“In 1997 I began studying gambling as a policy issue for the Canada West Foundation. Eventually, this work led to the development of a four-year national study on the impact of gambling. Under my direction, the study would produce 18 reports and 700 pages of published material, in addition to several hundred media stories and a number national and international presentations. Although our formal research activity on this topic ended in 2002, I find I have continued to be called upon to speak to the research. This research was unique, in that no gambling-raised revenues (arms-length from government or not), nor any advocacy-group revenues (either for or against gambling) supported any of this research. For a research project of such a large scope, this distinction is unique from any work undertaken before or since. Secondly, the work we undertook was careful not to invoke normative judgments of good or bad as they relate to gambling. Our purpose was to produce a wealth of material upon which individuals could better inform their own judgments of the value of gambling. Based on our research, four important conclusions can be made about VLTs. The first is that Canadians believe that VLTs should be restricted to casino’s and race tracks. Our survey found that a 70% majority of Canadians agreed with this notion. The strength of this agreement is remarkable; almost half of the population was in strong agreement. The strength was not exclusive to any particular group. Our results showed essentially a 3-to-1 ratio in favor of restricting VLT access held across all demographic groups. Even among groups of Canadians such as those who gamble, those with libertarian attitudes, and the non-church-going public, the plurality of strong agreement held. Furthermore, these opinions are not merely emerging concerns; they have been in place and written about for almost a decade. One of the high profile recommendations of the first-ever review of provincial gambling activity in 1995 was that VLTs be moved to the casino. This review included five sitting MLAs. As part of our study, I also had the opportunity to follow the citizen-led action against VLTs in Alberta from start to finish. The process led to 250,000 signatures on petitions and the forcing of 37 municipal votes on VLTs (the largest ever municipal petitions in Canada). Against the tough question of “all or none”, VLTs were favoured in Alberta, as they were in New Brunswick a year later, by a small 55-45% margin in the voting. In the Alberta case, we were able to ask voters what they really wanted to see done with VLTs. The conclusion of that polling was again overwhelming 3 to 1 support in favour of restricting machines to casinos. We found that this position had greatest appeal because it satisfied the libertarian freedom of choice arguments that dominates these debates, yet at the same time deals with concerns about the accessibility of the machines. My own conclusions, to which I have previously written on this matter, are that governments ought to institute gambling policies that best reflect the desires of Canadians. Therefore, moving VLTs out of bars and lounges ought be considered by governments. The Quebec government has recently taken its first baby steps towards this outcome by moving some VLTs out of bars. I reflect that changes of this nature ought to also be in the interests of a provincial government’s desire to maintain high levels of gambling revenues. By matching policy with public desires they are least likely to draw the type of public outrage that has nearly required citizen-mandated policy reversals. My second point relates to the distribution of revenue. Each provincial jurisdiction is somewhat different, but VLTs, on average, return about 25% of the revenue for the owner/operator of the machines. While this represents a significant cash injection for the owner/operator of the site, it is still a transfer out of region of 75% of the losses. Revenue only indirectly returns to the community through the provision of basic government services. These data hinder arguments that suggest that VLTs represent a positive economic impact on communities. This is particularly true in areas that see little tourism-related VLT spending; in those areas VLTs can be a drag on the economic activity of the region. Similar levels of spending on most any other goods or services in the region would create more local benefits. So while a bar might close if a community loses its VLTs, the restaurants next door might succeed. This situation is compounded by the fact that nearly all the social, family and community costs associated with problem gambling are trapped locally. So the bulk of the revenue is transferred to the province while the bulk of the cost is paid for in the region. My third point relates to the specific social costs and net benefits associated with gambling generally and with VLTs specifically. I would begin with a caution against using the net benefit data as conclusions of this nature are likely 10 to 15 years off, at our current pace of understanding. We currently have a good understanding of what the types of harm gambling causes, but have progressed very little in counting or attributing those harms to gambling. These social costs are numerous and include: bankruptcy, lost productivity in the workplace, judicial and policing and incarceration, family distress, marital distress, divorce, depression, counseling services, health care, and most problematically, suicide. Unfortunately, at the current time, very little is done on any of these measures. As this issue gains profile, our police, doctors, coroners, judges, psychologists, teachers, etc. will develop the means by which to track these data. Yet, I would emphatically urge all of us to not dismiss the lack of progress in measuring these costs as meaning that they as non-existent. The fact that is it difficult to accurately measure a cost does NOT mean these values are at all small. Uncountable is not the same as non-existent. Regarding the specific social costs of VLTs: because more problem gamblers play electronic forms of gambling, research suggests they are currently responsible for the bulk of the negative cost of gambling. At the same time, VLTs are among the least labour-intensive (job-creating) gambling activities. VLTs are uniquely problematic for their speed of play (up to 1,200 bets per hour), the creation of an illusion of control or skill among players, the appealing video, light and sound enhancements - particularly with youth - the deliberate non-random programming of the machines to encourage additional play behaviours by introducing higher numbers of “near misses” than should randomly appear, and the accessibility of the machines to problem gamblers and those persons with potential addiction issues. Finally, VLTs are also unique from a policy perspective. Unlike nearly every other form of gambling in this country, VLT policy has evolved, post-introduction, in more restrictive forms. The 15-year history of the machines has seen them gradually restricted from non-age restricted location like corner stores to bars and lounges, then capped in number, announced and then retracted in Ontario, voted out of some Alberta and Manitoba communities, the subject of the largest ever municipal petition process in Canada, a number of government attempts to make them “safer”, and now relocated out of some neighborhoods. If for no other reasons, that makes VLTs a unique and problematic form of gambling in an otherwise increasingly permissive policy environment. Gambling in Canada reports, clickhere. | 
