Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence for February 18, 2004
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 18, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-6, to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), met this day at 4:55 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, today we begin our study of Bill S-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to lottery schemes.
As you are aware, this legislation is sponsored by our friend and colleague Senator Lapointe.
[Translation]
I would like to welcome Senator Lapointe and his assistant, Pascal Charron.
[English]
Before we begin, I will ask, with the permission of the committee, if Senator Beaudoin could take the chair for the rest of this meeting. Following the meeting, we will have a five or ten minute session in camera on future business. I should point out as well that, due to the fact that the room is booked for another hearing following ours, we must be finished by 6:15.
Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to thank our chairman for his generosity. It is a pleasure to chair this meeting. Without further ado, I will turn the floor over to our colleague, Senator Lapointe.
Senator Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, in my speech on this bill at second reading in the Senate, I said all there was to say on the matter I am here to discuss with you this evening. So I will spare you the details of the studies and reports referred to in my speech; I will just give you an overview.
After a lot of thought, after several meetings, and after studying this issue for months with my colleagues and other interested parties, we have come to the conclusion that the video lottery terminals in the bars and restaurants of eight Canadian provinces are a real curse, and that they should be removed from those establishments and relocated to casinos, racetracks and associated horse racing, all run exclusively by the provincial governments. With such an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada, we can contain this scourge, which too often causes countless problems for our fellow Canadians.
According to support organizations for problem gamblers, help lines, academics and public health institutions, there is unanimous agreement that gambling on video lottery terminals is by far the most addictive form of gambling.
One of the main problem is accessibility. In towns and villages, it is hard to find a single major street or avenue where these destructive machines are not to be found.
Another significant problem is visibility. Young people in bars are attracted by video lottery terminals. It is to be expected that the young people of the Nintendo generation will in turn fall pray to the appeal of these video lottery machines. I cannot help but be pessimistic about the future impact of these video lotteries on young people.
In its August 2000 report, the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux du Québec said that in 1996, in the Quebec City area, 7.4 per cent of young people under 18 had gambling-related problems. Thirty-four per cent of young people participating in the study reported that they had used video lottery terminals; they had therefore gambled while they were still minors.
[English]
In this proposition paper on Manitoba's gaming policy, the Manitoba Association of Social Workers reported that of five age categories, the youngest — age 18 to 24 — had the highest percentage — 66 per cent — who have played vide lottery terminals (VLTs) within the past year. Their studies indicate that young people are highly susceptible to gaming gambling devices such as VLTs.
[Translation]
Pathological and problem gambling has serious social and financial repercussions on individuals, families and society in general. So much distress, so many broken homes, suicide, and crimes committed by video lottery addicts.
I ask you this, honourable senators: Why is the vast majority of these destructive machines to be found in our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods? These problems put a serious strain on the health care system; they tie up the courts and are very costly to taxpayers.
I am going to give you a list of some of the problems most frequently related to problem gambling, due in large part to video lottery machines. Often, gambling causes the individual to go into debt, which may ultimately lead to bankruptcy. The individual's health is jeopardized, causing stress, depression, and sometimes even suicide. For families, the downside of gambling can be a lack of financial resources to meet the basic needs of the children. We can therefore conclude that the entire family suffers from the nefarious downside of gambling.
[English]
In its resolutions of 1999 with regard to VLTs, the Canadian Public Health Association stated that research has shown that the spouses of problem gamblers report higher than normal suicide attempts, nervous breakdowns and substance abuse, and that the children of problem gamblers have behavioural or adjustment problems related to school, drug or alcohol abuse, running away and arrest.
[Translation]
In the workplace the consequences of compulsive gambling are also felt through the loss of productivity and absenteeism. The compulsive gambler in distress can even go so far as to flirt with crime. It is reported that gamblers resort to robbery, fraud and pawnshops to finance their gambling habit.
By passing Bill S-6, the Government of Canada will help those provinces that wind up with a deficit and not a profit through their video lottery terminals, contrary to what some representatives of those provincial governments may state.
Honourable senators, the social cost of video lottery machines is far higher than the income derived from them by provincial governments. They must open their eyes and realize this. Through studies done by experts all across Canada, like the one done by Dr. Neil Tudiver, in Manitoba, it is proven that the social cost of video lotteries is from three to five times higher than the income derived. For those who believe that taking video lottery terminals out of bars, taverns, restaurants and other locations would open the door wide to all kinds of illegal organizations, let me just tell you that the legalization of video lottery machines has not led to the disappearance of loan-sharking, much to the detriment of compulsive gamblers.
In conclusion, gambling, in our society, has become an omnipresent problem. The problem of pathological gambling is increasing in this country in terrifying proportions. From sea to sea, our provincial populations are being faced with a scourge so major that the federal government must shoulder its responsibility and put the brakes on the tragedy that too many of our Canadian families are going through.
I sincerely believe that if we tackle the accessibility and visibility of video lottery machines, it could have a very positive effect on society. That is why I am asking you, honourable senators, to support Bill S-6 expeditiously in order to save the greatest number of human lives and put an end to this huge distress which is the lot not only of compulsive gamblers but of all those who are close to them, and more particularly the little children.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Senator Lapointe.
[English]
Senator Furey: Senator Lapointe, let me first congratulate and commend you on your efforts to address this very serious problem. I have a couple of very practical questions. Looking at the wording of your proposed amend to the Criminal Code, I am wondering — because it refers to contrivances or operations described as computers or video devices — would that preclude corner stores from selling 6/49 tickets or Super 7 tickets?
Senator Lapointe: Not at all, Senator Furey.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: It is just for the video lottery machines, in other words the sets with a video component. I am not at all concerned with those who want to gamble at 6/49 and other games. I am concentrating only on the damned video lottery terminals. Excuse me if I am using inappropriate language for a committee, but if you knew how much I hate those terminals, you would understand where I am coming from.
[English]
Senator Furey: Senator Lapointe, can I assume from your answer that it would not interfere with satellite bingo or any of those games?
Senator Lapointe: Not at all.
Senator Furey: I believe that this question comes more from the provinces that do not have casinos or elaborate racetracks. If Newfoundland has one racetrack that is all it has. Would that preclude them from having any gambling outside of say, 6/49 and Super 7 and so forth?
Senator Lapointe: My concentration is strictly on VLTs, video poker.
[Translation]
I think that 6/49 and the other gambling games associated with it which are supervised by the provinces don't create even one thousandth of the problems created by video lotteries. I am only attacking video lotteries — not lotteries as such — because of their accessibility and their visibility in those areas where you have economically disadvantaged people. I have gone there myself: in Montreal, I found hundreds; I found them in Pointe St-Charles in the east end of Montreal, and in the west also. I went to Westmount where people are economically well off; I did not find a single one.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: As you know, I am from one of the provinces where there are many VLTs and they seem to have been supported by governments of all stripes. How do you differentiate from the consequences of addiction with VLTs and casinos, because both came, as I recall, about the same time into the province? There are the addiction rates, the difficulties, and the use of an excuse in criminal cases with individuals saying, ``I was addicted and therefore I stole to continue my habit.''
How did you make the assessment that casinos and their proliferation is fine but VLTs are not?
Senator Lapointe: I did not say casinos were fine.
Senator Andreychuk: I am sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, but you said you zeroed in on VLTs, whereas most of the reports of the problems that people are having is from gambling addiction. I want to know how you took out the VLT to be the culprit and casinos are all right to continue?
Senator Lapointe: I am not aiming at casinos; they exist. Some people go to casinos to simply have some fun; unfortunately, many of them become addicts to the casinos. In case you do not know, I am a gambler. I was once a heavy gambler and for the past 15 years, I have been a little gambler, having fun with the games, but not risking my wife's or my children's situation. However, I know by experience and from observation. I went to VLT places many times to see the behaviour of individuals.
[Translation]
Video lottery machines are is the equivalent of crack cocaine. In the ranks of those who put $20 in a video lottery terminal — and I won't give the percentage because I don't have the exact figures — too many of them became hooked after only doing it once.
As an example, in the Sherbrooke-Magog region, I saw a 71-year-old woman, whose husband had died and left her nearly $500,000, non-taxable, as well as two apartment buildings, lose all of her inheritance solely as a result of VLTs, without ever having set foot in a casino. Today, it is sad to see the same woman rush to the VLTs as soon as she receives her welfare cheque.
I am using this as an example to illustrate the despair felt by these people, who live in our country, and who are hooked on VLTs.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I have some other questions relating to the legal and technical issues. Do you feel that you are not intruding on provincial territory here and that you are well within the criminal area? You have obviously discussed it with some lawyers in drafting, and I would be interested to see how you feel you are going through this maze of getting legal —
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I have no restriction. In 1978 and in 1985, when this issue which had been under federal jurisdiction was transferred to the provinces, VLTs and casinos did not exist in Canada. Consequently, I do not believe that this issue encroaches on other jurisdictions.
Moreover, Minister Séguin has done some research and carried out investigations when a problem occurred.
Understand me: I am not looking for glory. I simply want to help those citizens who are suffering from this problem. If the Senate does derive some benefit from this, so much the better. My primary objective is to alleviate the suffering of the people. I have no other objective but to rid ourselves of this harmful plague that is already killing our young people. I could give you hundreds of examples, but I do not have enough time to do so this evening.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I share your concern about the addictions and the difficulties. Perhaps you are even more temperate than I would be if I were going to talk about gambling addiction. However, my concern is whether you have checked it. Do you feel that you are well within the federal jurisdiction on this matter?
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I am very comfortable with that aspect. Going back to my previous comment, during the televised program Le Point, I had quoted a few figures that shook Minister Séguin, after he had announced that he wanted to increase the number of lotteries in Quebec. The minister then confessed to the newspapers that he had been shaken by my comments. He then ordered two investigations to be conducted. I do not have the findings of these investigations, but it appears that they coincide with the data on which our study is based.
The situation is dramatic. Let's use the example of New Brunswick. To my great surprise, Senator Kinsella made a plea in support of my initiative a few days ago because he is aware of the scope of the problem in his province.
I travelled to seven or eight cities in New Brunswick and had an opportunity to question people. We know that New Brunswick held a referendum on VLTs. Those in favour of VLTs won the referendum by a very slight margin. The people I talk to told me that, in their opinion, less than 5 per cent of the population would be in favour of VLTs today, because we now know the social costs and the tragedies resulting from these devices.
The Deputy Chairman: I think that the question was about whether or not you were touching criminal law. You are only interesting in where the people are gambling. If they are gambling in a casino, you are saying that that is all right with you. But if people are gambling elsewhere, you are saying that that is not appropriate.
Senator Lapointe: When you are talking about a casino or racetrack, people have to go there in order to play. VLTs, however, are found on street corners.
The Chairman: Therefore, you want to change where the game is played.
Senator Lapointe: I want the VLTs to be relocated.
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Andreychuk raised the issue of provincial legislation.
Senator Lapointe: I am not after prohibition.
[English]
Senator Furey: I have a supplementary to Senator Andreychuk's question. I believe Senator Andreychuk is saying that, traditionally, the control of gambling comes under the umbrella of federal jurisdiction. Throughout the last number of years, the federal government has given responsibility for amendments in the Criminal Code to the provinces, and the question is whether or not the amendment, as it is proposed, gets us back into the proper jurisdiction for addressing it. I guess we would have to have officials in from the Department of Justice to question whether we are effecting what you are trying to do, Senator Lapointe.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I would appreciate that because I do not have the legal expertise of the chair of this committee and I am not a lawyer. I believe that I am a man with a good heart. I simply wish to help my citizens in the face of so much suffering.
With respect to the legal issues, the lawyers who will be appearing before the committee will be able to answer questions of that type. My assistant and I just work for the cause.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: My question has been answered. I was interested in whether our colleague had legal resources. I am agree that we should ask the Department of Justice and others who study this every day and their specialists on the technical questions of federal-provincial involvement.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I, too, would like to thank you. I was very moved recently at a sitting of the Senate, when Senator Kinsella argued in favour of my position. It exceeded my expectations.
Even Senator Nolin, who is a Conservative, not a Liberal, said that he was prepared to help me in this initiative. I find this very noble, because the cause is in the interest of all Canadians.
We do not know which party will be in power in the future. However, if this amendment to the Criminal Code is passed, thanks to honourable senators, we will all benefit. I may no longer be living, but young Canadians will be cured and seniors may live longer. The number of seniors who have committed suicide because of these video lottery games is incredible!
[English]
Senator Baker: I want to congratulate the senator for bringing this bill forward. He makes an interesting legal point for consideration later by the committee. I think he is saying that he wants to narrow the present exemption given to the provinces to carry on gambling. Perhaps that is the question that the senator is putting forward in saying that if we give an exemption to the provinces to do this, why not then limit the exemption to not permit these devices to be in just any establishment, but to be restricted? Is that it, Mr. Charron?
Mr. Pascal Charron, Political Adviser, Senate of Canada: That is exactly what Senator Lapointe wants to do and that is the purpose of the bill.
[Translation]
The intention is to limit access to video lottery terminals to places where people go to gamble already. This bill deals with the problem of access and visibility.
Senator Lapointe: Get them out of the street, put them into casinos or racetracks where people go to gamble in any case. Let us not develop new gamblers among our young people. These machines are like crack for the young. We have heard testimonies along these lines. Your question is very relevant. We are not seeking prohibition, we simply want to put these machines in places to reduce the harm they cause in our society.
[English]
Senator Baker: I think everyone agrees with you on this. However, finding a way to do it is the key. Mr. Charron suggested that if there were a mechanism under the Criminal Code to allow an exemption to the law, then perhaps you could narrow that exemption so that it would be permitted only in certain establishments.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: What is the meaning of the ``exemption,'' which you use in the French version. Could someone explain the meaning for me?
Senator Joyal: These machines would be allowed in casinos, rather than ``exempted.'' Senator Baker is saying essentially that video lottery terminals would be allowed in casinos and places...
Senator Lapointe: Thank you, I do not want to destroy these machines. That is not my objective. If some people are behind them, then they will have to live with their conscience. All I want is to have these machines located in casinos, where there are already other such machines. My objective has to do with visibility and accessibility. At the restaurant two blocks away from where you live, there is a machine, and people sometimes take their coffee over to the machine, leaving the person they were with to finish his or her meal alone. I have often seen that.
[English]
Senator Baker: Mr. Charron, do you have anything to add?
[Translation]
Mr. Charron: We had some meetings with the law clerks and we explained what we wanted to do. Everyone agrees with the bill. No one has disagreed with it. The only thing we have to do is to find a way to get everyone on side. The law clerks suggested an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. Under the Canadian Constitution, gaming still comes under federal jurisdiction today.
The Deputy Chairman: I will not go that far. I am sure we will come back to this debate tomorrow.
[English]
Senator Baker: Of course, the Deputy Chairman, Senator Beaudoin, is interjecting. We are very fortunate to have him on this committee. He was honoured last year by the Canadian Bar Association, along with our former Chief Justice Lamer, for his great contribution to Constitutional law and the Charter. He has a deep and thorough understanding of the law.
You do not want to be in a situation such that you propose a bill, the subject matter of which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the province. I concede where you are coming from on this. There is an act that states the provinces shall be allowed to do such-and-such and this bill simply further limits the authority given to the provinces. That is probably why some of the legal experts that you consulted suggested that way of proceeding. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: Yes, the only way of getting around the problem, since gaming comes under provincial jurisdiction at the moment, is through an amendment to the Criminal Code, which does come under the federal government. If the amendment to the Criminal Code is accepted, the provinces will no longer have anything to say about the matter. If this creates some federal-provincial wrangling, well, that is not my problem. My objective is the most important thing. Bring me any minister or premier from Quebec, Alberta or elsewhere. If they oppose this bill, either they have no heart, or they are buddies of the guys who have video games in their bars. I am following a straight line and the high road, and I will maintain it before anyone.
[English]
Senator Baker: Senator, we can all assure you that there have been many amendments to the Criminal Code over the years — every year we see them. Many of those amendments to the Criminal Code have later been declared unconstitutional. However, that did not stop the amendments from taking place to the Criminal Code in the first place.
In the investigations, did you find that certain provinces allowed more of these machines in grocery stores, corner stores and pool halls, whereas other provinces did not allow it to that extent? Which provinces have been, shall we say, responsible provinces, if you would go that far, and which provinces have been irresponsible in the administration of this business?
[Translation]
Mr. Charron: I would say that, generally speaking, our research shows that this has become a cash cow that they can no longer do without. The provincial governments have surpluses every year. The sticking point is their promise to provide a certain percentage of this revenue to help compulsive gamblers. The figure for Quebec is 1 or 2 per cent. I do not have the figures for the other provinces. That is the problem. There is a promise to provide assistance for compulsive gamblers, because their numbers are increasing every year. The number of compulsive gamblers in the provinces is increasing, as are gambling-related problems and suicides. The Saskatchewan coroner shows a link between gambling and the suicide rate, which is increasing every year. It is shocking.
[English]
Senator Baker: I have one final question for Senator Lapointe that I will preface by saying that I have never played one of those machines.
Senator Lapointe: Good for you.
Senator Baker: It is a complex little machine that I would not know how to operate. When you look at all of these machines, you wonder what these people are doing. Are they experts with these little machines? How much money would typical players spend? How much money do they put into one of those machines each time they play? How much money could they lose in an evening or in a day?
Senator Lapointe: I know for certain because I have the proof. I saw a man lose almost $5,000 in one night in one of those machines. The machines accept $20 bills and when you win, you receive a ticket to take to the cashier at the bar, which always has a great deal of cash. However, you cannot win more than $500 at one time. The minimum play is 40 cents and the maximum play is $2.50 in VLTs. However, when you lose 50 times in a row, it adds up pretty fast. The problem is you do not have to be a genius to understand what is going on. If you put a buck and a quarter and you have seven seven's in a line, then it gives you $250.
Senator Baker: You say most of the people who are playing these machines are poor people?
Senator Lapointe: I would say 90 per cent or more. It is a false dream that they sell to the poor people because they buy dreams.
Senator Joyal: I would like to make a comment on the issue raised by Senator Baker before addressing myself to our witnesses.
The Criminal Code is pretty clear, and I am quoting part 7 of the code, that gaming and betting is a criminal offence per se. Of course, there are exemptions. At paragraph 206 for instance, there is an exemption for fairs; a provincial government can move in and regulate the fairs. However, per se, betting is a criminal offence and it is permitted only by exemption in some areas.
The principle of exemption is well recognized in that section of the code. I was just reading through section 201 to 208, and there are various exemptions here and there, according to various sets of offences.
We will have an opportunity to address that issue more thoroughly when we hear experts tomorrow.
[Translation]
Which two provinces do not have video lottery terminals?
Senator Lapointe: I believe they are British Columbia and Ontario.
Senator Joyal: You mentioned that you have the support of various groups for eliminating video lottery terminals from certain public places. You said that there is a yearly meeting of the provincial attorneys general. Do you know whether they have ever discussed this issue? Have they reached some sort consensus about how to control the growth of this type of gambling? Did they ask the Canadian government to amend the Criminal Code to achieve this objective?
Senator Lapointe: I do not think any decision of this type has been made. I am sure we would have been told. They may meet before the debate continues, before we reach the end of this matter. My objective is not to promote meetings or protests, but rather to alleviate the suffering of young children who have to eat soda biscuits on Monday morning for energy, because there is no bread or butter in the house. I find such images striking and painful. I will leave the legal aspects to the lawyers and specialists.
Senator Joyal: How many of these machines are there in Canada, as far as you know? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? How many would there be in Quebec, for example?
Senator Lapointe: I believe there used to be 18,000 of them, and now the number has been reduced to 14,000. The less popular machines have been removed. The people in charge keep the ones that pay and pocket the profits. They do not want to accept the resulting social cost.
Senator Joyal: Who gets the revenue from the 14,000 machines? Is it the owners of the premises who profit from having the machines? In other words, if the Senate and House of Commons pass legislation, what type of shortfall would the businesses sustain as a result of the elimination of these video lottery terminals?
Senator Lapointe: The figures are huge. A number of these bars pay all their operating costs out of the revenue from these machines. Some bar owners have reduced the size of their washrooms and put in walls, so that they could install more machines. In some places, there are as many as 30 or 40 such machines. The more there are, the more money the owners make. I do not need to tell you that the underworld is very well structured to operate these machines, at least in Quebec. Some people own 20, 25 or 30 machines, and each one brings in between $25,000 and $35,000 a year.
Senator Joyal: So it can be as much as $35,000 a year in revenues for the owners. And what percentage of the revenue does the provincial government get?
Senator Lapointe: I no longer remember the amount. We are currently talking about a billion dollars in Quebec. I do not know how much it would be if you were to divide one billion by 14,000.
Senator Joyal: So, in your opinion, what would the income from video lotteries be in Quebec right now?
Senator Lapointe: Last year, it was about 930 million dollars, and there was an increase. So they are making about a billion dollars.
Senator Joyal: And you said that the government has committed to spending one per cent of this billion?
Senator Lapointe: Perhaps two, in an effort to heal one out of a hundred or one out of a thousand people that they have made sick.
Senator Joyal: If you are purporting that, in this type of operation, organized crime could be involved, to your knowledge, has the Association of Chiefs of Police or organizations responsible for law and order already asked the Government of Quebec — the province with which you are the most familiar — to get rid of these machines in these locations and to restrict them to places where the government has control, since the casinos are government property?
Senator Lapointe: I must tell you that before I intervened, I had never heard anything about this, and I do not believe that the police forces, whether they be federal or municipal forces, have asked for anything whatsoever. But all those with whom I have spoken have said: If you succeed, you are going to save lives and resolve a lot of crimes.
Senator Joyal: Are there any social organizations who are taking the same initiatives as you are with the provincial authorities? The Conseil de la famille and youth advocacy associations come to mind. Try to provide us with more details. We fully understand why you are doing this, but from a social perspective, I am trying to see which other social welfare organizations may be making representations along the same lines as yours.
Senator Lapointe: To my great surprise, I must tell you that, after making inquiries, barmen and hotel waiters have given us their full support. I was really surprised by this, but I understood, after talking with two or three of them, that they understand the harm done by these machines. They also see the player who has a beer as he gambles; he used to give a two-dollar tip but today, he only gives one because the other dollar that he inserts into the machine may win him the jackpot. We have a list of associations somewhere.
Senator Joyal: Do any of them come to mind?
Mr. Charron: L'Institut de santé du Québec... I cannot recall the names. We could send you a list.
Senator Lapointe: There are the social service centres, among others. There is some type of Christian association that has given us its full support. Since this is my first appearance before a committee, I am lacking in experience. This is probably what we should have submitted first of all. There are about 15 associations from right across the country, it is wonderful.
And people I have never heard of before have conducted research. But naturally there is the Ligue d'entraide pour les joueurs compulsifs, the centres who help compulsive gamblers, the police associations as well as academics and others who support us. Included in this list is Dr. Robert Ladouceur of Laval University. These people will testify. You have Mr. Tudiver and others. I do not know them. They have given their opinions. They have explained that it was time to find a solution to this problem.
[English]
Senator Smith: I should like to make a brief observation on which the honourable senator might want to comment.
I am very supportive of this. You said it was a noble cause and I believe you are correct. I have always had some sympathy for the horseracing industry because it is very labour intensive; many of the jobs involved in it are agricultural. I have never had problems with something we have had for hundreds of years. However, it would be desirable to reign in the proliferation of gambling in Canada.
J.S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas, M. J. Coldwell, and Stanley Knowles — men for whom I have the highest respect — would roll over in their graves at the knowledge that casinos came into Ontario courtesy of the NDP, which was so desperate for money that they brought in casinos. We cannot turn back the clock, but if we can make a bit of progress, this is the right direction in which to go. I want to applaud your initiative in this regard.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I would like to add that I prefer the racetrack industry to the video lottery sector. But if we were to put all of these slot machines and VLTs in the casinos and raceway VLT halls, the racinos, directly, there would be additional assistance provided to racetrack gambling, which is currently in trouble. It is not appropriate to elaborate on what I mean today, later on we can see what needs to be done in this sector.
[English]
Senator Smith: I get your point.
Senator Bryden: Is it a piece of cake, is it not?
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: For those of you who do not know, that's what I call him.
One day I was sitting on a committee where I did not understand anything. We had a quorum. I excused myself. I told Senator Bryden that he had some adversaries facing him. I asked him whether or not he would be able to deal with them without too many problems because I could not help him at all. He said:
[English]
``It is going to be a piece of cake.''
[Translation]
So since then, I have called him ``piece of cake.'' That had really left quite an impression on me.
[English]
So you better not make a piece of cake about me right now.
Senator Bryden: Why do you think I raised it?
I want to raise a couple of issues. New Brunswick, from where I come, has an exemption from the Criminal Code that allows it to have video gambling machines. It does not have casinos — we do not have that much money. The citizens of New Brunswick are concerned about the impact of problem gamblers. As a result, the Government of New Brunswick conducted a referendum. There is some question about whether it was a fair contest in respect of the people who manufacture the machines and the people who profit from having them in their premises because they had more money with which to promote their cause. Then the churches and other folks on the other side said they wanted to get rid of them, although not entirely. I think they were trying to get them out of corner stores and newsstands. They wanted to restrict them to places where people of drinking age could legally go — that is, bars, clubs and probably also the racetracks.
There was a referendum.
Senator Joyal: Was the question clear?
Senator Bryden: The question was clear. We did not have to get a clarity bill.
Senator Smith: Was there a clear majority?
Senator Bryden: I do not think there was huge majority, but it was a clear majority that defeated the restriction; that is, the lottery machines continued to function in the same manner as they had before the referendum.
In the face of that, I do not know how the Government of New Brunswick would react to the federal government now saying that, because of Senator Lapointe's bill, we are going to take away their right to have those.
Senator Lapointe: Put them in the racetracks only.
Senator Bryden: I understand what you are saying, but these things are currently in place. People may be addicted to the gambling process, but the provinces are addicted to the money they are making and a number of businesses really do cover their initial overheads out of their cut of that, so some small businesses would be adversely affected.
You say that people will continue to play the game because they want to buy a dream. Well, people are dreaming when they buy tickets in the 6/49 lottery. Do we have the right to say that it is all right for people who have the means to bet everything they have at casinos and race tracks, but that the woman who blew $500,000 on a video machine does not have the right to do that, although she could have done so at the race track or at a casino?
I always have a concern when we say that we have to look after the exercise of rights or privileges when they are the rights or privileges of people of limited means. They do not have the right to decide whether they blow it all on video gambling or on liquor or whatever it is. Society will control them, as to what they have a right to do, as against then being able to say, ``If you are rich enough to afford the first-class gambling addiction, that is okay, even if you spend everything you have.'' That differentiation concerns me a bit.
We now are at a point where one of the most costly things in our society is the rapidly increasing cost of health care because we are getting older and because we are getting fatter and because our children are getting fatter on transfats and junk foods, et cetera. Just as you said about the gambling, the people who eat most of the junk food or more junk food than normal tend to be the poor people, because if they have a buck, it is easy to spend it on the cheaper foods and the fast foods.
Do we have a right to discriminate on this basis? We discriminate because we do not want the poor people spending their money on gambling instead of good food and feeding their children well, but it is okay if that happens at a certain level of education or a certain level of richness.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: Thank you for your presentation, Senator Bryden. You must understand that I am not suggesting prohibition. When you say that the wealthy go the casino, you are wrong. Buses pick up people from everywhere to bring them to the casino. There is a system where buses leave from certain poor districts, without charging any money, to bring the people to the racetrack. More and more people are going to the racetracks, but not to play the horses, they go to use the slot machines and VLTs.
Did you know that the Montreal Casino brings in senior citizens, the elderly, and for $10 these people can see a show, they are served wine and cheese, and once the show is over, they are given $20 in tokens in order to play, to get them used to playing, because these are vulnerable people. I do not think that has anything to do with the whole issue of junk food for the poor and three-inch steak for the rich.
Right now, we want to help the small folks who are hooked on these machines. You come from New Brunswick, I do not know where you found your most recent figures. I talked to about 40 people and I was told that this issue had been the subject of a referendum and that the results had been tight — about 51 to 49. I was told that if the referendum were to be held again today, it would be defeated hands down. So the collective consciousness of New Brunswickers has decided that this was a bad thing, not a good thing, and that the revenue generated by this activity was anywhere from three to five times less that the amount of money spent on correctional services, health care, shortfalls due to absenteeism, suicides, et cetera.
We are not asking for an outright ban on these machines, we could open up a centre where these machines could be located and the government would run the centre. Personally, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding third parties who line their pockets at the expense of people who are suffering, Senator Bryden.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Senator, I commend you for all the work you have done on this issue. We will hear from the legal people. I would hope that the horse has not already left the barn and that we can do something to support you.
I have two short questions of you. You were talking about these machines being located in the poorer areas. Is this your observation, or do you have some research on it?
Senator Lapointe: We have research on it.
Senator Jaffer: Will you provide us with that research, please?
My second question is have you done any research on the social costs that the provinces suffer by having these gambling devices?
Senator Lapointe: We have not, but some specialist researchers have looked into this. The social cost is from three to five times the amount these facilities bring in. The problem is that the lottos and VLTs bring money in right away, but they do not see the costs until right away.
[Translation]
This will not decline, it will increase.
The Chairman: Thank you Senator Lapointe, that was very interesting. I would also like to thank Mr. Pascal Charron.
We must now sit in camera to discuss the future business of the committee.
The committee continued in camera.