Addicted to VLT cash

Who's more addicted to VLTs - the gamblers or the politicians?

A private member's bill from NDP leader Lorraine Michael was tabled in the House of Assembly last week. Michael's bill, essentially, asked for the long-term plan to rid Newfoundland and Labrador of the addictive, life-destroying machines known as Video Lottery Terminals be sped up.

But when it was all said and done - after a few hefty amendments from the government side of the House - the bill was so watered down that Michael and Yvonne Jones's Liberals voted against it. Bizarre, but true.

In justifying the amendments, Finance Minister Tom Marshall first noted that the government has taken 26 per cent of the province's 2,700 machines out of operation since 2006. Kudos to them. That's not bad.

But then, unfortunately, Marshall felt the need to roll out the usual excuses: we have to think about the businesses who make money off VLTs, and we have to remember that the $75 million the government collects from VLTs each year helps fund important social programs.

Then he finished with another equally bizarre reason for watering down the bill: if VLT addicts can't get their gambling fix from VLTs, they might look for other ways to blow their money i.e. through unregulated or illegal methods.

And there you have it. That's where the real argument is. The government seems to have decided that having gamblers throw away their cash in a way that is legal and taxed is kind-of OK, but placing a bet with a backstreet bookie would represent a serious problem.

Michael's original bill was aimed at addressing the socially destructive side of VLTS, rather than the debate over legal and illegal ways to throw away money. When her original issue was all but taken off the table with what she described as Marshall's "bafflegab and spin", Michael quickly decided she didn't want to be any part of the bill at all.

And that's fine. I won't criticize her for backing away from something she doesn't believe in.

But I have to wonder whether Michael's attitude towards VLTs would really be the same if her party was in power. It's great to lob verbal bombs at the government over the VLT issue when you're in opposition, but the fact remains that every provincial government in this country is addicted to the monies they receive via taxes from activities that most experts say aren't good for us. Alcohol, tobacco, and, of course, gambling are the big three. Would Michael really be prepared put an end to those destructive habits - and all the tax revenue they generate - if she were premier?

Finding a replacement for an annual $75 million revenue stream isn't easy, and Marshall knows that. That's precisely why he watered down Michael's bill.

Ultimately, this issue will only be paid lip service until a government comes along that really is prepared to free itself of the all-too-tempting addiction to gambling revenue.

Andrew Waugh, former editor of the Labradorian, writes from Dartmouth, NS