Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence for February 19, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 19, 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 10:55 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Our agenda today is Bill S-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to lottery schemes. We will resume the study initiated yesterday with the testimony of the sponsor, Senator Lapointe.
We are fortunate to have with us today the assistance of two experts in the field of youth gambling, both psychologists from McGill University, who run the International Centre for Youth Gambling Problems and High- Risk Behaviours.
Honourable senators, I ask you to welcome this morning Professor Jeffrey Derevensky and Professor Rina Gupta. Welcome.
I will now invite you to make an opening comment to the committee, and that will be followed by questions from senators.
Professor Jeffrey Derevensky, McGill University: It is a pleasure to share with you some of our expertise and knowledge in gambling in general, and youth gambling in particular.
At McGill, to give you an overview, Ms. Gupta and I have been working for the last 12 or 13 years trying to understand why certain individuals are at high risk for developing problems. This has led us into a variety of research and prevention studies, and, in fact, we also run a treatment centre at our university.
In prefacing the information on video lottery terminals, or VLTs, in particular, and with respect to the bill, I would suggest to this officious body that one thing missing is a national commission to study gambling in Canada in general. Both Ms. Gupta and I have been actively involved in a number of national commissions in other countries, and we would like to suggest that the senators seriously consider trying to establish a national committee to study all forms of gambling in this country, in addition to VLT playing.
As an overarching comment, what we know is that the percentage of individuals with severe gambling problems in Canada, as well as in other parts of North America and Europe, generally tend to run between 1 per cent and 3 per cent of all adults. A number of studies that we have done at our centre, and that have been replicated in other parts of the world, seem to suggest that adolescents, as a group, are also very high risk for developing gambling problems. In fact, we find that between 4 per cent and 8 per cent of adolescents are at high risk for developing gambling and gambling- related problems. Those problems are accompanied by delinquency behaviours, mental health, physical health, social and emotional problems, as well as academic problems. In our Ms. Gupta and I submitted, we tried to articulate what some of those problems are, and what the research has told us.
We also know, though, that problem gambling affects between five and seven other people directly, as a conservative measure. If a husband or a wife has a gambling problem, it will certainly impact upon their family members, their employers, their peers and their friends, as well as the larger social system. Although the numbers are relatively small, when you start multiplying those directly affected, including those indirectly affected, we see a large number of individuals being seriously affected by severe gambling problems in our society.
There is also speculation that the highest risk group for gambling problems are those individuals who are between 18 and 25 years of age. We now have an entire generation of youth who have grown up in a society in which gambling is not only legal, but supported by our provinces, endorsed by our provinces and, in fact, the revenues generated are going to our provinces. We have moved from having gambling viewed as a sinful activity to a much more commonplace social form of entertainment within our society.
We also know that individuals with gambling problems are engaging in all forms of activities. While some may have a desire to be casino players or blackjack players, we also know that many of them will be involved in a variety of different activities. One of the clients that we had at the university, who had a severe casino problem, became a VLT problem player once we kept him out of the casinos.
We know, too, that from a regulatory framework, pathological gamblers engage in a multitude of different games, some of which are government regulated, some of which are informal amongst themselves — so they may wager sports among themselves; and, some of them are illegal forms of gambling through bookmakers or Internet gambling.
We also know that there is a progression at play. It is not what psychologists refer to as a ``single trial learning.'' You do not walk into a casino or play a VLT machine for the first time and become a pathological gambler. We know that there is a progression. Unfortunately, one of the concerns that we have about VLT playing is that progression is highly escalated and much quicker than in other forms of gambling.
The video lottery terminals, or electronic gaming machines, appear to be highly problematic as a result of their structural characteristics. For example, these machines have high payout rates so that one is reinforced frequently on these games. They operate on what psychologists call ``variable ratio schedules.'' You do not lose all your money at once; you win some and lose some. That, from a psychological perspective, keeps individuals engaged in these behaviours for a longer period of time.
There is a perceived illusion of control on these machines. One of the concerns that Ms. Gupta and I have from our research is that many of these games are now using video game technology. They are using electronic screens. We know that an entire generation of youth has been engaged in video game playing or has been playing these types of games on the computer. We are concerned not only with the current rates of pathological gambling in our society; we are also very much concerned with future rates of pathological gambling.
An interesting dilemma has plagued the field in recent years. Given that adolescents have a higher rate of pathological gambling than adults, there is a concern that we are perhaps overestimating that as youth mature they will somehow stop gambling themselves. Our concern is that we will not know the answer to that for another 10 to 15 years. We are playing a very difficult social experiment today with our youth since we do not know what the final outcome will be in 10 to 15 years.
We also know that VLT machines are highly addictive. They have appealing light, colour and sound. They use multiple games on these machines, which enable an individual to consistently play on and off.
We believe that our government, as a regulator, has a responsibility to balance the enormous revenues generated from VLT machines against a duty of care. Our concern is that in Canada in particular, in those provinces that regulate themselves, there is no arm's-length distance between the regulatory bodies and the governments that are benefiting from the revenues. We need to try to establish some stronger regulatory bodies.
We also know, with the specifics of this bill, that the local convenience of VLTs makes them very attractive. You do not have to walk very far in any major urban city to find a VLT. They are located at almost every other corner. There is also concern about the advertising of VLTs. In Quebec, for example, there is a serious concern as to whether or not establishments with these VLTs are advertising themselves as mini-casinos.
Our anecdotal data suggests that when asked to choose between a liquor permit and a VLT permit, those Quebec establishments that have both tell us to take the alcohol permit. This is a huge business. In Alberta, gambling revenues from VLTs alone are close to $1 billion; in Quebec, a similar amount has been generated.
Some national studies have examined attitudes towards VLT use. A 1999 study conducted by Jason Azmier and his group at Canada West Foundation, surveyed randomly 2,200 participants and found that the majority of respondents — 70 per cent — agreed with restricting VLTs to dedicated gambling venues such as casinos and race tracks. With the vast number of VLTs and slot machines in racetracks today, Canada has become notorious in phrasing a new terminology for gambling establishments now called ``racinos,'' a combination of racetracks and casinos.
There are also regional variances in response to questions showing the popularity of VLTs. The Maritime provinces seem to be most opposed to VLTs, with 62 per cent of individuals in favour of banning them. In British Columbia, 44 per cent of respondents support a ban and in Ontario — where they are the least popular — 37 per cent support a ban on VLTs. Ontario does not have VLTs, per se, in establishments that serve liquor. More women than men agree that VLTs should be banned. Older males were more against VLT playing than younger males between the ages of 18 to 35.
As a centre at McGill University, we are extremely concerned about the proliferation of gambling in Canada and, in particular, VLT playing. Ms. Gupta can elaborate more on some of our research in which we are finding that, despite legal prohibitions for underage youth playing VLTs, they seem to have little difficulty accessing these machines and engaging in this type of behaviour.
The Chairman: Ms. Gupta, did you have anything to add before questions?
Ms. Gupta: No.
The Chairman: Before going to Senator Beaudoin, I have a question for you, Mr. Derevensky. You indicated that in Quebec, there is approximately $1 billion each year in revenue from VLTs. Do you know where the proceeds of that go and how much, if any of it, goes to education on gambling addiction and rehabilitation of people addicted to gambling?
Mr. Derevensky: In general, in Quebec, 100 per cent of all the revenues go back to the government. The funds are not earmarked for anything else. However, Lotto Quebec, the government organization that runs all of gambling in the province — lotteries, VLTs and casinos — now puts in $20 million to the provincial government, to the Minister of Health and Social Services for specific use for research treatment and prevention of gambling problems. This is relatively new. While $20 million seems like a great amount, the net revenues for all gambling in the province of Quebec last year totalled $1.3 billion. A relatively small proportion of money is being put back into our system right now.
The Chairman: Just a clarification: Is the $1.3 billion all gambling and not just VLTs?
Mr. Derevensky: Yes. That is correct.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like to address the question that was raised yesterday in respect of division of powers. Gambling is a crime as provided for in the code, and the criminal law is generously interpreted. There is no doubt about that. The provinces are involved to a certain extent, but the fact is that even if the provinces are involved, the articles of the Criminal Code are referring to exemptions, et cetera. I think that the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces is respected. However, there is a collaboration or interprovincial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces. Everything is part of the crime as it is envisaged in the Criminal Code and the exemptions of course.
We raised that point yesterday. Senator Lapointe does not object to gambling in casinos and some other places; he objects to gambling in the bars. He wants to get rid of that. It is a question of location.
The fact is, however, that the section of the Criminal Code that is involved is drafted in such a manner that the location becomes part of the crime.
Mr. Derevensky: That is more of a legal question than a question for a psychologist. However, having said that, our interpretation of the proposed bill is that gambling would be relegated to establishments that are primarily designed for gambling. We are concerned that many of the current existing places where you would find VLTs may now elect to say that they are now gambling establishments and they will remove all the other services that they provide, since the vast amount of money that they make is, in fact, relegated to the gambling.
We do believe, personally, that the federal government needs to take a much stronger stance in controlling and/or regulating gambling in general in this country. However, it would be more appropriate for legal scholars to determine whether or not it falls within provincial or federal jurisdictions.
Senator Beaudoin: Some of us here raised the point of discrimination. The rich will go to casinos and do everything they want. Those who are not as rich go to the bars and they spend their money there, but they have less money. I do not think there is discrimination in the way the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example, would be involved in this. I cannot say that.
Ms. Gupta: Our concern is that people should not have such ready access to electronic gaming machines — particularly to the point where they may end up gambling when they had no intentions of doing so because they end up being in a location, or passing by a location, that is advertising the service of these machines.
We find that a lot of people start developing gambling problems by mistake. They were in a bar waiting for a friend, or they were walking down the street and saw a poster inviting them in, and they end up finding something that they would not originally have started gambling on. There is a very large opportunity in areas where the VLT machines are in the bars.
The second problem is that for those people who do have a gambling problem, or who are gambling quite a bit on these machines and have a desire to cut back and not gamble any more, it is so difficult for them to do that because of the proliferation of the machines everywhere around them. When we treat adolescents or young adults at our centre at McGill University, one of the things they ask is, ``How do I stop gambling when every time I turn my head I either know that there is a machine in that bar, or there is something really pulling me in because there is a machine in that bar?'' It is not something they can erase from their environment. A lot of them want to lock themselves in their homes and not step outside — thus the need, sometimes, for in-patient treatment centres.
It seems to be everywhere. In our province, and in provinces where they are permitted to be in bars, the machines are absolutely visible. The other day I was driving to work and I saw children waiting for a school bus right in front of a bar that had a poster for VLT machines. They were actually looking at the poster, obviously not knowing what it was. However, it is so incredibly visible.
Mr. Derevensky: It is also a point to note that, in a recent study that was done in the province of Alberta, 61 per cent of problem gamblers and 45 per cent of those with moderate problems had problems very specific to VLT playing. In a similar study, among 3,100 individuals seeking treatment in the province of Ontario in the past year, 67 per cent had VLT problems.
While you do not necessarily have to have a VLT problem exclusively to be a problematic gambler, it certainly seems that a large percentage of revenues are being generated from problem gamblers playing VLTs, and those individuals who are seeking treatment or who are having severe problems tend to have a problem with VLTs.
I would like to concur with Ms. Gupta in that the easy accessibility makes it very opportune for individuals who have gambling problems to walk in for five minutes and spend the rest of their day there.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Derevensky and Ms. Gupta, I read in your brief that you are from the International Centre for Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviours. Could you tell us more about your professional background, and to which faculty specifically in McGill you are attached? We did not get biographical notes of our witnesses. It would be helpful for the record because, as you know, we are being printed and many people will read what we are discussing today. Perhaps you could start with that.
Ms. Gupta: Certainly. I am a child psychologist — a clinical psychologist within the province of Quebec. I am employed at the University of McGill in the Faculty of Education and the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology.
Mr. Derevensky is employed in the same department. Together, through joint research that started in 1993-94, we built up enough funding and revenues to establish a centre at McGill to specifically address the issue of gambling, and youth gambling in particular.
Mr. Derevensky: I also hold employment in the department of psychiatry at McGill. Our affiliation with education tends to be more from where my salary is actually generated, but we have done a lot of work in the medical field, in psychiatry. We are doing joint projects with the Montreal Neurological Institute at McGill and with other places around the world.
We have a very specific mandate within our centre for prevention. We have a prevention team that is developing materials for schools, and we do workshops and training of treatment providers, as well as other prevention people and researchers throughout the world.
Senator Joyal: My first question is to try to understand all the implications — first the economic implications and, of course, the social implications. As you explained the social implications, you touched upon some economic implications. Can you tell us, by province, how much income is generated by the VLT machines? Do you have that so that we can know about it?
Mr. Derevensky: I do not have the total amounts. I do have the annual per capita gambling expenditures on VLTs by province. British Columbia is $451 — that is gambling, not VLTs, because they do not have VLTs.
Senator Joyal: All right.
Mr. Derevensky: In Alberta, the daily sales per VLT are $338, and their annual gambling per capita is $781. In Saskatchewan, the daily sales are $168, and the annual per capita spending is $672. In Manitoba, the daily sales are $112, and the annual per capita gambling is $612. In Ontario, there are no VLTs; there are only slot machines in racetracks or ``racinos,'' as they are now called, and the annual per capita gambling is $527. In the province of Quebec, the daily sales per VLT are $199. As a point of information, we have in our province 14,200 machines; if you multiply that number by $200, you will find the annual rates. We have an annual per capita gambling expenditure of $604.
In New Brunswick, they have daily sales on VLTs of $110, and annual per capita gambling expenditures of $435. In Nova Scotia, there are daily sales of $138, with annual gambling per capita expenditures of $595. In Prince Edward Island, there is a daily expenditure of $98 on VLTs, and a per capita gambling expenditure of $396. In Newfoundland, the daily sales are $116 on VLTs, and the annual per capita gambling is $531.
Among all the various provinces — and one must remember that the two larger provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, elected not to have VLTs at the present time at least — the average daily sales per VLT in this country are $187; the annual per capita gambling spending throughout this country is $557.
The Chairman: I want a clarification. I was confused when you were giving the number for Quebec, when you mentioned the number of machines. I thought you were giving us the per capita daily expenditure. Would that be on all machines, though?
Mr. Derevensky: No, that is $199 per day per machine.
The Chairman: Per machine?
Mr. Derevensky: Yes.
The Chairman: I did not understand that. I do not know if other senators understood.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a question about the others. You gave us figures on a per diem basis for B.C., yet that province has no VLTs. Could you go over the figures? You seem to have used a different baseline.
Mr. Derevensky: I had indicated in B.C. there are no daily VLTs, but annual per capita gambling in general in B.C. is $451.
The two provinces I omitted on daily spending on VLTs are Ontario and British Columbia.
The Chairman: Let me see if I have it correct now. If we just look at Quebec, for example, you gave us two figures, $199 per capita.
Senator Joyal: Per day, per year.
Mr. Derevensky: Per VLT.
The Chairman: Per VLT, and $604 being the gross for all gambling.
Mr. Derevensky: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: We are trying to understand the phenomenon. I am totally new at trying to understand the scope and the ramifications of this.
Would you have the income that each province gets from those machines? In other words, do you have the number of the machines in each province so that you can multiply the average per capita per day? You mentioned Quebec; yesterday we were told that Quebec draws $980 million of income from VLTs. I think we were given the figure from Alberta as well. Do you have these figures for the other provinces so that we know exactly the impact on the provincial income of the existence and exploitation of those machines?
Mr. Derevensky: I do not have those figures with me, but we certainly could provide those to this committee.
It is important to note, though, that if one removes the VLTs from the revenue stream of a provincial government, it will not come down to zero. If there are no VLTs to play, VLT players will wind up going to a casino and playing a slot machine, which, in many ways, is similar to a VLT. To say that if we remove the VLTs completely from a province we will reduce the revenues by that amount is not accurate.
Ms. Gupta: The people who are affected are actually the bar owners, because it is the revenues that they get from owning the machines that will be completely lost to them.
Senator Joyal: There is a qualification to your comments. In a province where there is no casino. If you remove the VLTs from any public place, there would be a net loss. The funds would not be reoriented unless people buy more 6/49 tickets and scratching cards and so forth. Then, of course, the revenue might be reoriented. In each and every province, it would not be the same in terms of impact of the lost revenue.
Ms. Gupta: My understanding is that the proposal is not to remove the VLTs completely from society; it is to restrict them and limit them to establishments dedicated to gaming. The idea would be to remove them from the bars and to put them in what you would call mini-casinos or established racetracks — areas that are somewhat removed from the day-to-day life of the individual — but not necessarily to remove the machines completely and eliminate the revenues from the provinces.
Mr. Derevensky: I would also like to suggest that we do not have enough research in this field at the current time to accurately predict what would happen if we reduce the number of sites by 50 per cent. Most of the thinking on that is pure conjecture. We do not know.
Senator Joyal: It is important for us to know that. We want to know all the consequences of such legislation. I thank you for putting that on the record, because we are looking for numbers that might not be available.
My other question in respect of income relates to the bar owner. Do you have any figures of the amount of money that is generated in the market level — not in the provincial government — as a result of the presence and rental revenues of the VLT in those businesses? Do you have any numbers on that? Are there any numbers on that?
Mr. Derevensky: If I understand your question accurately, you are asking if the VLTs were removed, besides the VLT revenues, what impact would it have on their business? Is that the question?
Senator Joyal: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Derevensky: There are no records to indicate that.
The problem with some of the VLTs is that although each province has set up regulations setting out the maximum number of machines allowable in a particular establishment, these regulations have been bent. The original law in Quebec was that for every liquor licence one had, you can have a maximum of five machines. People have circumvented that by building two or three bars within the same establishment and saying, ``we have three liquor licences, we will multiply that by three and therefore we are allowed 15 machines.'' The two other bars are never open, but now they have 15 machines generating a vast amount of income.
Senator Joyal: For the record, I would like to know how many VLT machines there are in total among the eight Canadian provinces we have been discussing. Do you have that?
Mr. Derevensky: Sorry, I do not have that information, although it is attainable. I could provide the committee with that information.
Senator Joyal: My other question is about the location of the VLTs. You touched on that by stating that the youth population has easy access to VLTs. I was led to understand yesterday, from the testimonies, that the VLTs are available only in bars. Of course, in bars you have to be 18 years and older. Could you explain the risk to that segment of the population, vis-à-vis the visibility of VLTs, that you feel is more vulnerable to the attraction of the game.
Ms. Gupta: You are accurate in the sense that VLTs are located in areas of establishments restricted to 18 years and over. Not only are they placed in bars but they are also placed in restaurant bars where the bar is separate from the restaurant area. Sometimes a child eating in a restaurant has clear visibility of a machine and passes by that machine to go to the washroom. There are VLTs located in arcades where there is a partial separation by a glass wall from the area restricted to 18 and over. Again, there is much exposure to these machines.
Our concern is based on the fact that many of the youth that we have treated at McGill experience VLT machines and have VLT machine dependencies. Thus, we try to understand how they gained access to them. It turns out that, just as many underage people get into bars, et cetera, these kids can get into places with VLT machines. Some of them may use a false ID, although the kids with whom we worked with did not need to use false IDs.
The more revenue an enterprise generates on its VLTs, the less likely it is to remove the machines from the premises. That has a strong impact on the owner of the establishment as opposed to a fine or penalty that they might receive by allowing underage youth on a machine. To date, I am unaware of any establishments that have been penalized or fined or had machines removed because they allowed underage youth to access the machines.
There is a lack of enforcement of the law and of supervision. Owners of establishments have much more to gain by turning a blind eye to youth on a VLT. Statistics Quebec just recently did a survey of all youth in the province and they found that 10 per cent of youth were gaining access to VLT machines in establishments where it was obviously restricted to them. Our research in the Montreal area, mostly around anglophone schools, showed that 6 per cent of them were gaining access to VLT machines without any difficulty.
We are looking at a lack of enforcement of law, lack of supervision and a lack of penalties for violations. That results in youth gaining access to the VLTs when they should not.
Senator Joyal: In your opening remarks, you mentioned the necessity of having a national committee to investigate the issues of gambling in Canada. Could you expand on why you think that this would be essential for us? In other words, how could we improve public health by better managing gambling in Canada?
Mr. Derevensky: National studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia have led to important social policy changes, such that we now begin to have a better global picture across this country of the prevalence and kinds of gambling problems, the methods of treating problem gamblers, as well as the kinds of prevention initiatives that are being developed within Canada. That would also help to direct some of our funding agencies to place the funds in the areas where we are weakest.
We currently view gambling problems as a public health policy issue. This is an important demarcation from previous conceptualizations of gambling problems. It is not soley the individual's problem; we have a duty of care and a responsibility to help protect our citizens. Having a national commission that looks not only at VLT playing but also at regulation of gambling and arm's-length access is very important.
We do not have any national standards, for example, on advertising of gambling. There are some provincial guidelines about what can be advertised and what cannot be advertised. Can Canada establish guidelines for advertising and to whom that advertising should be directed?
Ms. Gupta: I sat on an international organizing committee to try to establish a formula that would allow us to determine the social costs and the social benefits of legalized gambling in our societies. The committee concluded that our countries and our provinces are not gathering enough statistical information to enable us to determine what those costs and benefits might be.
A national commission would determine what bits of information need to be collected and by whom — that is, the federal government, the provincial governments or both? The commission would also ensure that funds are funnelled to these organizations to ensure that the information is gathered.
Currently in many provinces, decisions are taken without an empirical basis. For example, safety features are implemented in VLT machines whereby people are advised how much time they are playing and they are talking about varying the speed of play. However, none of this has been empirically evaluated; it is almost like using society as one big experiment in and of itself.
A regulating body would be able to oversee these issues and help to decide what we need to do to better predict how things will go and how best to make our decisions to protect the public as much as possible, while allowing the gaming to continue.
The Chairman: Professor Gupta, in one of your publications, you indicate that you are finding a higher rate of gambling among adolescents than among adults — some start as early as 10 years of age. In what kind of gambling habits are 10-year-olds engaged?
Ms. Gupta: I am happy that question has been asked. We find with the younger age groups that their main gateway into gambling is lottery tickets such as the instant scratch-and-win tickets that are put out in Quebec by Loto-Québec. These tickets reinforce the gambling because they are inexpensive and are not viewed as being problematic for youth. Children are often encouraged by their parents to play. The tickets are generally attractive and often have cartoon-like characters on them. You scratch the ticket and know immediately whether you have won or lost. Like VLT machines, these tickets have ``intermittent ratios of reinforcement.'' With some tickets, you receive a free card that allows you to go to the next one that will let you win a dollar, which will buy you another ticket. Kids can end up playing these things for a long period of time and they become extremely excited about them.
Although we do not know of too many people who have an addiction to these scratch tickets, it seems to be the gateway into more addictive behaviour — as cigarettes would be to drug use. In the younger age groups, we see a great deal of instant lottery play. We also see non-legalized forms of gambling such as card-playing at home with friends and parents.
We do not distinguish in our research, per se, whether we are talking about legalized gambling, gambling that is organized between peers, or illegal gambling such as illegal book-making on sports bets. In the younger generation, gambling is generally restricted to scratch tickets.
The Chairman: These would require the assistance of adults to claim prizes.
Ms. Gupta: Until a couple of years ago in Quebec there was no legal age for purchasing and playing lottery tickets. A child, even under the age of five, was allowed to collect up to $500 in prizes. We brought this to the attention of our politicians and a provincial law was passed that prohibits youth from purchasing lottery tickets but we feel that it is not properly enforced because many children are gaining access to these tickets. If they win, I do not know if they are collecting the prizes themselves or if their parents are doing that for them. However, there are currently not many obstacles for youth.
Senator Andreychuk: I thank both of you for having done this research into gambling. I certainly know from years ago sitting on the bench and dealing with juveniles, that gambling was not even discussed. There was certainly no research. I am pleased that you have done that. I am struggling with the bill before us because we are missing so much research on the consequences of VLTs, per se.
You have likened the addiction process of gambling to that of cigarettes and other drug use. Some researchers and others continue to dispute that. You have tied VLTs to lottery tickets. What about video games, which have a strong attraction for youth? There is not much distinction between playing and winning a video game and playing and winning at a VLT. Not only can you win, but you can also win something tangible. Has there been any research on all of the new adolescent behaviour that most of us did not grow up with, and which is now causing problems that need to be dealt with?
Ms. Gupta: Our earlier research looked at the link between video game playing and gambling behaviour in youth in elementary and high schools in Montreal. We found a very interesting relationship. Adolescents do have a difficult time differentiating one kind of play from the other. Most people would understand that video game playing is definitely based on practice and skill. It is skill-driven in that the more you play the better you will do and the higher level you will achieve. When gambling is presented in an electronic gaming format and the screen is similar to that used for video games, they seem to transfer that belief over to that activity. They tend to think that the more they play, the better they will get. They transfer an illusion of control to a gaming machine based on chance.
This does become problematic. Many of the electronic gaming machines in the casinos in Las Vegas have Nintendo- like graphics. We believe that the companies that actually develop the graphics for these machines are trying to attract the generation of youth that grew up with video games. This certainly needs to be addressed through prevention and education programs in the schools.
Senator Andreychuk: I struggled with rehabilitation of young people on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. While we talked about prohibition, it is very difficult. The bill does not present an absolute prohibition but it simply moves it farther away; it does not get rid of it.
Are controls better at a local level than at a federal or provincial level? When glue-sniffing became a problem in Saskatchewan with young teenagers in certain settlements, villages and other areas, it was better to have municipal bylaws regulating the storage of glue — it had to be behind a counter. You tailored the responses to the reality in the communities and the support that the community would give that kind of prohibition. Would that be a greater reinforcement than moving the locations of the VLTs would be?
I say this because I do not see in your statistics any indication that the two provinces without VLTs have fewer teenage gambling problems. Am I wrong? Is there no research?
Ms. Gupta: There is very little research to actually compare the provinces. The glue-sniffing example is interesting in comparison to what we are dealing with in the gambling industry. The glue industry does not feed into the municipal budgets, whereas gambling does. It is difficult to give local and provincial control without supervision. They stand to gain so much by having more access available because they benefit from the revenues and profits.
It is one of those situations whereby we think there needs to be independent governing bodies at arm's-length that are not benefiting from the revenues of the activities. There is a conflict of interest.
Mr. Derevensky: We truly believe there must be a separation of regulation and government ownership of gambling, even in provinces that have strong statutes that prohibit underage gambling. For example, in Ontario an underage gambler is not permitted to purchase a lottery ticket. However, when one inquires about the number of vendors who have been fined, lost their licence or reprimanded, the answer is clearly zero. The same thing is true in Quebec and in many states in the U.S. Even though we have laws on our books, when people have done sting operations, very little has been done as a follow up.
Senator Andreychuk: We seem to be targeting municipalities and the provinces as the net benefactors of the revenues. To what extent have you analyzed the federal benefit? Is there any direct benefit from the lottery system to the federal revenues? Is there any indirect benefit by reducing revenues and cost sharing? How much of that is taken into account in a provincial negotiation when the federal government comes to cost sharing?
Mr. Derevensky: We have not done that. We have left it to our economic colleagues to look at that kind of sharing. We are concerned and have written to federal ministers when they have, for example, tried to establish a lottery to help support sports teams on a federal level. We are concerned that youth are particularly interested in sports and believe that they can predict the outcome, and this should not be done.
Senator Andreychuk: Is this an ongoing tension? We were not successful in prohibiting alcohol and it is an ongoing struggle to prohibit alcohol for young people. Drugs, cigarettes and the issues of revenue-producing, free access, personal choice, et cetera, come into this.
Why do we think we could be more successful with a prohibition in this field than we have been in all the others?
Mr. Derevensky: I do not think we can be. Students going to school are taught about the problems associated with drugs, alcohol and cigarette-smoking. Yet, you would be hard-pressed to go across our country and find schools where they teach about gambling problems. We have been called in to help discuss casino nights with principals of high schools who are trying to raise funds. Clearly, this is not only a societal problem but also a parental problem. We have found that youth are often engaging in gambling with their parents. We need more public service announcements. We need some form of advertising or messages to try to educate the public at large that gambling is not such an innocuous behaviour with very few negative consequences.
Ms. Gupta: I do not interpret this bill as being one of prohibition. It is more one of harm reduction and duty of care.
While there has not been success in prohibiting alcohol in society, we do have legislation to protect people such that they cannot drink beer on a public street. Bar owners and bartenders are responsible for ensuring that people do not drive a car when they are drunk. There is a certain amount of duty of care and responsibility applied even to tobacco. I know that vendors are currently much more effective in carding and ensuring that youth are not purchasing the tobacco.
The bottom line is that we are not advocating a prohibition approach. There must be a balance between allowing the gaming industry to exist while protecting individuals who are high-risk, such as low-income groups, people with high- risk indicators, and youth in school environments. The idea is to pull it away from where the harm is greatest and place it in an area where the harm is least damaging. We do not know whether revenues would be affected, however it will be seen over time.
Senator Bryden: You mentioned the people that you treat at McGill. Could you tell us how you treat the addiction? What kinds of people enter your program? Are they children? Could you describe your therapy program?
Ms. Gupta: Until now, the youngest person to come in for treatment was 14 years old and the oldest was 22 years old, although we try to stay under 18 years of age. We see individuals from all walks of life and levels of family income and levels of education.
In respect of trends, we see the types of gambling in which they are involved. The biggest problems that they present with are either VLT playing, card playing at the casino — whether entering illegally or over the age of 18 — and sports betting with bookmakers. Those are the three kinds of gambling problems that we tend to treat at our centre.
For the most part, the people are male. Our approach is global and eclectic in that we do not necessarily treat only the gambling behaviour but we also try to understand why this behaviour has been adopted. Our general belief is that gambling fits within the paradigm of other addictive behaviours, which are often engaged in for purposes of escape. You would hear people say, ``I have too much stress in my life and I ended up drinking myself to the point that I would no longer feel or realize it.'' The same thing occurs with gambling. Youth who have problems with depression, anxiety, coping, difficult situations at school because of learning disabilities, the loss of a parent or a divorce situation in the home, find that engaging in gambling puts them in another world. It allows them to forget about things for often six, seven or eight hours at a time because there is something called ``dissociation'' wherein you experience a loss of time when you engage in the behaviour.
Our approach goes down to the profile of the person. Why is this person engaging in escapist behaviour through gambling or other addictions? Sometimes people have multiple addictions when they present. We try to go with the underlying issues as well. Therefore, we address the gambling to the point of cutting it down to decrease and we also address depression and coping difficulties; we teach them how to deal with problems and improve their peer groups; we get them more involved in regular, day-to-day activities that are appropriate for their age, help them reintegrate back into the school system, and help them to develop a debt repayment plan — often they do need that. The program is global and comprehensive.
While we have a similar approach with each person, we do not necessarily treat everyone in the exact same way. We have an individualized treatment approach based on need.
Senator Bryden: How long have you been doing this?
Ms. Gupta: It has been eight years?
Mr. Derevensky: Between eight and 10 years.
Senator Bryden: Approximately how many patients would you treat in one year?
Ms. Gupta: It varies but not that many. Not many youth present themselves for treatment. In any given year, we might have between five and ten. The treatment lasts over a long period of time. We would normally follow a youth through one year. Sometimes I have had some for two to three years for relapse prevention.
Senator Bryden: What is your success rate?
Ms. Gupta: It is difficult to establish a success rate because we do not have a control group. Strong research would force us to refuse treatment to a certain number of youth so that we could compare how they do to those who receive treatment. That is the way to establish a reliable success rate. We have never had the need to refuse care because we have not been inundated. We are confident in our treatment approach. I do not think it has failed too many youth. I would guess the success rate to be in the high 80s.
Senator Bryden: Would you attribute that to the treatment or to the fact that this person may be three years older?
Ms. Gupta: Pardon me?
Senator Bryden: Do youth tend to grow out of the problem?
Ms. Gupta: No, definitely not the ones that we see. For youth to actually present themselves for treatment means that they are at the extreme end of the line of severity and they are unable to help themselves. I attribute the majority of the improvements to the therapeutic relationship, the approach, and the support that we get for them within their home and peer environments.
Senator Bryden: You have been doing this for a number of years. Have you been able to maintain contact with the first groups that you treated as a follow up?
Ms. Gupta: Only a couple from the first group.
Senator Bryden: I do not mean just the first group. For what period of time are you able to stay in contact with them? How do you know that two years after they have left your treatment they will not be back and they have not run out of money yet?
Ms. Gupta: We do not know for sure for the majority of the youth with respect to two years. We try to stay in touch for at least one year. In that way, we would see if there has been a relapse and, like all addictions, there are high relapse rates when you do not do a good prevention relapse follow up. People will usually come back at that point.
I have known some of the youth for more than six years who have kept in touch. However, for the most part, after they have done well and reintegrated back to the school system, we assume that things are going well if we do not hear from them after a year.
Mr. Derevensky: Many people believe that youth will outgrow this; that when they become adults and have responsible jobs and families, things will get better.
The long-term consequences for an individual with a gambling problem are quite severe. We have had youth who dropped out of school and will never go back again. They have stolen from family members and broken relationships that will never be repaired. The consequences that they have experienced — much like those related to drug and alcohol problems — will stay with them for a long time, even though they may no longer be gambling or have a gambling problem, per se.
Senator Bryden: It is almost always the case that we try to correct behaviour by imposing a kind of criminal sanction or criminal cost in some manner. We create huge fines and whatever sanctions to act as deterrents, if not for the person who has done this, but at least so that others do not start such behaviour. We have done that with alcohol and drugs. The United States was always fighting wars of some sort and they have a war on drugs and their prisons are full of mostly black and Hispanic youth. They are now dumping them on the street after doing their time of about 10 years. About 40,000 to 50,000 will be released this year, and there is a progression. They have simply pushed their problem back.
In my opinion, none of these approaches really have been able to solve the problem. I do not even know if they improve the problem without creating other problems.
One encouraging thing that appears to be happening in some of these areas, the emphasis on harm prevention, information and education is going a great distance, particularly because access to information and education are readily available on the Internet for those who choose to access it.
Perhaps the most encouraging thing that I have heard about smoking among youth has started to happen within the last year or two. Now, the cool people at high school are the non-smokers, not the smokers. The peer group pressure reminds me of pushing a rock up a hill. They have been pushing it and pushing it for a long time, and gradually it has crested. That is the sort of thing that needs to be encouraged and re-enforced.
I am wondering if that is not a template for the sort of thing that might be helpful in the gambling addiction in your harm reduction?
Mr. Derevensky: We have done a lot of research on youth gambling problems and some adolescent gambling problems in an attempt to look at gambling patterns and behaviours of children so that we can identify those risk factors that will enable us to develop more effective prevention programs. We are very proud to say that we have been involved in the development of a school-based curriculum — both at the elementary school and secondary level. We are now finishing off and pilot-testing a CD-ROM program with teacher manuals, which will be given free of charge to all the schools in the province of Quebec to increase prevention education on this issue.
We think we are just touching the beginning of prevention. We need to develop advertising that is more effective; we need to help parents understand that gambling can produce problems. We had one teenager who came in for treatment who said, ``they told us in school about drugs and alcohol and smoking, but no one ever said gambling could been become a problem.''
You are quite accurate in that the national household survey in the United States has shown that smoking and alcohol use among adolescents is on the decline, as is drug use in some specific areas. We really need to focus a lot of our work in the field of prevention. As a body, we need to ensure that there is funding available to help develop effective, scientifically based prevention programs that are available in this country.
Senator Joyal: Is part of the problem that governments have not recognized that gambling is a public health issue? In the context of smoking, the federal government has invested millions of dollars in prevention campaigns. Any one of us watching television will see an advertisement. The provincial government, too, has embarked on that trend. Last week, I saw a group of advertisements supported by the Quebec government that, to me, were very effective.
There are also advertisements against drinking. You know the slogan, ``Moderation has a much better taste.'' The federal government has been involved in a campaign against drinking for about 25 years. However, I have never seen any advertisements — either provincially or federally-sponsored — that alert people to the fact that there is a danger for public health that is as important as you describe.
Should not the first objective be to deem gambling a major public health issue? Is it justifiable to do so?
Mr. Derevensky: You are correct, senator. We have been working with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which covers the Americas, to try to raise this as a public health issue. We have been trying to work with the World Health Organization to get them to recognize that gambling problems are, in fact, a public health issue. One of our staff members will be presenting a paper at the Canadian Public Health Association meeting in Newfoundland in the spring, clearly indicating that this is a public health issue.
The one little caveat, though, in respect of your examples of smoking and alcohol, is that our provincial governments own the gambling. On the one hand, they are trying to discourage problem gambling and raise it as a public health issue; on the other hand, they do not want to see the revenues drop. In fact, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, which runs all the gambling in the province, was told to increase revenues. Ministers of revenue, the heads of departments of finance in the United States are telling their lottery corporations, which is government- controlled gambling, to raise revenues. We need the revenues being generated.
We are in this Catch-22 position where, I think, if the governments now start recognizing that gambling is a public health issue, they almost become liable. In this country — in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia — we are seeing more lawsuits being brought as a duty of care issue. If you know it is a public health issue, how is it that you are promoting this kind of behaviour?
Senator Smith: I have an observation along the same lines. Perhaps the difference with smoking, in particular, is that there is such a long history of data and statistics as to the extent it really is dangerous and costs thousands of lives every year.
In respect of alcoholic beverages, there is also a long history there. Eighty years ago, people thought the solution was prohibition and you know all about that. It did not really work.
With regard to gambling, however, I was saying yesterday that I have always had a fair bit of sympathy for horse racing; it is an ancient tradition. It is very labour intensive, and a large percentage of those jobs are rural and stuff like that. I do not think you hear quite the same horror stories, although you may have data on that.
However, with regard to casinos, it is pretty recent. Yesterday I observed that people such as J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, the founders of the CCF and NDP parties — even Stanley Knowles — would roll over in their graves if they knew that casinos had been introduced to Ontario by the NDP government — of all parties — because they were desperate for money.
It is easy for us to be righteous about this, and I am quite sympathetic to the problem that you are discussing. I am from Toronto, Ontario. Although these VLTs are everywhere, we are in one of the two provinces that do not have them. It is easy for me to give gratuitous advice to the residents of the other eight provinces that are in the deeper category of sin on this issue. However, I fully expect that they would want the revenues that they are losing to be replaced; and certain provinces — Quebec for example — would regard any intrusion into provincial jurisdiction as heresy, blasphemy, treachery and treason. You are both from Quebec, so you know what I am talking about.
These are the sorts of things we have to grapple with. I am sure you have thought about them. If you have any gratuitous thoughts or observations on these things, I would be happy to listen to them.
Ms. Gupta: We are here to present whatever facts and data we have come across over the years. My personal belief is that we need to look at some type of balance. Our desire is not to completely remove something from society and swing its economics upside down just to protect a certain percentage of people who could go on to develop gambling problems.
Senator Smith: Before you leave, I want to ask about your view on horse racing.
Ms. Gupta: Horse racing is not something we have come across a lot. It is not a big area of interest among the youth or young adults with whom we have been dealing. The closest to horse racing that I have experienced with our patients is the animated horse track at the casino. There are now a lot of VLT machines in our racetrack in Montreal, and there are, on occasion, table games there, which have their own issues. However, for the most part, there are types of gaming that are less problematic than others.
At the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Derevensky called for a closer investigation as to what the impacts of different types of gambling are on our society's benefits and costs. We know, for the most part, that the electronic gaming machines seem to be posing the greatest threat to the welfare and the well-being of our citizens. We do not necessarily want to throw a blanket on all other types of gambling opportunities in our society. We want a balance.
The issue of prevention programs was raised. The publicity issues were brought up, and the whole public health issue was raised. The whole idea of protecting people from any negative effects of gambling has to come on multiple levels. We cannot address it in one area and not another. We know that a lot of the commissions that were done in other countries show that accessibility and availability were two major determinants of harm down the line. That is one thing. Advertising and education is another.
It must be examined on many levels. We cannot jump to one area to protect people and neglect all the others. A public health approach should look at a balance and try to find a way to let gambling exist in our societies while protecting people as much as possible.
The Chairman: Thank you very much Professor Gupta and Professor Derevensky for taking the time to be with us this morning. Your presentation and your interactions have been very informative and helpful. They will be very helpful in our deliberations as a committee. Thank you again for being here.
The committee adjourned.