dice games.

Senator Wilson: I am aware of that.

The Chairman: This is mainly gambling on-board a ship registered in another country. It is trying to encourage tourist dollars from that ship into Canadian ports, although it is not actually bringing the gambling into Canadian ports.

Senator Wilson: With all due respect, I want to check this out, because I do not believe that, if a cruise ship comes into Canadian waters and there is interchange with Canadians, there will not be any impact. There must be.

The Chairman: I was confused about some of the numbers you mentioned. You were talking about $2.4 million to the province of Quebec, $1.2 million to the federal government, and then you spoke about $65 million in tourist dollars in the St. Lawrence alone, and then later $200 million. Perhaps you could explain that again, in case I misunderstood.

Mr. Gagnon: We think the economic impact will be $215 million over ten years. I could leave with the clerk a study we did on that. It was done in 1994, so these are 1993 figures, but I have no indication that it has changed.

The Chairman: It would be in the same range.

[Translation]

Senator Beaudoin: If we were ever to see floating casinos like this, then we would probably need to amend our laws. You would not likely achieve your stated objective. I support tourism and I agree that we should exchange our goods and services with the Americans and the Mexicans. However, at some point, our policies respecting casino gambling come into play. We have already debated this issue. Casinos are allowed to operate, provided they meet certain conditions. I can live with that. If ever it became difficult to adhere to this philosophy, then we could always amend our legislation. Most likely if this ever happened, you would have to come before the committee again.

Mr. Mercier: We will have to cross that bridge if and when we come to it. However, if cruise lines had viewed this as an interesting opportunity, then there would likely already be many other floating casinos around the world right now, but I do not believe that is the case.

Senator Beaudoin: One never knows. Some problems have arisen in the field of sports, for example. Canadian culture remains in our hands. I do not think this amendment poses a threat to it. If ever these ships were converted into floating casinos, then the tourism objectives would not be fulfilled. I would be more reluctant if that were the case. All the better if this initiative benefits the economy and the tourism industry in the maritime provinces and in Quebec and, for that matter, across Canada.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate you attending to speak to us today.

When people speak about cruise ships, they talk about gambling, shops, and swimming pools. They never talk about libraries. I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Wilson's point of view.

Our next witness is from the United Church of Canada, Dr. Bonnie Greene. Welcome, Dr. Greene. Please proceed with your opening statement.

Dr. Bonnie Greene, Director of Church and Society, United Church of Canada: Honourable senators, I am here on behalf of the General Council of the United Church of Canada, for whom I work. I was also the principal author of a major study on gambling expansion in Canada which was completed by the church just last year.

I want to speak only to those clauses of Bill C-51 that will legalize two more forms of gambling, dice and cruise ship gambling. The minister has said that these are small measures that will not expand gambling appreciably. We must disagree because of where they sit in the spectrum of gambling expansion over the last 15 years in Canada.

We would urge you to strike these two clauses altogether, and to give notice that you will not consider amendments of this nature until such time as there has been an independent and public federal review that would look at the social, economic, and legal aspects of gambling and charitable gaming in Canada.

As you know, the Criminal Code treats gambling as inherently criminal in nature. It also prohibits private sector gambling, or for-profit gambling. The current boom in gambling in Canada has been possible because of exemptions in the Criminal Code that have come before committees like yours in the past. The Criminal Code makes some gambling legal on a limited basis if it serves the public good. The code does not spell out what would serve the public good but, by defining who can legally sponsor it, it makes certain assumptions. That is, charities and governments can sponsor certain kinds of limited gambling.

Normally, the regulation of gambling would fall to the federal government and regulation of commercial interests would fall to the provinces. Therefore, the Canadian public could depend on the federal government as the keeper of the flame for the well-being of the people.

However, in 1985 the provinces and the federal government reached an agreement that the provinces would take over the regulation of gambling. In return, the federal government would get a small share of the proceeds -- in the order of $49 million a few years ago.

These changes appeared minor at the time. However, the result of them is that both regulation and commercial matters have been left almost entirely to the provinces. This has created a serious conflict of interest because both the regulation of gambling and the interpretation of the exemptions in the Criminal Code rest with the provinces whose growing dependence on gambling-generated revenue has been the subject of much controversy in the last few years. This has gone so far in both British Columbia and Ontario that the provinces have overridden the decisions of democratically elected municipal councils in recent months to allow the expansion of the number of slot machines in order to meet the revenue needs of the provinces.

There has been no demonstration that these expansion plans will serve the public good. They would have been justified on the basis of their commercial benefit.

The boom in gambling in the last decade is the result of very aggressive interpretations of the existing exemptions in the Criminal Code and the entry of a third party into gambling in Canada; that is, the for-profit, private sector gambling entrepreneurs, most of the big ones being foreign owned, primarily from the U.K. or the United States.

There are many results. Those most relevant to the work of this committee are as follows: First, commercial interests have eclipsed regulatory interests in those provinces that are aggressively pursuing gambling as an economic development lever. Second, provincial governments and charities have been used as a blind behind which commercial gambling companies have gained a foothold in Canada, despite the Criminal Code. Third, a substantial part of the money generated for the public good is now diverted to private interests, some of them outside of the country, before it finds its way to the public good through the social spending of provinces and charities.

We are not talking about tiny business ventures or the old-fashioned mom and pop gambling of my childhood. Thanks to an industrial revolution in gambling, and one that is yet to come, the scale of which we know hardly anything about, and to very modest changes in the law, gambling is one of the largest sectors of our economy and one of the fastest growing. Between 1992 and 1996, that part of the Canadian economy grew by 64 per cent. Some provincial governments believe that the growth should be greater. For example, Ontario has announced its plans to expand the number of slot machines from the current 1,800 to 20,000 in 2001.

As a result, provincial governments have contradictory roles. They are regulators, gambling entrepreneurs, promoters and beneficiaries. It is this new relationship between the provincial government and the citizens that moved Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul to say in Canadian FundRaiser:

...I consider state gambling one of the most important philosophical questions of our day. If your governments are actively involved in attempting to corrupt you, you have a central philosophical problem -- that is, if you believe you are living in a democracy... I am not making a purist or ideological statement. I am talking about a particular problem: the state as the organiser of, and profiteer from, gambling: the state funding the public good by corrupting the citizen...

The federal government is responsible to ensure that the public good is served and that there is compliance with the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, at the moment, the federal government does not have the tools to fulfil this responsibility. At present, decisions to open a new gambling operation or to expand an existing one must be justified on the basis of business plans presented by the operators. Some municipalities, sensitive to what citizens think, have tried to do social, economic and legal impact assessments as part of their decision-making process. That is a responsible thing to do. However, that has been extremely difficult. First, there are no requirements that such studies be available to elected officials in the decision-making process. Second, there are no standards for assessing gambling and charitable gaming proposals, including their economic, legal and social impact. Third, we do not even have common standards or formats for financial reporting and public disclosure for the industry, nor do we have common standards for oversight of the industry.

Therefore, citizens across the country have had to stand by as municipal counsellors have been pressured into decisions based on the unsubstantiated claims of gambling operators and provincial politicians. That is why the churches of this country called on the Minister of Justice for an independent public federal inquiry and a moratorium on gambling expansion until such time as the inquiry had completed its work. The model that we had in mind was the National Gambling Impact Study Commission established by the U.S. government in June of 1996. That commission will report in June of this year. The minister has, so far, said that this is not necessary. We disagree.

This committee is not dealing with two small amendments which will do little to increase gambling in Canada; you are taking two more steps down a path that has already altered the fundamental relationship between citizens and their governments in this country.

The Honourable Herb Gray announced last year that he would be seeking legislation to allow dice games so that the Windsor casino could compete with the new casinos in Detroit. At the same time as he made that announcement, the spokesman for Casino Windsor reported that his casino might need to seek approval for poker and Keno in order to stay competitive. You should wait for those amendments to come forward. This bill is not the end of so-called "small measures" that will be presented to you.

The issue before this committee is not whether the people of Canada need dice games and cruise ships to enhance their leisure hours; it is whether Canadians can rely on the federal government to back them up with respect to the protection of the public good where a conflict of interest has been created at the provincial level.

We urge this committee to strike these two amendments from Bill C-51 and to give notice to the government that you will refuse to consider amendments of this nature until such time as an independent and public federal inquiry has been conducted and the recommendations acted upon.

Senator Beaudoin: I am not clear about your objective. On one hand, we know that criminal law is entirely federal, so we may do what we wish in the criminal sphere. You say that the provinces have a conflict of interest between the economic gains that they are making and the regulations that they are allowed to make in the area of gambling. However, the fact is that Ottawa alone may legislate in the area of criminal law. Ottawa alone may amend the Criminal Code. The provinces cannot do that.

If you are right, it means that here at the federal level we should adopt legislation that would restrict gambling in Canada. That is one objective which I certainly respect. In my opinion, it is a question of balance.

This being said, some provinces may gain more while others may gain less. The fact is that the criminal law is, essentially, uniform throughout Canada.

The basic question is whether gambling is good or bad, and we could discuss that for many months. The fact is that Bill C-51 would amend the Criminal Code, and you say that those amendments would be bad because, in two certain areas, the provinces would take advantage of that. To me, legislation is either good or bad, irrespective of what the provinces do. They have no say in the Criminal Code.

My question is: What exactly do you want? Do you want us to vote against two clauses of the bill? I would like to know more because your objection seems to be fundamental.

Ms Greene: To amend the Criminal Code and completely wipe out gambling is not the purpose of this bill. Thus, we chose to speak only to the two amendments which cause us particular concern.

The position of my church is that there should be no expansion. There should be a roll-back of certain forms of gambling, in particular modern, electronic gambling because of its exploitative character and because of the impact it has on the economy, local communities, individuals and on human and social development.

We are not saying that the Criminal Code itself is the problem. I do not consider myself an expert in the Criminal Code. Having no guidelines as to how the provinces are to report on and carry out their oversight under the Criminal Code means that abuses are going on right now because of the temptation of the enormous revenues that will come to provinces. These are offers which are hard to refuse.

At the moment, the provinces find themselves in a hard place. They are lacking any kind of guidelines on how the public interest will be served by the limited gambling in which they engage at the provincial level. There is no way to measure this. All we have is the experience of our own members and others who are affected by the problem. I refer to people in Vancouver who are angry at having their decision overturned by the province, as well as those people who get into difficulty and turn to our clergy for counselling.

In one case, people in the Province of Saskatchewan were so concerned about farmers selling sections of their land to pay their gambling debts that they asked the province to give up this source of revenue generation. The province told them that they needed the money too much, and they would not give it up. They did not heed the human costs.

Provinces will always be tempted to go farther and farther because revenue needs will be greater and greater.

Senator Beaudoin: Although the Criminal Code is a federal responsibility, the provinces deal with the administration of justice. However, they benefit from the regulations. Thus, they are caught between the administration of justice and the benefits from the system. That is part of life. It is something which we must measure and balance. Since the administration of justice is provincial, some provinces may be going too far while others are not. Should we change the criminal law for that reason?

Ms Greene: That is not what I am asking you to do. The province has asked you to expand the exemptions in the Criminal Code. I am saying, please do not do that. You cannot at this point demonstrate in any way that the existing implementation of the Criminal Code benefits the public good. You do not have the tools to do that. Therefore, it would be foolhardy to expand it further without having some evidence to substantiate that it does. That is the reason the Americans set up a commission.

Senator Beaudoin: You are asking us to say "no" to the provinces because they already have too much.

Ms Greene: Yes, and because they are asking for more while there is no way to demonstrate that what they are doing benefits the public. The Americans set up their commission because they, too, did not know if it was in the public interest.

Senator Pearson: It is rare that we have someone appear before us who is so knowledgeable about an issue. I am interested in hearing about the American situation which you say will be reported in June. Will that be a major study?

Ms Greene: Yes. I will leave a copy of the charter they have created for their national gambling impact study commission. They are to consider government policies and practices regarding legalizing and prohibiting gambling, as well as the cost benefits and so on. They must look beyond the win-win situation of an entrepreneur who presents a business plan.

Senator Pearson: In the work that you have done, to what extent are you finding young people taken up into this area?

Ms Greene: A number of Canadian studies indicate a higher prevalence of gambling among younger people. Certain native organizations, especially in the Province of Alberta, have discovered that a much higher level -- in the order of 10 per cent to 15 per cent -- of young aboriginal people are subject to pathological gambling difficulties.

It is a problem for the young. That is, in part, because electronic gambling is a mechanism that most of us who have arthritis in our thumbs are not good at it. Kids are really good at it. They are accustomed to playing video games. It is a game for the youth. Certain games train children to gamble before it is legal for them to gamble.

Senator Pearson: When is it legal for them to gamble?

Ms Greene: I would assume at the age of 18. I visited a town in northern Ontario and discovered that one of the entertainment events in that town was to turn the mall on Saturday nights over to high school kids for not-for-profit game playing. They get chips to play the games, and they learn how to gamble like adults. There is also a dance at which food is served. The entrepreneurs who were carrying this out in the mall said it was the biggest event in town. They admit that their job is to raise the next generation of gamblers. In my view, that is parasitical.

Senator Pearson: Will the Americans be looking at the impact of gambling on youth?

Ms Greene: Yes. That question has been a driving force for them.

Senator Bryden: Your last comment reminds me of another situation when representatives of the tobacco industry appeared before us. They claimed that their advertising had nothing to do with attracting teenagers to smoke. In fact, they said they did not want teenagers to smoke. They said that they would prefer that no teenager ever starts to smoke. When I asked them where their future customers would come from, they told me that they did not know the answer to that.

I completely understand your view. You are saying that, by not passing these amendments, we will not change the world. It is a little like the boy putting his finger in the dike -- perhaps he can stop the flow of water for a while.

This is a most difficult situation for us. There is a major question which should have been investigated before our society got into using a human weakness as a means of raising money. We are used to the fact that, at most levels, governments raise significant amounts of money in what are loosely termed "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco. The latest sin tax, which they have referred to as a voluntary sin tax, comes from gambling.

We have had a history in North America of trying to prohibit these "sins." In the case of alcohol, it was by actually passing a Criminal Code amendment that made it a criminal offence to produce and consume alcohol in Canada. In the case of tobacco, the attempt at prohibition was by pricing tobacco to the point where it was hoped that not many teenagers could afford it. However, that simply led to the creation of a new sin of smuggling, which allowed many people to get very rich.

It is probably not the case that at this stage we will be able to roll back completely the latest sin that government can tax, which is gambling. However, I support your position in trying to have a careful assessment of all of the implications of this. You alluded to what is happening now as being the tip of the iceberg. Were you referring to the fact that some gambling will soon be readily available on line?

Ms Greene: It already is.

Senator Bryden: How do you see that affecting our ability to monitor and control it?

Ms Greene: I do not think that we have answers at the moment about how we will be able to control the Internet. It does mean that you can have a casino in virtually every single home in the country, for anyone who is wired. I am sure we will eventually get software programs that will help parents screen gambling out so that their children will not be able to bankrupt the household simply by getting into some casino in Australia, for instance, which is extremely easy to do.

As to you question of whether this is the latest sin tax, yes, absolutely, it is. There are many suggestions as to how to limit the capacity of for-profit gambling to take over the entire field, and how to limit the damage on individuals.

Cross addiction is a major problem. It is quite common for alcoholics to also be gambling addicts. There are some localities that refuse to allow the serving of drinks in places where people are gambling, as one way to try to reduce the impact on the family. Quite a sophisticated piece of work has been done on that, and we have a number of researchers in Canada working on it as well.

What we lack at the moment is any serious study in Canada of how to do a socio-economic-impact assessment of this particular type of proposal for economic development in a community. The reality is that most of the people who are offering gambling as an economic development lever are not going to towns where we have alternative employment. They are going to towns where there is not a lot of hope of anything else. Northern Ontario is riddled with proposals for gambling to save little towns. It is true in many parts of the country, and it is a very serious problem.

You need to know what kind of human development this particular economic enterprise promotes. We would ask that question if we were taking a development project into a Third World country. We would look at the nature of the development and look at its track record. We would want to determine if this will actually enhance human skills, whether it will bring more money into the community, and the conditions required in order for that to happen. However, we do not ask those questions in Canada and we have not had a critical mass of study in this country that would allow small municipalities to draw on the experiences of other economically similar centres in Canada. So far, all we have are American studies. In my opinion, it is quite proper for a municipality to say, "Our conditions are not necessarily like theirs. We need the studies." That is why we have come to you to ask you to keep your resistance up. We are going to lobby for the studies to be done on the other side. I know that is not necessarily your responsibility.

Senator Bryden: We have another issue that we need to address, and that is the issue of fairness. We are presented here with very limited circumstances in these two amendments.

One circumstance, in relation to the cruise ships, is that gambling is going to go on on those cruise ships. The issue in front of us is that the restrictions in our Criminal Code allegedly prevent a number of those cruise ships from coming into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and into Quebec and that that, therefore, puts Quebec at a disadvantage in the cruise ship industry. At this stage in the development of this world-wide casino industry, the question is why should our law discriminate against that port of call, with its particular economic situation, when, in fact, it probably is not going to save anyone from gambling, because they are going to gamble anyway?

The other circumstance has to do with the competitive situation, as I understand it, across the borders.

In one sense, we are being asked to call a stop, to put our finger in the dike. However, there is the other sense of trying to deal with this as an economic, competitive situation.

I just wanted to mention that as showing the other side of the coin, but I do have a question. The exemptions in the Criminal Code are based on exemptions being provided where the proceeds of gambling or gaming would be for the public good. Does it concern the churches that the initial exemptions in many instances were made to benefit the good works of the churches? Perhaps I can use a really bad analogy. While at this stage we are being asked to put our finger in the dike, to stop the trickle of the flow, the churches -- and others but primarily the churches -- may be regarded as having initially turned the tap on a long time ago.

Ms Greene: Let me take that one first. It is a good thing I am from the United Church. We did not and do not take gambling-generated money. We do not use gambling in our church to generate money ourselves. We get calls at least three or four times a week from some congregations who ask us, "What do you think if we raffle a quilt in the membership of our congregation?" That is how serious people are about this issue. When we did our study, there were 200 groups within the United Church scattered across the country concerned about the well-being of their community. That is how we got our data.

We fought the amendments to the Criminal Code in the first place. It is just that you were not all here and neither was I. The Catholic Church, of course, did depend on bingo, because this was one way to raise money from very poor people for very poor parishes.

Senator Bryden: Is that not what is happening now with the casinos? They are a way to raise money from very poor people, such as those in New Brunswick, for very poor provinces.

Ms Greene: Except that what we have done is to allow major, for-profit, transnational corporations to become the silent partners in the joint ventures. It is a very different ballgame. We have churches throughout all of Asia who have been gathering information for some years now on the devastating effect of the international gambling corporations coming in and doing joint ventures for tourism in poor little countries, in places like Goa. They call it factory trawling. They simply come in, suck up the money and go somewhere else. That is a very different thing from the local Catholic church running a bingo.

Senator Bryden: It is a difference in degree. I do not know if it is a difference in kind.

Ms Greene: I agree. In fact, I would never have gone to the bingo myself, but the reality is that we have now had a revolution in gambling that has made it possible to move money around the world -- it is virtually stateless -- and to have the gambling take place instantaneously. It is not that you have a numbers runner take your bets from you and you hear about it in a week or two. You hear about it in two or three seconds. It is a different thing.

The Catholic Church has apologized in a number of dioceses, especially to native people, for introducing bingo. That is why the Catholic church asked for a moratorium. They asked for a study on this issue. In particular, bishops in Calgary are extremely disturbed about what has been happening in that province. They are doing a lot of work to catch up.

Senator Bryden: Our churches have much to apologize for to our communities.

Ms Greene: That is right. We all do. We try not to do any more damage.

On your point about competition, you will always have another competitive move to make. There will always be another competitor. From the studies done in the United States -- and Atlantic City is the one everyone knows about -- it is evident that, as soon as a casino is built, someone will build a nicer one. Suddenly, you lose your competitive edge. If it is gambling that you are depending upon as the economic driver for your local economy, count on having to have more and more exemptions in order to meet the next competitor who comes along. That is the nature of the game.

That is important. That is why I made the distinction between "regulatory interests" and "commercial interests." At the moment, if you make a decision based only on commercial interests or competitive interests, then the public good may go by the boards.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. I tend to agree with everything you say. However, it is somewhat of a case of trying to close the barn door long after the horse has bolted. It has been gone for years now.

Ms Greene: We did not have electronic gambling when the Criminal Code was first amended; and we did not have international consortia operating as major operators or financiers. When we first started, we had barely taken gambling out of quarantine in Nevada. We had no track record. We now have a track record. Much of the United States has refused to allow gambling. We are much farther down the road in Canada than they are because they are looking to this commission to report on the impact on our communities.

The Chairman: You said this commission will report in June. It was formed in 1996, was it not?

Ms Greene: Yes. It is not that they would agree with everything that I have said -- in fact, they would probably disagree. They heard from everyone, including the gaming association, which is perfectly fair. You must look at all sides of this question.

Senator Pearson: When we report back to the Senate, do you think it is possible to raise this issue about the study? I agree with you. I think this is a major issue. I am particularly alarmed when you start talking about the international commercial interests that have come in to Canada.

I also have a concern about what will happen on the Internet. We should be better prepared for what will happen when people start using their credit cards to the extent of their credit limit. That is a situation we should consider.

The Chairman: We can certainly include a paragraph in our report that addresses this issue. It is a problem. Farmers have lost their farms. I know of people who have shot themselves in parking lots of casinos.

Ms Greene: In our brief we mention the minister's reference to the Canada West Foundation which is doing a base-line study on problem gambling. It does not cover the whole waterfront, but that is one of the biggest studies ever undertaken in Canada. It is not an economic and social impact assessment. No funding assistance was given to that body. The funds came entirely from private sources. That is how far behind we are in actually doing serious studies in this country.

Senator Wilson: Did any municipalities or citizens have any input into this proposed amendment?

Ms Greene: Not that I know about. We requested to meet with the House committee, as did the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. We were turned down, so I was quite surprised when you asked us to appear here. We appreciate that. I sent them our material and said, "We understand that your report is almost written. We urge you, please, to circulate it to members." However, we were not allowed to testify before them.

Senator Wilson: My question goes further than that. Do you know of any mechanism whereby municipalities that are fearful of what will happen to their community have had any input?

Ms Greene: No; not that I know about.

The Province of Ontario surely would have appealed to the minister for the legalization of dice. I am positive that is how it would happen. It is possible that the town council in Windsor asked for the input of its citizens, but I do not know that.

The Chairman: Senator Wilson, that would be a good question to put to the officials when they appear before us on Wednesday. I know that the cities of Windsor and Montreal were pushing for the dice amendment.

Thank you for your presentation here this afternoon.

The committee adjourned.