Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 3 - Evidence for November 25, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 25, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-11, to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), met this day at 10:52 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. We are studying Bill S-11, to amend the Criminal Code respecting lottery schemes.
[Translation]
Our witness this morning is the Honourable Senator Jean Lapointe, the sponsor of the bill. Without further ado, we will turn the floor over to you, senator.
Senator Lapointe: I have already made several speeches in the Senate on this bill. During the last session, I appeared before this committee, before a Department of Justice law clerk and before two professors and researchers from McGill University. I would be pleased to send you a copy of these transcripts, if you wish.
I will therefore spare you the details of the studies and reports I discussed in the speeches. I will give you only their broad outlines.
After careful consideration, following many meetings and after studying the issue for slightly over two years with my advisers, we concluded that VLTs located in bars and restaurants in eight provinces are a serious problem and should be taken out of these establishments and relocated in casinos, race tracks, and related establishments such as racetrack mini-casinos, all of which are managed by the provincial governments.
Honourable senators, you will have noticed that the expression ``premises dedicated to gaming'' in the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code in Bill S-11 may lead to some confusion. When the amendment refers to a ``game,'' it is referring strictly to VLTs, which are commonly called ``vidéopokers'' in Quebec. This amendment does not affect Lottery 6/49 or scratch-and-win lotteries. Casinos existed long before I came to the Senate. I know from first-hand experience the dramatic effects VLTs can have.
I fervently hope that in the course of its work the committee will manage to focus on the fundamental idea behind this amendment rather than on the verbiage which sometimes loses sight of the main objectives. I remain open to any suggestion that could speed up the legislative process and ensure that this bill is passed as quickly as possible. In that way, the suffering will be alleviated and human lives will be saved.
We must amend the Criminal Code of Canada to put an end to this plague which too often causes countless problems for our fellow citizens, the men and women of this country.
Services that help compulsive gamblers, help lines, university experts and public health institutes all agree that VLT gambling is the type of gambling which far and away causes the highest rate of addiction.
Dr. Robert Lamoureux, a psychologist from Laval University and one of the researchers most knowledgeable about compulsive gambling, said in his presentations that 95 per cent of the people he treats for pathological gambling problems say that they play the VLTs.
[English]
Dr. David Hodgins from the University of Calgary said in a presentation before the Institute Advisory Board of the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction that there are 3 per cent problem gamblers and 2 per cent pathological gamblers in Alberta, and that 86 per cent of people seeking treatment in Alberta are VLT players.
[Translation]
The figures have increased since these studies were done. The Claude-Bilodeau Centre, which was opened in the fall of 1999 to help compulsive gamblers, mentioned that since that time, 94 per cent of its workload involved VLT users.
[English]
The gambling report written by Harold Wynne of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse states that 78 per cent of people with problems play video lottery terminals.
[Translation]
One of the main problems is accessibility — and in fact this is the major problem. It is hard to find a single street of any size in our large cities or towns throughout the country where this type of destructive device cannot be found.
Another problem is visibility. In fact, this is the crux of the whole problem. Young people go to bars to have fun with their friends and end up being attracted by VLTs. We can expect that the Nintendo generation will be the next target group that will inevitably succumb to the attraction of these VLTs. Unfortunately, I cannot help but be pessimistic when I think about the impact of video-lottery terminals on these young people.
No farther than 300 metres from schools and colleges throughout the country, you can already see the cherries and hear the bells of these machines exerting their attraction on young people. Moreover, this kind of gambling sometimes results in problem drinking among young people. It is an aberration to find these kinds of machines close to schools.
In its report published in August 2000, the Quebec Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux mentioned that in 1996, in the Quebec City area, 7.4 per cent of youth under 18 showed signs of problem gambling. It is a known fact that bars do not respect the minimum age of 18. Thirty four per cent of the young people who took part in the study answered that they had played on video lottery terminals while still minors.
[English]
In its position paper on Manitoba's gaming policy, the Manitoba Association of Social Workers reported that, of the five age categories, the youngest, from age 18 to 24, had the highest percentage — 66 per cent — of people who had played VLTs within the past year. The association's studies indicate that young people are highly susceptible to gambling devices such as VLTs.
[Translation]
The pathology of compulsive gambling has very significant social and financial repercussions on individuals, the family and society in general. Who can calculate the anguish, the number of broken homes, suicides and crimes resulting from addiction to video lottery terminals?
Let me ask the following question, honorable senators: how do we explain the fact that the great majority of these soul-destroying terminals are to be found in our most under privileged neighbourhoods?
During the broadcast of Le Point on Radio-Canada, Minister Séguin was very shaken and disturbed by my presentation on video lottery terminals — this reaction was mentioned in an article appearing in Le Droit. He was particularly surprised to find out that I was unable to track down any video lottery terminals in Westmount, in spite of all my attempts. I also visited the neighborhoods of St-Henri, Montreal West and even went as far as New Brunswick with the same result.
New Brunswick held a referendum on the subject a few years ago. I interviewed 68 people who all told me that if there were another referendum on the matter today, it would be roundly defeated.
Two specialists from McGill University, Rina Gupta and Jeffrey Derevensky, demonstrated that there are far more video lottery terminals in the downtown east end and the east of Montreal, that is the most underprivileged neighborhoods. Their study clearly shows that the poorer a neighborhood is, the greater the availability of video lottery terminals.
This problem is a heavy burden for the health care system, it keeps our courts busy and is proving to be extremely costly for taxpayers. I would like to mention some of the problems most frequently associated with compulsive gambling, a phenomenon that is created to a large extent by video lottery terminals. The figures I will be mentioning come from various sources, such as Statistics Canada, the Quebec Centre of Excellence for the Prevention and Treatment of Gambling, Léger Marketing, INRS, Health Canada, Loto-Québec, as well as the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux du Québec.
At the personal level, gambling will often result in a level of debt that leads to bankruptcy. The individual's health will be affected, with stress, depression and sometimes suicide resulting.
Honorable senators, 90 per cent of compulsive gamblers use their entire paycheque and all their family's savings to gamble and 83 per cent of them have borrowed money from their family, their friends or from the bank in order to keep on gambling.
According to Mr. Sol Boxenbaum, Manager and Operating Director of Viva Consulting Family Life Inc., an establishment which deals with various gambling-related issues, pathological gambling presents the highest suicide rate of all addictions.
Since the Quebec coroner began compiling data, 109 suicides were directly related to gambling, and at least 49 of them occurred over the past three years. They were confirmed by suicide notes left to the victims' families. Only those persons leaving notes before they commit suicide are recorded as gambling-related suicides.
Those are the coroner's statistics, but do you have any idea how many people commit suicide without leaving a note? A man threw himself off the Jacques-Cartier bridge without leaving a note. He had just been gambling and killed himself. But he did not leave a note. This is just a personal opinion, but I think it is true: most people who kill themselves over gambling don't take the time to leave a note.
In families, one of the unintended consequences may be a lack of financial resources for the basic needs of the children. And that really gets to me. You know, when Monday comes and the father has blown his whole paycheque on video poker, it is sad to see the children going to school with empty stomachs. That really upsets me. So we can see that the entire family suffers the unintended consequences of gambling.
[English]
In its resolutions of 1999 with regard to video lottery terminals, the Canadian Public Health Association stated that research has shown that the spouses of problem gamblers report higher than normal incidences of suicide attempts, nervous breakdowns and substance abuse; and that the children of problem gamblers have behaviour or adjustment problems related to school, drug or alcohol abuse, running away and arrests.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, 5 per cent of teenage problem gamblers would like to quit but say they cannot; 3.6 per cent of them are already gambling addicts.
In the workplace, the repercussions of problem gambling are reflected in a loss of productivity and absenteeism; 66 per cent of problem gamblers miss work to gamble and 37 per cent of those problem gamblers have stolen over $5,000 from their employers.
In terms of crime, the desperate problem gambler may go so far as to flirt with crime. This reportedly includes theft, fraud and resorting to pawnbrokers to finance gambling. Honourable senators, 50 per cent of problem gamblers have committed a crime in order to gamble.
By passing Bill S-11, the Government of Canada will be coming to the assistance of provinces that are running a deficit with their video lotteries, not a profit, contrary to what some provincial government representatives claim.
Honourable senators, the social cost of video lotteries is far higher than the revenue they bring in, and provincial governments have to open their eyes and get this through their heads.
Studies by experts throughout Canada and the world, like that of Dr. Neil Tudiver from Manitoba, for example, prove that the social cost of video lotteries — we are not talking about anything else, just video lotteries — is three to five times higher than the revenue they bring in.
In addition, for those who think that getting rid of video lotteries in bars, taverns and restaurants would open the way to a number of illegal organizations, let me tell you that the legalization of video lotteries did nothing to get rid of the abuse caused by loan sharking, especially at the expense of problem gamblers.
Gambling has become a ubiquitous phenomenon in our society. Problem gambling is on the rise in Canada, at an alarming rate. From sea to sea, provincial populations are dealing with such an epidemic that the federal government must take responsibility, that is very important. It is up to the federal government to take responsibility and put a stop to the tragedy afflicting too many Canadian families.
It would be ridiculous to wait for the provinces to do something about it because they are making a fortune with those rotten machines. Furthermore, it is those selfsame governments that establish their own code of conduct for dealing with the various problems caused by gambling.
Honourable senators, the time has come to act. I sincerely believe that if we deal with the accessibility and visibility of video lottery terminals, that could have a very positive effect on our society. That is why I am asking you, honourable senators, to support Bill S-11 quickly in order to save as many human lives as possible and to get rid of so much desperation, not only among problem gamblers, but also among those who are close to them.
The Chairman: Senator Lapointe, I would like to congratulate you for the efforts you have made, not just with this bill, but also by raising awareness to fight effectively against video lotteries and the problem gambling that often results.
The human, social problems resulting from what you call those ``damn machines'' are striking and clearly require us to come up with solutions. First of all, I would like you to establish a causal connection. I would like to come back to that so that you can show us clearly how likely it is that a video lottery player will develop a gambling problem, that is, become psychologically dependent on gambling. Could you tell us the exact percentage of video lottery players likely to become problem gamblers?
Mr. Pascal Charron, Policy Advisor, Office the Honorable Jean Lapointe: In speeches, reference was made to establishments that come to the assistance of problem gamblers, as well as to the fact that between 89 and 94 per cent of young people who play video lottery terminals become problem gamblers. If you compare video lotteries to drugs, it is the crack cocaine of gambling. You play once and you are almost immediately hooked.
Senator Lapointe: The phenomenon has taken on unimaginable proportions, it is serious. I could give you thousands of examples. I have been getting letters, e-mails and phone calls for two years. One was from a woman who lives near Ottawa; her son killed himself when he was 17 because he owed $2,500 to loan shops. He could not pay them back.
The Chair: From video lottery terminals?
Senator Lapointe: Just from VLTs. That is all I am after, those infernal video lottery terminals.
The Chairman: It will hardly surprise you that as a former member of the Bourassa government in Quebec, I am interested in what Quebec is doing about video lottery terminals.
Last Friday, the Quebec Finance Minister — and you must have been following this closely — announced that the government had approved the Loto-Quebec 2004-2007 development plan. The plan calls for a significant reduction in the number of sites or video lottery machines in Quebec.
There are to be at least 730 fewer machines and 31 per cent fewer sites with machines over three years. The goal is to reduce the accessibility and visibility of those machines. The minister hopes to fight problem gambling more effectively by grouping machines together and setting up controlled sites. That is what their documents said. A task force was struck to come up with proposals for action against problem gambling. A committee was established to make ethical rules governing the use of video lottery machines.
My question has two parts. Surely you have read Loto-Quebec's plan, which seems quite detailed in terms of its effect on the problem of the presence of video lottery machines in Quebec. Could you give us your impression of that? And do you think that the solution that you are putting forward to deal with the phenomenon — amending the Criminal Code to provide a Canada-wide solution to the problem — is in keeping with the powers of each level of government in our federation?
I am going to be even more specific. In light of the administrative agreements on lotteries between the provinces and the federal government, do you think — I am appealing to your political sensibility here — that the provinces would welcome your amendments to the Criminal Code?
Senator Lapointe: To answer your first question, no, I do not agree at all. I spoke to Minister Séguin twice and I get the feeling that he is acting in good faith. He would like to get rid of all of them, but I think he is stuck between a rock and a hard place, because there is a lot of quick money in it for his government and there is very heavy pressure from Loto-Quebec that is not easy to deal with. Loto-Quebec has a lot of power. They want to take video lottery terminals out of small bars where there are two or three machines hidden in the back. It has been calculated that two video lottery terminals generate between $10,000 and $15,000 per year.
Some bars have 24, 30 or 36 of them because they knock down walls, take out washrooms, build another wall and apply for another license and put the machines back in. Those with 20 or more machines generate between $25,000 and $35,000 per year, for a very simple reason: problem gamblers — not everyone who takes part in this type of gambling is a problem gambler — are impatient. They do not want to sit and wait. When there are just two machines, they are taken and people stay there for a long time. When there are 24 of them, some of them free up more quickly.
I do not have to decide for the minister, but my goal is not the same. You might just as well plunk down an alcoholic in a bar and decide to take away the cognac and the scotch, but leave the brandy and the beer and tell him he can drink all he wants. That is not my way of seeing things.
To answer your second question — and they are not my figures — a few years ago, over 70 per cent of Canadians wanted to get rid of those machines. In terms of elections, if the provinces persist in not thoroughly studying the issue as we are doing — they are the ones who are responsible — you know me well enough to know that I will have something to say to them.
First and foremost, it is Canadians who vote. So if they go against what Canadians want, they will suffer the consequences. I do not know if I have answered your question.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Thank you for coming to deal with the bill before us. I have a somewhat conflicted attitude towards this bill because I appreciate the points that you are making about the problems gamblers face and so on, but I also see the other side where we — meaning governments in general — have created an addiction which is suffered by those who may benefit from the use of these lottery terminals, particularly, small business owners who may have marginal businesses. Having one or two terminals in their store will generate enough revenue to make it economically viable to support their families from the enterprise that they have started.
I also think that focussing only on video lottery terminals may not be enough. As a father, I remember supporting my son's hockey team which was partially funded by charity bingo. I will describe our job as parents. It was to go to these games several times a year and to stand around in a smoke filled room. As parents, we willingly played our part, although it was an awful experience for us non-smokers. What I observed there disturbed me. My comments relate to video lottery terminals although there were none of those there. At appropriate times during the evening there were breaks in the action, so that people could buy Nevada tickets. This did not take place in the best part of town. It was obvious to me when meeting the people coming to the bingo hall that they were not necessarily economically stable. Indeed, if you judged the time when you held your bingo to be around the time that cheques arrived from various government agencies for social assistance, then the profit for that evening would go up significantly.
I watched with dismay, disgust and sadness as people got up and spent $50 or $100 on these tickets, as if they were buying candy bars. I am not sure that video lottery terminals are the only issue that we need to address, although Bill S-11 addresses only VLTs.
Senator, you said in your presentation, if I understood correctly, that the VLTs do not make a profit.
Senator Lapointe: No, they do not, sir.
Senator Mercer: Did you say that?
Senator Lapointe: They do not make a profit. The bar owners make a profit. In the provinces that have VLTs, the social cost, as shown in research, as a result of suicides, crime, et cetera, is from three to five times higher than the take from the machines.
Senator Mercer: If we were only examining the financial statements that relate to the money that goes in and the money that comes out of the VLTs and how much money goes to the provincial government, whether Quebec or Nova Scotia it would not matter, we would see that a profit is made until you factor in the social costs.
Senator Lapointe: Yes, of course.
Senator Mercer: How significant is that?
Mr. Charron: The Province of Quebec, for example, makes about $1 billion per year from its 14,000 video lottery terminals. However, it is proven from research in the U.S, Australia and Canada that a compulsive gambler costs between $18,000 and $56,000 per year. Those figures are from a study done at the University of Manitoba. In Quebec, for example, 2 per cent of the population are compulsive gamblers, according to figures from Lotto Quebec. The profits from the VLTs are reduced by 140,000 compulsive gamblers in Quebec at $56,000 per gambler.
Senator Mercer: You have answered the question but I expect the real problem is the views of the Minister of Finance as the minister responsible for lotteries as opposed to the minister responsible for social services programs and the delivery of health care. The Minister of Finance would probably say that this is a good thing because the government is making $1 billion, whereas the other minister would say it is not a good thing because of all the social problems being created by the VLTs. It always comes down to the dollar.
Senator Lapointe: You told us that hockey clubs hold bingos to raise funds for their clubs and that the players of bingo are usually poor. An addiction to bingo can also develop. As compared to VLTs, bingo is a piece of cake. I do not have a problem with people who play bingo to help out their community hockey teams because of the benefit to the kids. VLTs kill people but bingo does not kill people — maybe one in a million but with VLTs it is more dramatic.
Senator Mercer: Is there a gender divide of the people we are talking about?
Senator Lapointe: No.
Senator Mercer: Is it equal?
Senator Lapointe: You will be surprised at how many women are hooked, as well as the young and the elderly with time on their hands. I want to relocate VLTs not destroy them. I want to put them in places where people go to specifically gamble — casinos and race tracks. That would help that industry. If you have to take a bus to go to the racetrack, you will not go as often as you would go to the store or the bar on the next corner.
Senator Mercer: Can we prove that?
Senator Lapointe: Of course.
Senator Mercer: I suspect you are right, but I wonder if that can be substantiated. I do not want to move the problem from the corner store to the racetrack.
Senator Lapointe: It would be a problem for someone living next to the racetrack.
Senator Cools: You are raising something profound and useful to all of us. You are saying that availability, proximity and visibility are factors to be considered. Race tracks generally have to be farther away from densely populated areas because of the space they occupy. Going to the racetrack takes more planning. What you say makes sense, but I do not think it has been studied. Therefore, I do not see how you can come up with numbers.
Senator Lapointe: These are not our numbers.
Senator Cools: You are saying that there is a diminution of racing as part of every person's life. I grew up in a family that had a great love of horses. We went to the races all the time.
Senator Milne: Senator Cools perhaps you could get on the list along with the rest of us waiting our turn to ask questions.
Senator Cools: One of these days I will say something, Lorna Milne, that you will not object to. You are terrorized by your dislike of me. You really are terrorized. Go through and read this record of this committee. It was a supplementary on this point.
The senator is raising something profound about the shift and development of gambling as an emotional disease. I think it is profound.
Senator Lapointe: To answer your question, Senator Cools, the figures and what I said in response to Senator Mercer were not invented by me. All in my office worked hard researching the studies, one by one and chapter by chapter, from which we took the notes. I do not have any figures, senator, except those from the studies of the specialists.
Senator Cools: Chairman, for our researcher, this same committee, I think it was around 1986, had received a number of witnesses on the subject of gambling. At the time there was much discussion throughout Ontario on this. It is on the record somewhere. We had witnesses before us who described gambling by choice of horses or some other means. At the time, there was a great push forward to establish casinos. Some of the meetings were in Calgary. We could see if there is anything useful on the record.
Senator Mercer: I have one final question. I do want to commend the work of Senator Lapointe's office. I have had the pleasure of working with Pascal in the past and I know the quality of his work.
Senator Lapointe: I am doing my best to give a straight answer.
Senator Mercer: The person who appeared last year from the Justice Department talked about unintended consequences of the bill. It was said that the bill could also make it illegal to sell computer-generated, quick-pick lottery tickets in shopping malls, et cetera. I know that is not your intention because you stated that. I assume, from what you said earlier this morning, that if there is a need to amend the bill to define that more clearly, you are agreeable to that.
Senator Lapointe: Yes, absolutely. I said in my speech that we, probably through lack of experience, did not specify and insist only on VLTs. We do not have anything against those who sell 649s or whatever dream they want to sell. One thing you have to know, and I forgot to mention it to you, is that when the federal —
[Translation]
When federal-provincial relations were discussed in 1978 and 1985, video lotteries did not exist!
[English]
That is a big, big fact.
Senator Mercer: We cannot put laws in place for things that are not in existence.
Senator Andreychuk: My question is to the chair. We did hear evidence and explored many of the questions the last time we had this bill before us. Will we apply that evidence or have we done that already? I was away last week, so I do not know.
The Chairman: We have a paper that was distributed.
Senator Andreychuk: I appreciate that. We had some good exchanges, questions and answers, and it might be helpful if we applied all the evidence from the last session when the bill was introduced because many things were explored. I think it would be good evidence. Do we need a motion to do that?
The Chairman: We can furnish you with the same information.
Senator Andreychuk: I have it, but I want it on the record so we can use it.
The Chairman: We will prepare a motion.
Senator Andreychuk: At that time, I think we explored the province making the income, but we were still trying to ascertain what benefit the federal government derived from gaming. We also understood that VLTs generated some economic activity in small towns. I think that is all in the previous evidence.
You have already said, Senator Lapointe, that there is creativeness and ingenuity on the part of these people who take VLTs. They can partition their property to have more gambling going on. We explored, and you were going to think about, where it says ``other than premises dedicated to gaming activity,'' that one of the consequences of your bill could be that VLTs would still be in the corner stores. What they would do is segment and separate the gaming activity, and have that place designated as a gaming activity area and continue. It would be simply a construction cost to continue to do what they are doing. It would make it an exclusive gaming activity.
Your bill does not refer to racetracks and casinos. It says ``racetracks and other premises dedicated to gaming activity.'' Therefore, it would still be in the hands of the provinces, I think, and local ingenuity could circumvent your bill. Did you give any thought to introducing an amendment to cover that situation?
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I do not see how they could get around it if it becomes illegal to use the machines. A corner store is a corner store. It is not a casino. A bar is a bar. These days, people who go to bars with video lottery terminals do not even take the time to finish eating. As soon as a machine is free, they get up and go play. I do not think it is the right place. There are places set aside for gambling and it should stay that way. I understand that the poor corner store that loses one or two machines also loses some income. There were corner stores before video poker was invented, and a number of them were profitable.
As I said, and Senator Mercer alluded to this earlier, it is always low income people who are hardest hit. It is important to fix the problem.
[English]
Mr. Charron: I am sure Senator Lapointe would be open to introducing an amendment to clear that up. For your information, the statistics from the show, The Fifth Estate, indicated that there are 38,652 VLTs in Canada at 8,309 locations. What Senator Lapointe is trying to do with this bill is to put them only in casinos that are permanent casinos, which is 59 locations, plus 70 racetracks. There are 107 betting clubs, so we are talking about 206 sites rather than 8,309 locations with VLTs. If the bill needs to be amended to come up with these figures, which is the goal of the bill, then it will be amended.
Senator Andreychuk: The issue, Madam Chair, the last time we dealt with this was that that it is within the jurisdiction of provincial and municipal authorities. In some locations with which I am familiar, the premises consist of a restaurant, so the owner could simply install a wall with a door to walk through, and that area could be designated as a separate facility and be defined as a ``gaming activities'' area. This is what we were trying to address, but the session ended and we did not do that.
Mr. Charron: I am speaking about Quebec because that is the province I know best. In a bar, the proprietor needs to have an alcohol permit in order to have those machines. Proprietors may destroy a wall or build a wall, and apply for another permit so that they can have 10 more machines on the other side. They might even destroy the toilet in order to get another permit. That is what happens.
If this bill passes and these machines are allowed only in casinos and racetracks, that problem would be eliminated.
Senator Milne: I thank you for reintroducing this bill. I think it is an important and necessary bill.
It is important to get some of the testimony from the last time on the record because this bill would affect eight jurisdictions in Canada, I understand. I remove myself from any conflict of interest whatsoever because Ontario does not allow VLTs, nor does British Columbia or the Yukon. I understand that in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, they allow slot machines but not VLTs — excuse me, no slot machines but they do allow VLTs.
Mr. Charron: I do not think so.
Senator Milne: If they do not, it should be corrected on the record, because I believe it was said that the Northwest Territories and Nunavut permit no slot machine gambling. Is this included with slot machines?
Mr. Charron: I think so, yes.
Senator Milne: I want to tell you, right off the top, that it is my understanding that the Ontario Lottery Corporation takes absolutely no position on this bill because it does not affect them at all. As well, a lot of the literature about gambling and addiction in Ontario, as you mentioned, calls VLTs the crack cocaine of gambling. They are extremely addictive and can be addictive after the first time you try them. In the literature, they are qualified as an impulse product.
Ontario divides gaming into planned and impulse type games. For example, 649 is a planned game. VLTs are strictly impulse gaming and so removing them, Senator Mercer, from the corner store will make quite a difference. If they are not there, then the impulse cannot strike.
The really bad thing about VLT is that the payouts are manipulated. I understand that 92 to 97 per cent of the money that is put into the VLTs is paid out in prizes but it is paid out in small amounts over half an hour or so, and it is almost immediately put back into the machine.
What is the minimum square footage required for a gaming establishment in different provinces? We have no information on that. It might be used as a method of getting around the provisions contained in this bill.
I congratulate you for reintroducing this bill. I am not asking questions; I am simply sharing some of my knowledge of what goes on in Ontario. I will wholeheartedly support the bill.
Senator Lapointe: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I would just add, for Senator Milne's sake —
[English]
I do not know if the honourable senator is aware that they had VLTs in racetracks. The Rideau Carleton has slot machines but not VLTs.
[Translation]
Those are slot machines, they do not have VLTs as far as I know, Madam Chair. I am not sure.
The Chairman: It is illegal, but there are a significant number of machines operating on the black market. That also has to be taken into account.
[English]
Senator Sibbeston: I congratulate and commend the senator for taking this bold step. I know that in politics when I was an elected person, alcohol and things of this sort are politically sensitive to deal with. I spent a lot of my own life dealing with alcoholism, dealing with the availability of liquor, particularly, to Aboriginal people. It seems that when you raise an issue like this, you have to be bold because can you imagine all the governments and established companies and businesses in a sense that would react against someone like Senator Lapointe because he is raising an issue that really would not be liked by all status quo in government and in businesses? It takes a certain amount of bravery. It is a good thing that someone like a senator does it because we do not have to worry about the political downfall of having to be elected.
I wanted to say that I think it is a positive step. Obviously, you are trying to help the poor, average people, who are mostly affected by these machines.
Another point is significant. When liquor was brought into the North, the people were never asked if they approved of that. The government just brought liquor into the communities in the hope that they would make money, not realizing the detrimental effects it would have on people. I know some native people who think that, if the government is making it available, it must be okay. That is their attitude, despite the fact that there could be severe consequences. I know this is the case in Fort Simpson, the community in which I live, because of my stance against liquor and wanting to have controls. When someone dies, everyone agrees with you and tells you that you have done a good thing to try to restrict liquor. A few days later the attitude wanes and by the weekend they are critical of you.
Senator Cools: In respect of exploring more of Senator Lapointe's proposal, I was also thinking that in our list of witnesses, we could include, for example, some people from aspects of correction, maybe the penitentiary system, corrections and perhaps from the National Parole Board. Those people may have some information of gambling, the kinds of other criminal offences that it leads to and the sentences and consequences in general.
When I was on the National Parole Board I was amazed at the number of inmates who had gambling problems. We could include among our witnesses people who can give us information on the different and larger aspects of this bill.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to say to the senator that he is doing a good thing. You are challenging the status quo. Retaining the status quo means that it is acceptable to have these machines at every corner of our villages and towns. However, you are saying that that is not right and that it is not good. You are being bold in doing that. Sometimes society has to be challenged because they do not realize the harm or the hurt that is being suffered.
I saw a program on the CBC's Fifth Estate about problems related to gambling in Canada. I have a personal experience. One of my sons is married to a woman whose father is a compulsive gambler. He has gotten himself into debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He has been kicked out of the house and shunned, in a sense, by the family as a result. That is sometimes the dire effect on society that we do not see. It can be devastating to a family.
When you are in a gambling mode it often begins with $30 and escalates to hundreds of thousands of dollars. That kind of accumulation of debt is devastating. I am glad that we do not have those machines in the North.
Sometimes people who are alcoholics quit that addiction and turn to gambling. Some people are just subject to compulsive behaviour. It affects the poorer classes in society, and they least need to be affected by such a thing. I commend Senator Lapointe and will support the bill as strongly as I can.
Senator Milne: I do not want to hold up this bill and I do not think we need to call in a group of witnesses. We will have the testimony from the last consideration of the bill before the committee added to the record of this committee. I do not think we should hold it up. My suggestion about finding information in respect of minimum square footage to define a gaming institution or gaming site is something for regulations and not for the bill, unless you want to know the minimum square footage of the smallest casino in Canada and put that in as a minimum.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: First of all, I would like to congratulate Senator Lapointe on his lifelong efforts to fight addiction, problem gambling and the consequences of alcoholism. I think your community approach in this regard is exceptional. In my opinion, this is the area where you have the greatest impact on public opinion. Bringing your credibility to bear on public opinion to further this cause is nothing short of outstanding.
Like Senator Milne, I would like to be practical. Thanks to Senator Andreychuk, we now have transcripts of all the previous evidence. So there is no need to hear the witnesses again. However, I would like to call your attention to a practical point of order.
Based on my reading and analysis of Bill S-11 and previously Bill S-6, it appears to me that they are identical.
Senator Lapointe: They have to be changed.
Senator Joyal: You get my drift. The Department of Justice apparently feels that the way you express your intention goes beyond what you want to do.
Senator Lapointe: You are right. You know, I have only been in the Senate for three years. When we started this job, two years ago, we were not specific enough. You have to stick strictly with the terms used and forget about all other forms of gambling, draws, lotteries and events of that kind. As a matter of fact, an official from the Department of Justice sent me a letter setting out the minister's opposition, which was not true.
You raise an important point. I would like to call upon your legal skills to ensure that the text is better worded. As I said in my presentation, the purpose of this bill is strictly limited to video lottery terminals.
Senator Joyal: Still in the practical spirit of Senator Milne, an amendment to the current text would have to be drawn up to ensure that the intention you have expressed, and that is certainly shared by a number of people around this table, is properly reflected in the wording of the amendment that you wish to put forward. I think that it is urgent for us to have that before us as quickly as possible.
Senator Lapointe: It will be done very soon.
Senator Joyal: My second question has to do with the application of Bill S-11 if it passes. As you know, and we heard this from the witnesses, there is a federal-provincial agreement between the Government of Canada and the provinces that goes back a number of years. Under that agreement, the Government of Canada allows the provinces to operate lotteries, and the provinces pay financial compensation to the Government of Canada.
Have you had the opportunity to examine that agreement to determine whether, when the Government of Canada amends lottery legislation, it must inform the provinces about its initiative? In other words, given the existing agreement with the provinces, no unilateral change can be made without consulting them.
Senator Lapointe: When those agreements were signed in 1978 and 1985, video lottery terminals and their devastating effects on society were not at issue. In my opinion, both orders of government jump to conclusions.
We will definitely have to fight. My health is not the best right now. However, I hope to recover quickly so that I can fight this battle.
I am prepared to battle anyone to expose the suffering these machines cause. That suffering did not exist before, except perhaps on a smaller scale. The situation is now drastic.
Senator Joyal: The agreement was signed a number of years ago, in the late 1970s. However, as you know, there is an automatic renewal clause and the agreement is still in force.
Senator Lapointe: That is a matter that should be negotiated. If I am asked for my opinion, I will gladly offer it. However, I am not an expert on federal-provincial agreements.
Senator Joyal: As legislators and as a parliamentary institution, when we embark on such important initiatives, we should act in keeping with our obligations toward the provinces. This bill affects the lives of many people and calls into question significant amounts of money in provincial coffers. So we need to make sure that the provinces are informed of these new proposed provisions, in full keeping with the federal-provincial agreements.
Senator Lapointe: That is beyond my area of expertise.
The Chairman: But the bill raises the issue.
Senator Lapointe: Perhaps, but what can you do? If they have signed those agreements, they will just have to make the appropriate arrangements. If the bill falls through, I will sadly say that I did my best to no avail. Many people will suffer as a result. If the provinces are blinded to this reality by their financial interests, they will just have to live with their conscience and I will live with mine.
The Chairman: You have to realize that by doing this, we are stirring up federal-provincial relations.
Senator Joyal: That does not mean that we should not do it. But I want us to do it in keeping with the obligations that the government must take on. If we read those agreements and see that we are not violating their provisions, we will arrive at that conclusion. If the agreement provides that you must inform the provinces six months or one year in advance, you have to discuss in good faith, we will be in a position to appreciate the consequences that will follow. That is where I am coming from.
Senator Lapointe: Thank you very much for the additional information.
The Chairman: Any other questions? Thank you very much, Senator Lapointe, for being here this morning. We will continue next week.
The committee adjourned.