Bill S-211 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes)

Criminal Code

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-211. Although Bill S-211's objectives may be well meaning and the bill addresses the important issue of gambling, its effect is problematic.

In its wisdom Parliament determined in 1969 that the federal, provincial and territorial governments would each have permission under the Criminal Code to conduct a lottery scheme. In 1985 Parliament chose to eliminate the permission that had existed for a lottery scheme that is conducted by the federal government, leaving provincial and territorial governments running governmental lottery schemes exclusively.

Since 1969 provinces and territories have been free to decide for themselves what kinds of lottery schemes they would offer within their jurisdictions. This decision is one that they can freely take within the range set by Parliament under the Criminal Code. This range is presently very broad and includes not only lottery tickets but even slot machines or computerized lottery schemes. Provinces and territories have chosen to use their Criminal Code permission for lottery schemes in different ways.

For example, Ontario and British Columbia place provincial government slot machines, which pay out by cash at racetracks and casinos, but do not place any video lottery terminals, VLTs, which pay out by a ticket that is then redeemed for cash in bars. Yukon places slot machines at the casino in Dawson City. However, none of the territories places VLTs in bars. Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and prairie provinces all place provincial government VLTs in bars. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba also place slot machines at casinos or racetracks or both.

We see there is a great variety in the provincial and territorial decisions about the extent of machine gambling that will be offered. Each province or territory, I hasten to add, is responsible to its provincial or territorial voters. In fact, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick have held province-wide referenda or municipal referenda on whether to place VLTs in bars. They have respected any decisions for the removal of VLTs from bars, thus reinforcing their rightful jurisdiction to legislate in this area based on the wants and needs of their citizens. Furthermore, some provinces have decided to cap or even reduce the number of their VLTs and slot machines.

It seems to me it is heavy-handed to suggest, as Bill S-211 does, that the federal Parliament should now step in and remove the ability of provinces and territories to make these decisions for themselves.

I also find it very striking that Bill S-211 limits itself to eliminating the possibility of placing provincial or territorial government VLTs in bars, but it does not eliminate them from casinos and racetracks. If the logic really is to reduce problem gambling, one certainly must wonder why provincial and territorial government VLTs and slot machines would remain permissible at all.

It seems illogical to me to think that problem gambling would be reduced by simply shifting the provincial government VLT machines into a mini-casino, in a strip mall or in a shop within the same locality where the VLTs now sit within a bar.

In effect, what Bill S-211 would bring about would be a redistribution of the rental fee now paid by provinces to bar owners over to some other landlord or even to the provincial government if it decides to be its own landlord for VLT gaming.

Bill S-211 sounds very much like an incursion into provincial areas of authority, and I would call it an intrusion, without having a real connection to the reduction of problem gambling. This alone could be enough to negatively affect federal, provincial and territorial relationships.

There is, however, the additional element of the federal, provincial and territorial agreements on gaming that would be thrown over by Bill S-211. They call for the preservation of the position achieved by the provinces through the agreements and stipulate that any alteration is to be made by unanimous agreement.

Although Bill S-211's objectives may be well meaning, its effect would be to completely ignore important provisions of the existing gaming agreement. It would also set a drop-dead time period for negotiating prior to proclamation into force. Its delayed proclamation date also sets parameters for negotiating any new agreement.

In reality, Bill S-211 would unilaterally kill the veto that provinces and territories now hold under the negotiated gaming agreement. Although the federal government is not putting forward this bill that breaks the deal, it would nonetheless be left to deal with its fallout in terms of federal, provincial and territorial relations. Such a state of affairs is highly undesirable.

All hon. members must clearly understand the impact that Bill S-211 would have on the trust relationships built between the federal, provincial and territorial governments on this issue. Bill S-211 would lead to the erosion of an important intergovernmental agreement without necessarily lowering the rate of problem gambling in Canada.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), introduced in the Senate by Senator Lapointe, to regulate the use of video lottery terminals. With this measure, Senator Lapointe, whom I very much admire, is trying to help compulsive gamblers. The Bloc Québécois is also concerned about this social problem.

Senator Lapointe's efforts are laudable and praiseworthy. I am sure I speak for all of my hon. colleagues when I say that, at some time or another, we have all been in certain public or private establishments where these machines are present, and seen or come across individuals, individuals of all ages, who are victims of compulsive gambling. Perhaps someone you know has such a problem. I have met some such individuals in my riding. Their situation is sometimes tragic, and I could not help but be moved.

Whether obsessed with bingo, horse racing, video poker or video lotteries, compulsive gamblers gamble for various reasons. Often it is for an emotional release, escape from their problems or the expression of a need. In many cases, they hope to win a large sum of money, which would earn them the admiration and respect of others, and would boost their self-confidence.

However, after losing their entire wager, they feel the need to try to get back the money they lost, which pushes them into a spiral of debt. According to a study conducted by the Université Laval, 83% of compulsive gamblers incur debt. The debt for a third of the men was between $75,000 and $100,000 compared to $15,000 on average for women.

I believe that video lottery terminals play a significant role in this addiction phenomenon. A relatively high number of people are addicted to these machines largely because of their programming. A study published in the scientific journal Neuron shows that they exploit certain weaknesses in the cognitive process the same way subliminal advertising does. I must point out that in Quebec, efforts have been made to limit the impact of video lotteries. I will discuss this further a little later.

Accordingly, the purpose of Bill S-211 is to limit the social problems related to the use of video lottery terminals. It is a noble objective to improve the lot of these individuals, an objective that is certainly shared by my peers in this House. That is why I am in favour of the bill in principle. However, I believe it is important to take into account the impact of Bill S-211, because underlying its apparent simplicity are consequences that should be carefully considered.

Bill S-211 suggests a way to curb the problem of compulsive gamblers by limiting access to video lottery terminals. To that end, it proposes three things: reducing the number of establishments operating video lottery terminals by limiting them to designated locations such as race-courses, casinos or betting theatres; amending the Criminal Code to make it an offence for any establishment outside the specified locations to operate this type of machine; and third, allowing three years after this bill comes into force for the various governments to develop a strategy to ensure an effective transition.

No one is against virtue and that is why I support the initiatives to reduce, if not eliminate, human suffering. That is the goal of Senator Lapointe's bill, but I think it is important to take into consideration some of these aspects that will undeniably have an impact in the short term. I am talking about future negotiations between the federal and provincial levels of government that will be held after Bill S-211 is passed. It is also important that the initiatives taken so far by the provinces, namely Quebec, be respected.

Accordingly, Bill S-211 certainly deserves to be thoroughly examined in committee. I hope that my colleagues will lend an attentive ear to my concerns about this bill.

I spoke about respecting provincial jurisdictions. Provincial control over lotteries came about as a result of a long battle between the two levels of government. The most important event in that struggle is the agreement reached in 1985 whereby the federal government transferred its power to the provinces and territories, on condition that they did not grant operating licences to third parties. Since then, the provinces and territories have managed their lotteries as they see fit.

I would like to mention what Quebec has done in the area of video lottery terminals to combat gambling addiction and minimize the social costs associated with gambling.

Before the Société des loteries vidéo du Québec was created in 1994, it was estimated that Quebec had between 30,000 and 40,000 illegal video lottery terminals. There was little or no regulation of these terminals, which were available to all segments of the population and often controlled by organized crime.

With the creation of this subsidiary of Loto-Québec, the number of VLTs was reduced to 14,000, which were located in 3,260 licensed establishments in 2005. I would like to point out that the number of terminals and establishments has been decreasing steadily since 1997.

In addition, Quebec has adopted a series of social measures to combat pathological gambling, including prevention programs, technical limits on terminals, strict rules to limit encouragement to gamble and direct assistance for compulsive gamblers.

Loto-Québec has gone even farther, with plans to reconfigure its network to reduce the current number of video lottery terminals by at least 31% between 2004 and 2007. This would eliminate 1,000 bars, restaurants and taverns from the current number of licensed establishments, especially in the poorest areas of Quebec.

However, if it is adopted as is, Bill S-211, by amending the Criminal Code, would open the door to the federal government in what today is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. That could affect the balance that was achieved with the 1985 agreement with the provinces. Of course, the three-year period for coming into force would ease the transition, but might it not affect Quebec's current strategy against compulsive gambling? Would it not trigger another lengthy legal dispute between the two levels of government? I would like hon. members to look at this in more detail in order to develop measures to complement the Government of Quebec's initiatives.

Relations with Ottawa and respect for provincial jurisdictions are not the only things worrying me. Senator Lapointe wants to improve the lot of compulsive gamblers and, at the same time, the quality of life of society in general.

With regard to the situation in Quebec before 1994, I have the following question: if Quebec is responsible for appropriately operating these video lottery terminals, is it not participating in the fight against organized crime by depriving it of a guaranteed source of revenue? If we concentrate terminals in specific locations, will we not again be making way for the financing of organized criminal groups? My colleagues agree with me that these groups do not have a conscience when it comes to compulsive gambling. Furthermore, they do not have the resources the provinces do to curb this phenomenon. I hope to meet social groups that can answer these questions at the committee hearings.

We shall have to see how Ottawa will make up the revenue that the provinces lose by drastically cutting the number of video lottery terminals. We must also consider minimizing the financial losses of small establishments that own these machines. I believe that we are opening the door to lengthy negotiations that should be part of a federal-provincial agreement. If we do not succeed, we run the risk of having organized crime take hold of small operators.

As I mentioned, I care very much about the well-being of my constituents. I therefore wonder about the impact of Bill S-211 on compulsive gamblers. Reducing the number of machines will likely diminish the appeal for gamblers. However, if we criminalize illegal operators, will we not make it more difficult for gamblers to admit their gambling problem? I think a preventive approach, although it may not solve the entire problem, remains the best approach here, rather than tougher legislation.

I will close by saying that, in spite of the concerns I outlined here today, I remain sympathetic to Bill S-211. For this reason, like my party, I hope it passes second reading, so we can further study the impact I mentioned and hear witnesses on the issue. We will therefore vote in favour of this bill at second reading, and we plan to propose constructive amendments in order to strike a balance between the collective well-being and respect for provincial jurisdictions, especially for Quebec.

Compulsive gambling is indeed a serious problem that has significant repercussions on the friends and families of gamblers, and on the entire community. Bill S-211 shows an understanding of this problem, but does not prohibit video lottery terminals. Indeed, I feel this activity could benefit from greater regulation, since its repercussions are clearly significant and stir our conscience.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk a bit about S-211 that would amend the Criminal Code in relation to gaming offences to allow the narrow exemption which allows provincial governments to lawfully conduct and manage lottery schemes, involving video lottery terminals and slot machines. It would limit the locations at which such machines could be installed in casinos, race courses and betting theatres.

This is one of those situations where we try, as best we can, to respect, in a sense, territorial and provincial jurisdictions. In 1969 Parliament authorized the provincial and territorial governments to operate lottery schemes as a permitted exception to the gaming offences found in the Criminal Code. Under a 1979 gaming agreement with the provinces and territories, the federal government agreed not to operate lottery schemes.

Under a 1985 gaming agreement, the federal government agreed to place a bill before Parliament that eliminated permission for the federal government to operate lottery schemes and pool betting operations. Parliament passed that bill in 1985. The 1985 legislation also clarified that provinces and territories could operate a lottery scheme conducted on or through a computer video device or slot machine, but they could not license others to do so.

Furthermore, Ontario, British Columbia and the three territories do not place any government video lottery terminals, VLTs in other words, a form of slot machines, in bars. However, all the jurisdictions, commencing with the Atlantic provinces in the 1990s, placed territorial government VLTs at locations, including bars, for which the provinces pay a rental fee.

New Brunswick's decision to place VLTs in bars was, some years later, narrowly supported by a province-wide referendum. In Alberta and Manitoba, municipal referenda were held under provincial legislation and led to the removal of provincial government VLTs from bars in the few municipalities that voted in support of their removal. As well, a number of provinces, including Quebec, which is the province with the most VLTs, have chosen to place a cap on the total number of VLTs placed in bars across the province.

I see this generally as a situation whereby really we should respect those local jurisdictions with regard to how they do these things. Many things seem to indicate we have a responsible use of these provisions by the provinces and territories, and in that capacity, it is self-evident.

I will like touch on some aspects of things involving gaming and video lottery terminals. At this point, I am going to be extemporaneous with regard to this.

With regard to Bill S-211 and the Criminal Code, I would like to touch on some other things that are impacted by the Criminal Code. I have been in the House for close to 10 years. Many a time I have heard other parties in the House talk about how they care about the criminal justice system and how they would like to get tough on crime.

This is in reference to the Criminal Code and the fact that we are dealing with amending the Criminal Code, so I am broadening the debate.

I have heard many people over time in the House say that they want to see the government get tough on justice. The government has brought forward a number of changes to the Criminal Code, and yet it is facing a lot of opposition on those things.

It is not so much because the public is opposed to getting tough on crime, I think they are in favour of that. Some of those provisions, I am sure, like ending early parole or having mandatory minimum sentences and those types of things, are supported by a vast majority of people, probably in the order of 80%.

We are supposed to represent our constituents in the House, being democratic representatives, so it breaks my heart when I hear people say one thing when they go back home and campaign in their ridings.

In my last election campaign, we had a scenario where every one of the other parties in that race talked about how they wanted to get tough on crime and how they wanted to make changes to the Criminal Code and yet we have a scenario whereby in this place and through the committees and, even worse, in the Senate, people are trying to block all of these good things that we are trying to do to toughen up criminal justice in this country.

I think it saddens all of us to see that type of thing, speaking from the heart on this.

In my riding, I have had constituents who have had the ugly hand of crime touch their lives and they desperately would like to see many of these changes. I know many police officers who have given me their support and told me about the frustrations they have with the criminal justice system. These people are on the front lines for us against criminal elements, whether they be foreign or domestic in nature, and they are very frustrated by politicians who will tell them during election campaigns that they support changes to the Criminal Code, but then, when push comes to shove, and it is in this place, they do something other than that.

We have a situation in this place, daily during question period, where my opponents across the way will ask questions about judicial appointments. They will be very upset about the idea that my government wants to see police officers, who are intrinsically involved in the enforcement of our laws against criminal elements, play an important role in the selection of judges. These are the people, in a sense, who charge the criminals and then it is the courts that follow up with the execution of the sentence. However, we have people across the way in opposition who do not like the idea that police officers should somehow be involved with the judicial selection process.

I think that is a slight to police officers and actually goes against the will of the majority of Canadians on these types of things.

Furthermore, I recognize that there are many good and noble lawyers out there who do capable work on behalf of Canadians in defending interests and protecting people from maybe the ultra vires aspects of various laws we pass around this place, but the idea that only lawyers somehow can be served by this system, the idea that victims or the police officers who try to serve the public in all these various functions cannot be allowed to be a part of the judicial process or decision of who can be a capable judge, is beyond the pale.

We are not in this place just to serve as lawyers. The justice of Canada incorporates looking into the rights of the victims, those people who have not yet suffered a crime but want to feel safe walking down the street, people like my grandmother, for example, people who enforce the laws in this country, our police officers, our peace officers, our police in various functions, whether they be courts or otherwise.

More needs to be done. We have about a half dozen bills affecting the Criminal Code. This is but one more thing we are trying to address with regard to the Criminal Code. It is very frustrating when, during the last election campaign, we were seeking a mandate from the people and almost every party in this place talked about how they were supportive of many of the Criminal Code changes that we wanted to bring forward.

However, although they were willing to say that during the election campaign, I doubted it. Maybe I am becoming a cynical participant in the political process in the sense that I expected that when we returned to this place, they would not be as wholeheartedly in favour of various Criminal Code reforms as they said they were during the election campaign, and maybe the reason I am a cynic on those issues is because I was proven right.

We see them frustrating those things with their angle in their debate here in the House of Commons. We have also seen them frustrating those things in committees where those bills are sent for amendment, editing, proof-reading and overlooking. It is more egregious than anything. We see frustration for a lot of what we want to do in our mandate that we sought democratically from the people in the unelected body of the Senate where the Liberals still have majority control.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to take the floor to talk about Bill S-211, introduced by the Honourable Senator Jean Lapointe. I would like to take a few seconds to salute him for all his accomplishments and for his dedication to making this bill a reality.

The bill that we are debating this afternoon is of crucial importance for the well-being of Canadians. The purpose of Senator Lapointe's bill is to permit access to video lottery terminals at race-courses—where people can bet on horse races—betting theatres and casinos.

The main reason for this bill is to ensure that young people and the elderly, the two groups most vulnerable to this scourge, do not have easy access to these terminals. Making gambling less accessible will prevent these people from falling into the VLT trap. Mr. Speaker, this bill must be adopted as quickly as possible to put an end to distress and to give hope to those afflicted by the illness of compulsive gambling.

Already I hear the voices raised against this bill saying that once again the federal government is interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction. And it is true that this area has, in a sense, been on lease to the provinces since the agreement of 1985. Under the provisions of that agreement, the provinces take the federal government’s place in the area of gambling, but they must return approximately $50 million to the government for the use of this legislative space.

This is not the first bill to attempt to amend the Criminal Code regarding video lottery terminals. In 2004, a bill called S-6, also introduced by the honourable Senator Jean Lapointe, was debated. It looked in particular at the federal government’s limits in this area. At the time the Senate committee noted that “the lottery scheme provisions in section 207 express the current federal government policy. Provincial and territorial governments are free to make decisions regarding the kinds of lottery or gaming schemes that they may conduct or license within the limits set by the Criminal Code”.

Moreover, as Senator Joyal mentioned in committee proceedings studying the Bill, and I quote:

If the federal Parliament wanted to ban all kinds of gambling, it could do so through the Criminal Code ... If the federal Parliament decided to limit some kinds of gambling to some kinds of circumstances and some kinds of location, it could do so, too.

The federal government has the power to legislate in the Criminal Code to permit the use of these video lottery terminals only in the places mentioned. It is much more a question of public interest than a constitutional issue. We are talking about the health of our fellow citizens.

There is a certain urban myth about the revenues that video lottery terminals bring in for the provincial governments. Each year, the provinces rake in record false profits with their video lottery terminals. In fact, numerous studies by university researchers across Canada, provincial governments, private institutions and social workers show that the social costs associated with video lottery terminals are three to five times greater than the revenues they produce for the provincial governments.

In the current situation, the federal government derives almost no benefit from gambling. It is thus in a better position than the provincial governments to defend the interests and well-being of Canadians grappling with gambling problems.

All we want to do here is provide a healthier environment for Canadians by removing the terminals from bars and restaurants and concentrating them in betting theatres, race-courses and casinos.

According to some of the evidence given to the Senate committee, video lottery terminals are often installed in bars in poorer neighbourhoods.

Their presence thus leads people who might never have been exposed to gambling to play them because of their accessibility.

According to a study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, most compulsive gamblers are dependent on video lotteries, which they play daily or several times a week, because they can remain close to home and use the terminals available in local bars. These video lottery terminals have many more negative aspects than is commonly thought. It is clear that if we look at the revenues that the federal government receives from the money the provinces give back—we are talking about some $50 million here—it is markedly less than the social costs of gambling.

The reason is simple: people play more because the product is available.

Studies tend to demonstrate that people with a gambling problem prefer electronic forms of gambling to other types of games of chance.

In its 1999-2000 report, Jeu: aide et référence du Jeu pathologique du Québec, a telephone information and help line, reported that among the most frequently mentioned types of gambling, video lottery terminals were mentioned by 83% of callers in distress. It is important to note here that pathological gambling is compulsive, so there are serious social and financial repercussions for individuals, families and society in general.

Thus, pathological gambling can lead to indebtedness, divorce, bankruptcy, crime and, unfortunately, even to suicide. In all these situations, it is the family that will suffer. It should also be noted that pathological gambling has the highest suicide rate among all dependencies. Since the Coroner of Quebec began compiling statistics, 109 suicides have been directly related to gambling, including at least 49 in the past three years.

One of the groups that Bill S-211 wants to protect is young people. That is because researchers say they are more concerned about what will happen to adolescents than to adults. It is easy to understand; today’s children represent the first generation to grow up in a world where gambling is not perceived as a danger, where in fact churches, service industries and governments approve of gambling as a way to raise funds. Games of chance are legal, they are accepted and today’s children have never experienced a time when games of chance were not part of society. Moreover, they are considered the Nintendo generation; so, for them, electronic games are part of their surroundings and their lifestyle.

In support of these arguments, some surveys show us that there is general public support. In Quebec, 68% are in favour of such a bill, with only 10% opposing it. Nationally, 71% favour regulations that would relocate video lottery terminals to casinos and race-courses alone. Eliminating video lotteries, outside of casinos, race-courses and betting theatres across the country, would improve the quality of life of our fellow Canadians, particularly of our young people and elderly.

The government has the duty to act to protect our fellow citizens against any threat. Now is the time to take concrete action and to show the Canadian public that these video lottery terminals are harmful and dangerous to their health.

That is why we must legislate in this matter as quickly as possible and why you, hon. members, must support this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 21 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.