I can see why Mike Lee is unhappy.
Back in 2007, the Vancouver Island man knew he had a gambling problem. He was losing too much money and couldn't stop.
So he signed up for B.C. Lotteries' voluntary self-exclusion program. That's supposed to bar you from bingo halls and casinos and online betting. Staff will be on the alert to keep you out, the corporation says, and you can be fined up to $5,000 for breaking the agreement.
And, the current rules say, you can't keep your winnings if you go back into a casino and beat the odds.
But Lee says he was able to keep on gambling, winning sometimes but mostly losing. B.C. Lotteries didn't keep up its end of the bargain when it came to preventing him from gambling.
Until January, when he won $42,500 in a VLT at Duncan's mini-casino.
Sorry, the casino said. You're on the self-exclusion list and you don't get the money. It will subsidize B.C. Lotteries' harm-reduction programs.
Lee's lawyer is fighting the decision. Partly, it's a technical question of whether Lee ever agreed to forfeit any winnings.
But on a more basic level, the issue is fairness.
Despite all the talk about helping gamblers save themselves, B.C. Lotteries didn't enforce Lee's exclusion when he was losing money and increasing its profits. Only when he won did the Crown corporation and its agents leap into action.
You could write this off as an aberration, a one-off.
Except the self-exclusion program has been around for 11 years. And so far, not one fine has been levied against a gambler for sneaking into casinos.
Another gambler is suing over the self-exclusion program. Joyce May Ross. She too registered to be barred from betting in 2007. Since then, she has lost $331,000. There was no serious effort to stop her from gambling, she alleges. Casino staff knew she was a participant in the self-exclusion program, but didn't stop her from gambling, she claims.
It does suggest a double standard. The program isn't great at catching gamblers, until they win.
The notion of giving protecting addicted people from their illness is appealing. (This has to be an illness. Imagine someone who can think of no way to stop gambling and losing except by making a public declaration and being barred.)
But the reality, in B.C., is flimsy.
Casino employees are supposed to memorize 6,600 pictures of British Columbians who have asked to be kept out of casinos and then confront them. They're filed in big binders. (Ontario is considering cameras and facial recognition technology to help. It is facing a proposed $3.5-billion class action lawsuit on behalf of addicted gamblers who claim they asked to be barred, but were allowed to keep losing.)
And they do. B.C. gambling establishments turned away people on the list about 8,200 times last year, according to a Vancouver Province review of the issue. They kept 102 people on the exclusion list from claiming a jackpot.
But is that good? When people put themselves on the list, they are acknowledging they no longer can control their gambling addictions. They need someone to stand at the door of the bingo hall or casino and say you can't come in.
If there are 6,600 of them, and they each test the safeguards every couple of weeks, then the program is catching about five per cent of people who have asked to be barred.
Rich Coleman, responsible for increasing gambling, reducing harm and limiting gambling-related crime, acknowledges the program has problems. But the addicted gamblers have to take responsibility too, he says.
Except that's why it's called an addiction - they can't stop. And that's why they sign up for the self-exclusion program.
It's depressing. The government knows that for every 1,000 new gamblers, some 40 will have problems. Their lives will be worse - often a lot worse.
But it still is setting out to recruit about 240,000 new gamblers per year.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government's online gambling site remains closed until further notice after the botched launch, privacy violations and less-than-honest communication. The shutdown is costing the B.C.Lottery Corp. about $800,000 a week. But it's saving gamblers money.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Harper�s self-destructive census bungle
Maybe Stephen Harper, in his heart, has mixed feelings about being in power.
Perhaps he fears it means he has sold out.
That�s one explanation for the Conservative government�s bizarre decision to turn the census into some sort of do-or-die issue.
The census hasn�t been top of mind for most Canadians. Or even bottom of mind, really.
But it�s a big deal for researchers and governments and businesses and policy advocates. Every five years, Canadians fill out census forms. The data is rolled up into a portrait of the country and how it�s changing.
Provincial governments and municipalities use it to assess programs and future needs; business groups monitor the state of the economy and the challenges ahead; school boards plan for future needs; researchers try to figure out what is changing - and why - in the lives of Canadians.
The Conservatives, for no compelling reason, want to make the data less reliable, the census less useful and comparisons with previous years difficult.
Most Canadians fill out a short census form every five years. Twenty per cent of us get the mandatory long census form, which asks more questions. That sample, randomly selected, provides Statistics Canada with reliable date.
The Conservatives, with no consultation or warning, are making the long form voluntary.
That�s a mistake, according to virtually every statistician, researcher and census user.
The decision means the census sample is no longer random. Single moms working two jobs might not fill out the forms; retired people might be happy to take the time. Natives living in remote reserves and hard-charging business executives might not get around to the census.
The portrait of a nation is skewed. Which means decisions made on the basis of the information is also unreliable.
So why would the Conservatives risk wrecking the census with a decision that is being denounced as wrongheaded by almost everyone involved?
Three answers make sense.
Harper could genuinely believe that the benefits of an accurate census aren�t enough to make it mandatory for Canadians to fill out the long form.
Or the Conservatives could be trying to please the portion of their base that sees government as the enemy and the requirement to fill out the census form as Big Brother run wild.
Or they figured the census wasn�t likely to attract attention and didn�t anticipate just how widespread and credible the opposition would be.
Whatever happened, it�s turned into a big problem.
I expect the Conservative strategists were right about the census as an issue.
But this isn�t about the census anymore.
The government stands accused - by everyone from the Conference Board of Canada to the province of Ontario to big unions - of making a bad decision.
The National Statistics Council - appointed by the government to advise Statistics Canada - wants the mandatory forum used in 2011 and proposes an overall review of the census before the next survey in five yhears. (The council includes former TD Bank vice-president Don Drummond, born and raised in Victoria. He found it shocking that the decision was made without consulting the council.)
And it has been dishonest. Cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister�s Office have claimed that Canadians were up in arms about the census. But Statistics Canada said it sent out 12 million forms in 2006 and had only 166 complaints about all aspects of the census.
They talked about the threat of jail and bureaucrats knocking on people�s doors in the night to demand answers.
But no one has ever been jailed for not completing the census form. And no one has faced a late-night call from the man.
Most seriously, Industry Minister Tony Clement said StatsCan supported the change. The agency�s head, Munir Sheikh, said that was not true and resigned as a matter of integrity. Who should you believe - the career government employee who resigned in protest, or the glib minister?
The changes to the census were a mistake. The Conservatives� arrogance and dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that are doing much more damage.
Footnote: An Ottawa Citizen editorial suggested another motive. �Ideologues don�t just ignore research,� the editorial argued. �They actually abhor it, because it gets in their way. If you approach the problem of drug addiction from an ideological point of view, then you have nothing but contempt for medical researchers who can show that safe injection sites reduce the harm of illegal drugs� This contempt for empirical research is not the Canadian way, but it has become the Conservative way.�
Perhaps he fears it means he has sold out.
That�s one explanation for the Conservative government�s bizarre decision to turn the census into some sort of do-or-die issue.
The census hasn�t been top of mind for most Canadians. Or even bottom of mind, really.
But it�s a big deal for researchers and governments and businesses and policy advocates. Every five years, Canadians fill out census forms. The data is rolled up into a portrait of the country and how it�s changing.
Provincial governments and municipalities use it to assess programs and future needs; business groups monitor the state of the economy and the challenges ahead; school boards plan for future needs; researchers try to figure out what is changing - and why - in the lives of Canadians.
The Conservatives, for no compelling reason, want to make the data less reliable, the census less useful and comparisons with previous years difficult.
Most Canadians fill out a short census form every five years. Twenty per cent of us get the mandatory long census form, which asks more questions. That sample, randomly selected, provides Statistics Canada with reliable date.
The Conservatives, with no consultation or warning, are making the long form voluntary.
That�s a mistake, according to virtually every statistician, researcher and census user.
The decision means the census sample is no longer random. Single moms working two jobs might not fill out the forms; retired people might be happy to take the time. Natives living in remote reserves and hard-charging business executives might not get around to the census.
The portrait of a nation is skewed. Which means decisions made on the basis of the information is also unreliable.
So why would the Conservatives risk wrecking the census with a decision that is being denounced as wrongheaded by almost everyone involved?
Three answers make sense.
Harper could genuinely believe that the benefits of an accurate census aren�t enough to make it mandatory for Canadians to fill out the long form.
Or the Conservatives could be trying to please the portion of their base that sees government as the enemy and the requirement to fill out the census form as Big Brother run wild.
Or they figured the census wasn�t likely to attract attention and didn�t anticipate just how widespread and credible the opposition would be.
Whatever happened, it�s turned into a big problem.
I expect the Conservative strategists were right about the census as an issue.
But this isn�t about the census anymore.
The government stands accused - by everyone from the Conference Board of Canada to the province of Ontario to big unions - of making a bad decision.
The National Statistics Council - appointed by the government to advise Statistics Canada - wants the mandatory forum used in 2011 and proposes an overall review of the census before the next survey in five yhears. (The council includes former TD Bank vice-president Don Drummond, born and raised in Victoria. He found it shocking that the decision was made without consulting the council.)
And it has been dishonest. Cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister�s Office have claimed that Canadians were up in arms about the census. But Statistics Canada said it sent out 12 million forms in 2006 and had only 166 complaints about all aspects of the census.
They talked about the threat of jail and bureaucrats knocking on people�s doors in the night to demand answers.
But no one has ever been jailed for not completing the census form. And no one has faced a late-night call from the man.
Most seriously, Industry Minister Tony Clement said StatsCan supported the change. The agency�s head, Munir Sheikh, said that was not true and resigned as a matter of integrity. Who should you believe - the career government employee who resigned in protest, or the glib minister?
The changes to the census were a mistake. The Conservatives� arrogance and dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that are doing much more damage.
Footnote: An Ottawa Citizen editorial suggested another motive. �Ideologues don�t just ignore research,� the editorial argued. �They actually abhor it, because it gets in their way. If you approach the problem of drug addiction from an ideological point of view, then you have nothing but contempt for medical researchers who can show that safe injection sites reduce the harm of illegal drugs� This contempt for empirical research is not the Canadian way, but it has become the Conservative way.�
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
