Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 8, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-211, to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), met this day at 11:02 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, today we are dealing with Bill S-211, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to video lottery terminals, VLTs. It is a bill that has been proposed for the third time by our colleague Senator Lapointe. On the previous two occasions, this bill has gone to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I was puzzled as to why it came to our committee this time when it had gone elsewhere previously. The reason is that the issue raised a number of social questions, so the powers decided it made more sense to bring it to us.
I suggest, Senator Lapointe, you begin by providing perhaps a brief summary of the bill and outline some of the issues raised during the last two occasions the bill went before a Senate committee.
I should also point out that the bill passed through the Senate last time. It went over to the House of Commons, sat there for a while and then Parliament was dissolved, so the bill died.
The Honourable Senator Jean Lapointe, sponsor of the Bill: Thank you very much. I feel more comfortable making my presentation in French; however, I do have a small paragraph in English.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, this is my third appearance before a Senate standing committee to debate this bill. Let me inform you that this committee has already received the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, dated April 12, 2005, following a motion that I successfully tabled before the Upper Chamber.
Honourable senators, many senators and witnesses had the opportunity to express their views about this bill during its second reading in the House, the committee meetings or the third reading. The presentations, discussions and debates were fruitful. In fact, the last committee to study this bill that we have before us today passed two amendments which I would not call major, but with which I entirely agree.
Moreover, the committee report as well as the amended bill were adopted by the Senate upon third reading, on May 17, 2005.
Honourable senators, the bill that you are about to study was before the House of Commons at the time of the prorogation of Parliament.
I am aware of the fact that when the House asks your committee to study a bill, that it is your duty to take the time needed to carry out your task thoroughly, in the interests of Canadians and especially of minorities.
Given the rather unusual circumstances that we find ourselves in with Bill S-211, I request and implore you, honourable senators, to accept to hear only one witness, namely myself, and to report to the Upper Chamber as soon as possible before the summer recess.
This could potentially save the lives of people who have compulsive gambling problems, caused by video lotteries, or it could save the taxpayers money because what your committee is about to do is more or less the same as the work done by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
For the benefit of those who have never heard of this bill, let me give you a very brief summary of its main points and my motives for carrying on this war against video lottery terminals for the past four years.
The video lottery terminals found in bars and restaurants in eight Canadian provinces are a great calamity and should be taken out of these establishments to be relocated in casinos, racetracks and affiliated establishments like hippoclubs, all of which are exclusively managed by provincial governments.
According to the organizations that help compulsive gamblers, mutual help lines, academic experts and others, as well as public health institutions, they all unanimously agree that video lotteries are the form of gambling that creates the highest dependency rate for a frightening number of people.
Accessibility is one of the major problems. In big cities as well as in small towns it is difficult to find even one large street or thoroughfare that does not harbour these destructive machines.
Visibility is also a major problem. Young people who go to bars to have some fun with their friends are attracted by video lotteries, and those who belong to the Nintendo generation are fatally attracted. I have a very sombre view of the impact of video lotteries on the future of these youths. Relocating these machines in casinos and racetracks will give them less publicity, as they are now seen everywhere on display in bars and taverns near our children's schools.
[English]
In its position paper on Manitoba's gaming policy, the Manitoba Association of Social Workers reported that the youngest age group of people between 18 and 24 years had the highest percentage, 66 per cent, who have played VLTs within the past year. Their studies indicate that young people are highly susceptible to gambling devices, such as VLTs.
[Translation]
By passing Bill S-211, the Canadian government would help the provinces that are in deficit with their video lotteries and are not making any profits, as opposed to what some representatives of provincial governments maintain.
Honourable senators, the social cost of video lotteries is much larger than the profits they bring in. The provincial governments should wake up to this reality.
Studies carried out by experts all over Canada and the world, like those of Dr. Neil Tudiver in Manitoba, for example, have demonstrated that the social cost of video lotteries is three to five times higher than the amount of revenue they bring in. From coast to coast, the people in our provinces are facing a plague that is so serious that the federal government must take its responsibilities in hand and put a stop to the tragic consequences that ensue for too many Canadian families.
Let me make an aside to tell you that I have received more than 700 letters or emails from people who suffer from this problem or who have someone in their family that suffers from it. It would be absurd to expect the provinces to move forward with this file because they are bringing in billions of dollars of false profits with these infernal machines. Besides, the very same governments establish their own codes of conduct with regard to gambling problems.
Honourable senators, the time has come for us to act. I sincerely believe that a reduction of the accessibility and visibility of video lottery machines could have positive results for society. This is why I am asking you to support Bill S- 211 so that it can be expedited in order to save as many human lives as possible and relieve the great distress that is suffered not only by compulsive gamblers but also by all those who live with them.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Senator Lapointe, we know how much this bill means to you. I remember that as soon as you became a senator, you spoke to us about a bill regarding these video lottery terminals.
I need some clarification on a few small details. Your bill deals with video lottery terminals found in restaurants and not in casinos.
Senator Lapointe: Strictly with those that are on the street.
Senator Pépin: If someone ever decided to install several machines in his restaurant or bar and call this a mini- casino, is there anything that would stop him from creating a mini-casino with machines of this kind? Because the legislation does not define the word ``casino.''
Senator Lapointe: Those are the ones I aim to attack, those who create mini-casinos in restaurants, bars and taverns.
Senator Pépin: Of course, when you say that you want these machines to be placed in specific casinos it means that they would be reserved for adults. You are telling us that adolescents are in much greater danger.
Senator Lapointe: Yes.
Senator Pépin: Why? We know that this is habit-forming, but why are adolescents more threatened than adults?
Senator Lapointe: Because these machines are found on every street corner and near schools. There is no government surveillance; the only ones watching over this are bar owners. And they have no scruples.
I received a telephone call from a lady whose son committed suicide at the age of 17. He had been gambling for a year or a year and a half. He owed about $2,700 to a pawnbroker. He committed suicide. The lady was crying and she told me not to give up this fight.
The problem is that these machines are close to busy thoroughfares. If they were placed in racetracks or casinos, we would not have the same problem. People would have to go out of their way, take a bus or a taxi or some other means of transportation to do their gambling.
Senator Pépin: I agree, distance is important. I have another question about money. We know that this brings money to the provinces, but I thought that agreements had been reached in 1979 and 1985 among provincial governments. But if we, at the federal level, decide to tell them to withdraw these machines, do you not think that we are infringing on provincial mandates?
Senator Lapointe: Excuse me, Senator Pépin, but in 1979 and 1985, the plague of video lotteries had not broken out.
Senator Pépin: Were there no such machines at that time?
Senator Lapointe: None at all.
Senator Pépin: I understand. And if we impose these measures, we make the decision and then tell them to work this out among themselves. Of course, there is a three-year period to implement this and for the government to reach an agreement.
I think that this might meet with a cold reception because they will not be happy with being told what to do.
Senator Lapointe: That is not my problem. If they do not want to understand that studies have been done — and these were not my studies — that demonstrate, in black and white, that their social costs are three to five times larger, due to absenteeism, suicides, illness, depression and all kings of criminality, I believe that this is an opportunity for the federal government. This might put a chill between the federal and provincial levels, but it is not an invention. We can prove that they are losing more money than they are earning. We have a fantastic opportunity to raise our public credibility.
Senator Pépin: They are spending much more money on repairing the damage done by those machines than what they earn from the people who play them.
Senator Lapointe: They will save money.
Senator Pépin: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I guess we could get into a whole discussion about VLTs. You have certainly indicated the dreadful things that have been happening to families because of members who are addicted to VLTs, but that is not part of your bill so we will not discuss that aspect today.
You said VLTs should only be in racetracks, casinos and betting theatres. Could you explain a betting theatre to us?
Senator Lapointe: I have never mentioned betting theatres. At racetracks, there are spaces where people bet on horses, and people go there to gamble, but there are not too many of those across Canada. There is less danger at racetracks than with the VLTs you find in the streets.
Senator Cordy: Your bill refers to a betting theatre. Is that somewhere where betting takes place?
Senator Lapointe: Quebec intends to create betting theatres where they will have those machines, but I disagree with that intention.
Senator Cordy: VLTs were first introduced in corner stores in Nova Scotia. That was horrendous, because you would see young people standing in the corner store for hours on end. Now they have them in bars. You do not include bars in your bill, although a young person would have to comply with the definition of an adult to get into the bar. Why did you omit bars when you included racetracks, casinos and betting theatres?
Senator Lapointe: I want to get the VLTs out of the bars, the restaurants and the taverns. In the eight provinces I mentioned, there is not one important street that does not have a great quantity of VLTs.
Senator Cordy: Are the chairs in front of the VLTs always filled?
Senator Lapointe: Yes.
Senator Cordy: In the second part of your bill, you talk about the three-year consultation, and Senator Pépin already mentioned that. How did you choose three years? Is that enough or too much time?
Senator Lapointe: We want to give the owners an opportunity to adjust to the changes. Senator Joyal suggested that we get rid of one-third of the machines the first year, the second third the second year, and eliminate them by the third year.
Senator Cordy: That is designed for the bar owners, so that they would not lose revenue?
Senator Lapointe: Yes.
Senator Cordy: What type of consultation would you have with the provinces?
Senator Lapointe: I do not know. I spoke a few years back with the Minister of Finance in Quebec, but he has since resigned. He was in total agreement with my project, since I went on a very important French television program said I went around Montreal and looked all over the place, and all the machines were in poor surroundings, poor neighbourhoods. He was very stunned by the fact that I mentioned that I could not find one machine in Westmount where the rich people live.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for all the work you have done in this area.
The Chairman: You said that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed two amendments the last time this bill was before the committee. Are those two amendments included in this bill?
Senator Lapointe: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: I think everyone is aware of the social costs of the VLTs. As you say, many studies have indicated that the costs are more than the revenue that we take in the long run.
I see that first you want to reduce accessibility. In Ontario and British Columbia, these machines are not in bars or restaurants. Is the situation in Ontario and British Columbia the situation that you want?
Senator Lapointe: I would appreciate that they operate the same way that Ontario operates.
Senator Callbeck: British Columbia and Ontario just have them in the racetracks, the casinos and the betting theatres?
Senator Lapointe: That is it and that is where I want them. I have never seen a betting theatre, which is under the direction of the province. They are closely monitored. When they see a case of someone that is ill with these machines, they send them to centres. You do not find that in the bars.
Senator Callbeck: In Ontario, were these machines ever in the bars?
Senator Lapointe: No, not to my knowledge.
Senator Callbeck: Were they ever in bars in British Columbia?
Senator Lapointe: Not to my knowledge. If they were in Ontario or British Columbia the governments they understood faster than Quebec and the other provinces, and took them away.
Senator Callbeck: Quebec has made a commitment to reduce the number of terminals in a number of locations, have they not, in the past few years? Are they doing that now?
Senator Lapointe: Yes, they made a few little moves, but I understand their tricks. I have been in this game for four years now, and I know the bars. I have to tell you the truth; many of the VLTs belong to the Hell's Angels who have a lot of money. They bring in eight machines, and they even destroyed a toilet to put in a wall and operate another eight machines in another room in the same building. They do these kinds of things. They hit the bars that have four machines or less, which are the ones that are not bringing in money. A small tavern, nightclub, or restaurant, with only two machines brings in between $8,000 to $12,000 a year. Those that have over eight machines bring in over $25,000 a year, for the simple reason that people do not have to wait too long to play.
Senator Callbeck: In the previous Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, there was some discussion about a definition of casinos? What is to stop anyone from putting five machines in a store and saying that it is a casino?
Senator Lapointe: No, that is not a casino. Casinos are where you can play all kinds of games, such as poker.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: There is no legal definition of the word ``casino.''
Senator Lapointe: I understand, but one thing is certain: everyone knows what a casino is or what a bar is. We do not need to define the term ``casino'' because it has become a part of people's lives.
Senator Pépin: But there is no legal definition of the term ``casino.'' Consequently, anyone who wishes to do so could get some machines and decide to set up a small casino.
Senator Lapointe: I disagree, because this is a provincial matter.
[English]
Senator Pépin: I understand exactly what you mean.
Senator Callbeck: I think it is very important that there is a definition in the legislation.
Pascal Charron, Political Adviser, Senate of Canada: There are three or four casinos in Quebec and two in Ontario. We know what a casino is. The provincial legislature decides what a casino is. In Quebec, people are trying to create small casinos, just as you are saying, but the people of Quebec do not support these establishments. They do not want them.
The bill that is before you right now has the support of 70 per cent of the population throughout Canada and 80 per cent of the population in Quebec. If provincial governments try to take machines out of bars and restaurants to create small casinos in neighbourhoods, they will see that the population does not want them in neighbourhoods; they will not be able to do it. They would have to legislate that and face the population in the next election.
I do not think it is a problem. I do not know how many casinos there are in Canada, but they would not be able to create three or four casinos on Wellington Street here in Ottawa. It would not go through. In Quebec, there are about 14,000 lottery terminals in bars and restaurants. If this bill passes, there would be only maybe 200 locations where you could play those machines, instead of 8,000 locations. It would not create new players and new problem gamblers every day. It is a prevention bill.
Senator Callbeck: I understand that. I am not a lawyer. I did not know whether that might be a loophole.
Senator Lapointe: It is a good reason, but I do not think it will go around. Senator Joyal is a clever man and a good lawyer. He studied that approach and said there is no problem.
The Chairman: Just to clarify that situation, the reason the casino is not defined in federal legislation is because casinos are a provincial responsibility and are defined in provincial regulatory acts. If you read this bill, obviously the definition of the word ``casino'' will coincide with whatever it is in the specific province in which the issue is located. The lack of a definition here is from a legal standpoint.
Senator Lapointe: You should be standing here.
The Chairman: I am not a lawyer. I have just been through too many of these federal-provincial fights.
Senator Peterson: You indicated that VLTs are negative financially when you factor in social costs, and yet you say that some of the provinces that are strongly resisting this do not want to comply because they are making too much money. There is a contradiction. I agree that the first is probably the reality and that provinces are not factoring in the social costs, but I do not think we should be saying they are making too much money because that adds to their argument.
If this bill is passed, would the provinces be required to comply?
Senator Lapointe: I do not think they would have an option. If we passed the bill, they will have to agree. What was your first question?
Senator Peterson: You made two comments. One is that VLTs are negative, but yet you are saying they make lots of money so they will not be taken out.
Senator Lapointe: What they see is that the money comes in pretty fast and they do not want to see the damages, for some reason. The social costs are so high. The money comes in first, and then social costs come in over a period of two, three, five years, for depression and related illnesses.
Senator Cochrane: You noted that young people are particularly at risk from the VLTs, yet the provinces limit where they may be placed to premises serving only adults. In view of the age-appropriate location of VLTs, why do you state that youths are particularly at risk from the machines? I know that adults are also at risk from these machines.
Senator Lapointe: The most vulnerable people are the young people and the elderly, those who have time to spare in the afternoon. Many of them have committed suicide because they lost all their money, their pension funds. The VLTs are the gambling equivalent of crack cocaine.
Senator Cochrane: Have you done the study on adults?
Senator Lapointe: Yes, of course.
Senator Cochrane: Please elaborate on why these machines constitute a form of gambling that is worse than other forms of gambling, such as they deserve to be singled out for special treatment; why the VLTs as opposed to other gambling?
Senator Lapointe: All the surveys show us that the VLTs are more dangerous. One person at a centre in Montreal thattreats people with compulsive gambling problems told us that over 80 per cent of their clients problems come from VLTs. It is a diabolical machine. I mentioned the word ``crack.'' Once you try it, I do not know the percentage, but you are hooked pretty fast to these machines.
Mr. Charron: At the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Dr. Derevensky from McGill University showed the committee that the game is a narcotic because it goes into your mind. It is a fast-paced game and it does not give you time to think that your $20 is already in the slot and you are punching the buttons.
The youth population is more inclined to have gambling problems with those types of machines because the technology is similar to the computer technology with which they are so familiar. The game itself is a computer-related game that is played on a screen. Dr. Derevensky said that some people become hypnotized with the machine and they just put in money until it is all gone.
The Chairman: One thing troubles me. I hear your focus on youth and yet you are opposed to putting VLTs in bars. By legal definition, youths cannot drink, so why does putting them in a bar create a youth problem — or is your definition of ``youth'' different from mine?
Senator Lapointe: I have said that the most vulnerable clientele is youth and the elderly, but the others are too; people from 35 to 60 years are just as vulnerable. The problem is that there is no surveillance. The bar owner does not ask the youth if he or she is 16 or 17 years of age before he or she enters his bar. The bar owner wants the profit and disregards the age restriction.
The Chairman: We are spreading the net very wide if we start imposing conditions on bar owners that they shall not do things that, by definition, are already illegal. I have a problem with that.
Mr. Charron: Youths are allowed in restaurants, though, and they can see what is happening.
The Chairman: That is why I asked about bars only. I did not ask about restaurants.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Senator Lapointe, this might be due to my very emotional francophone nature, because I basically agree with all of this. It might be because I have come across people with acute gambling problems. I agree with you that giving youths aged 17 or 18 or even younger access to these infernal machines is an atrocity. We must avoid this.
Basically, I entirely agree with the objective of this bill that you have tabled. All this has been set in the context of the Criminal Code, but nonetheless, it comes under provincial jurisdiction and thus, there is a major problem, in my opinion.
If we can make the headlines of all Canadian newspapers with a motion that would strongly encourage provincial governments to take the measures that you propose in this bill, I would be the first to sign and to stand up before all of the television networks in Canada.
We made superhuman efforts to avoid infringing on provincial jurisdictions. I feel torn by this bill because I entirely agree with your proposals, but I have a problem with making a decision on behalf of the provinces, because it is really up to them.
What more can we say to convince them that they should move in that direction? I do not know. However, I am very uncomfortable with the fact that this is a federal bill. Honestly, I have not yet decided, and this is where I stand.
Senator Lapointe: The only way I and my team could find to help people who have this problem was to amend the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction.
I got the support of most of the large organizations. There will be a press conference, but I cannot tell you what will be said. Let me repeat once again: if the provinces do not want to wake up — because they can get away with inaction — and take some active measures, I have no qualms whatsoever about infringing on provincial jurisdiction. The Criminal Code is a federal matter. I spoke to provincial ministers and deputy ministers who entirely agree with me, except the finance minister in each province who sees billions rolling in and does not want to be bothered with the social costs.
This is an opportunity for the population to see that the federal government has shown its mettle and made a decision. Besides, nothing says that the provinces will not agree with us within a few months. At the House of Commons, the bill will be sponsored by an MP. I got a great deal of support from the Liberals, Conservatives, members of the Bloc and even New Democrats, despite the federal-provincial issue.
Senator Champagne: This is a motherhood issue, Senator Lapointe, and this bill is perfectly valid. You said, the other day, that federal-provincial relations were an obstacle and that you wanted the federal government to show its mettle.
Last week, you said, after Senator Forrestall's speech, that we had to find a way of going about this. If you think that I can be useful to you in Quebec, please call me. However, I am not yet convinced about supporting a federal bill that infringes on provincial jurisdiction. I will have to think it over. You are fairly good at trying to convince me, but I still have problems with this bill.
Senator Lapointe: You have the right to your own opinion. I respect it, but I do not share it. I have been working on this file for four years. I have seen the pros and the cons.
Senator Champagne: Let us encourage the provinces to hold a vote or a referendum of some kind and I will be the first to stand up and join the fight on your side.
Senator Lapointe: As you know, I am very emotional. I already said that I did not care about federal-provincial relations. But I forgot to add that this applies only to this particular case. In other words, for all other cases, federal- provincial relations are very important. I find this a fantastic opportunity for the federal government to improve its image across the land from sea to sea.
Senator Pépin: I have another question. I understand that you are a federal senator — and that we want to keep you — but have you already thought of tabling a similar bill at the provincial level?
Senator Lapointe: I am a senator in Ottawa, and I do not see why I should go and table this bill in any province. I am attracted by provinces, but I am a federalist.
Senator Pépin: No, but given the fact that this is a provincial mandate —
Senator Lapointe: Yes, but when the provincial legislation was adopted, in 1987, there were no such machines.
Senator Pépin: There were no such machines.
Senator Lapointe: Precisely. Without those machines, I would not be standing before you today; I personally know of two people who committed suicide. There was also a lady who dilapidated her fortune in four and a half years. She had nearly $500,000, she owned two apartment buildings and she was a widow. I do not want to go over that again, I have already told that story.
Mr. Charron: The fact is that first off, in 1979 and 1985, when agreements were signed between the federal government and the provinces, VLTs did not exist. And then, I do not think anyone was expecting the scourge brought about as of 1994, I believe, by the new casinos. From a social standpoint, it was an absolute disaster, and VLTs are even worse. This is a federal bill because it would amend section 207 of the Canadian Criminal Code, dealing with gambling. Despite the 1979 and 1985 agreements, the federal government still retained some leeway.
That is what is going on today. Poor people are being abused, they are spending thousands of dollars on these machines. At this point, Senator Lapointe is trying, through the Criminal Code, to have access to everything that is needed in order to improve the situation.
Senator Lapointe: Honourable senators, I can tell you that from the start — you know me, I am somewhat emotional — I have experienced some highs and lows, and endless sleepless nights because I take this matter to heart. I have one sole objective, to ease the human suffering brought about by these hellish machines in our society, in our country.
[English]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am very proud to be apart of this committee to hear the presentation on yourBill S- 211, Senator Lapointe. I am totally supportive of it and I have several questions.
I was a practicing physician for many years where I cameface-to-face with many of the problems resulting from gambling machines, lottery schemes, et cetera, often, tragically. The main
I do not think that these machines should be in bars and restaurants. People go to a bar for a social evening for some dialogue or entertainment. Mixing the two is dangerous. I feel the same about restaurants, in particular family restaurants. In my town there was a restaurant that was a great favourite of students over the years; it is an institution. It is called Mel's and has a food counter and a few bars where people can enjoy their favourite items. Of course, the gambling machines came in and then they had to have alcohol. They now sell beer and wine and they have the gambling. The whole place has changed and it is very sad. Now it must be hidden, so they have a little wall built.
In our province, First Nations peoples have opened casinos that are not completely legal, although I am certain that it might have been someone else.
Would this bill cover First Nations communities when the location is on their reserves?
Senator Lapointe: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I have been told that some aboriginal groups have recently gotten rid of these VLTs in one or two places. I cannot recall if it is in Nunavut or elsewhere. They were creating unbelievable hardship amongst first nations families. I know that in some areas, VLTs have been completely eliminated.
[English]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Perhaps it is not necessary but certainly a racetrack is a racetrack. In terms of casinos and betting theatres, I regret that they are not more carefully and comprehensively defined. A betting theatre is a name I had never seen before I saw it here. Briefly, what is a betting theatre?
Senator Lapointe: They do not exist, although maybe in some provinces they do because I know that some provinces tend to bring them in.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do they have entertainment and movies?
Senator Lapointe: I do not know about that, senator.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I would be in favour of including strict definitions in the three categories, location, management, et cetera. I hope that the bill receives support in the Senate and certainly I hope that it would be supported by the new government.
Senator Lapointe: I share your sentiments. It will not be the end of the world if it does not pass but I will be sad for all the people that suffer from this disease.
Senator Callbeck: I have one short question. I understand that British Columbia does not have VLTs in bars or restaurants but has them at racetracks and in casinos.
Senator Lapointe: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: Yet, they are opposed to this legislation, I am led to believe. Are they opposed because they do not want the federal government telling them what to do? Why do they oppose the bill?
Senator Lapointe: I do not know.
Senator Callbeck: Their situation is pretty similar to the intent of the legislation.
Senator Lapointe: I do not understand why they are opposed. We are not touching them. Perhaps they do not understand what we are trying to do. The bill encompasses only the eight provinces where VLTs are installed. Naturally, when province see proposed federal legislation on such a thing, they might be tempted to say that they look after their own business. Of course, I am not too sympathetic to those provinces.
Senator Callbeck: Did you say there only eight provinces have VLTs?
Senator Lapointe: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: Which two provinces do not have them?
Senator Lapointe: Ontario and British Columbia. Ontario makes millions of dollars by having them at racetracks and in the casinos.
The Chairman: To clarify, Senator Callbeck, VLTs exist in B.C. and Ontario but they are restricted to specific locations.
Senator Lapointe: That is what I hope to accomplish across Canada with the passage of BIll S-211.
Mr. Charron: The VLTs in Ontario and in B.C. are located at racetracks and in casinos only. They make the same amount of money as Quebec makes with all their machines in bars and restaurants as well. The thing is that they do not create new problem gamblers. Their policy is much more socially effective.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I deliberately retrained from saying anything but I am prepared to if we want to recommend that the bill go back to the Senate. I have two things to say.
First, I want to read you the first paragraph of the1985 federal-provincial agreement. Section 1.1 states:
The Government of Canada undertakes to refrain fromre-entering the field of gaming and betting and to ensure that the rates of the provinces in that field are not reduced or restricted. END
You can make the legal argument that this is not federal legislation because it is a federal-provincial agreement. As someone who has run federal-provincial relations for both a province and the federal government, I do not think you can run this country having made an agreement that says that we are dividing the subject matter and that the feds will not legislate it. The feds mightr then take the position that the provinces are not doing their job properly and do the job for them. The minute you make that kind of a decision when there is an existing agreement, the whole realm of federal- provincial agreements collapses. Having run both sides of the issues, I know that to be a fact.
The second observation I would make is that the several comments from Senator Lapointe and Mr. Charron have spoken to the fact that at the time of these agreements, VLTs did not exist. That is absolutely right. It is my guess that if we were negotiating the original BNA Act, 1867, when neither oil and gas revenues nor post-secondary education existed, we might well have a different allocation as to who is responsible for what today.
The argument that something did not exist at the time as a legitimate reason for changing it, again, from the point of view of legislation in general is an impossible argument. It has to be factually correct; it is an impossible argument to sustain, in my view.
I am quite happy to report the bill back. I will vote against it because I will not vote to start screwing up federal- provincial relations, no matter how bad the provinces perform in an area we have given them.
A third area troubles me a little. Gambling in general is a problem, and addictions are a problem: alcohol, gambling, a variety of other things. Why one singles out one form of addiction over another is a little problematic to me, other than the fact that it smacks of Big Brother or Big Father or Big Mother. It smacks as defining one addiction more morally reprehensible than another addiction.
With regard to your financial argument, if you looked at the total cost to society of alcohol, it may very well be true that a province actually loses money on the sale of alcohol, yet we tried prohibition at one point — at least, the United States did — and it bombed. I do not dispute your numbers. I have difficulty personally singling out one form of addiction over another.
In any event, senators, I am prepared to report the bill back to the Senate. I find myself on the federal-provincial front exactly where Senator Champagne is. I am in your hands, prepared to do whatever you wish. I sense around the table there is a consensus that we ought to report the bill back without amendment.
I will point out one another thing. Certainly, in any committee I have ever chaired, we have always had the view that unless there was something terribly wrong with a private member's bill introduced by a senator, the committee would not kill that bill. If the bill were to be killed, it would be killed by the chamber as a whole and not by the committee. This another reason for reporting it back. I feel it is important that you understand where I stand on the issue.
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to proceed?
Senator Peterson: I knew that the fact that it isfederal-provincial jurisdiction was going to come up. It is a matter of where that gets picked up. We have identified it here and we can go back to the Senate; I presume it will come up there again, and even if it makes it all the way through it has to go to the House of Commons and they will really pick it up there. It is there. What can we do?
The Chairman: That is correct. You cannot amend that out of the bill because it gets rid of the bill. My position is that we should not be legislating in an area that we have given the provinces, however badly they are doing it. They do a lot of things badly, and we do a lot of things in our area of jurisdiction where one would wonder why we keep it. You cannot kick the bill out on that ground, unless the Senate as a whole decides it does not want to pass a bill in an area of provincial jurisdiction, but that should be decided by the Senate as a whole and not by a committee. I thought for the benefit of members I would tell you what I was going to do. That is all.
Do I detect a view that we should report the bill back to the Senate without amendment, and that everyone is free to do whatever he or she wants to do on the floor of the Senate when it comes back?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It would be silly to have another meeting for clause-by-clause. There are only two clauses in the bill. Can we agree that is what we do?
I will report it back, either this afternoon or next Tuesday when we get the paperwork done, if that is fine with everyone.
Senator Lapointe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The committee adjourned.