Skip to Content

BC Lottery Corp on spending spree while charities reel

Read More:
« prevnext »

Photo by Peter Holst. Graphic by Ricky Letovsky.

Revelations of our casinos’ extraordinary vulnerability to organized crime-and the deals that Rich Coleman has struck with casino developers-should give British Columbians considerable pause.

 

The financial records of the BC Lottery Corporation give cold comfort to anyone looking for reassurance there.

 

Pete McMartin’s piece in the Vancouver Sun details the transfer of some $400 million to private casino companies since 1997.  But this is only part of the story.  Since fiscal 2005, $48.5 million has also gone into capital spending in community gaming facilities.  The word “community” is a euphemism here--almost all these operations function as privately held junior casinos. 

A review of the BCLC 2010 annual report suggests that the velocity. the velocity of those transfers is accelerating.  The BCLC projects $350 million in capital spending over the next 3 years.  Altogether,  the period of fiscal 2005/06 through fiscal 2012/13, the BC Lottery Corporation projects total capital expenditures of $724 million.

You read that right.  724. Million. Dollars. 

For a crown corporation that does not own or operate any bricks and mortar gambling, this is a breathtaking figure. 

But the BC public should be very concerned that huge sums are being transferred to very profitable private companies, including foreign owned operators, to develop their own private real estate.  And then we hand them the keys.

It has been claimed that these capital investments are necessary to build the gaming revenue stream that delivers over a billion dollars to government annually.  Leaving aside the myriad policy questions embedded in that position, this is simply not true.

Let’s look at our closest neighbour, Alberta.  Their AGLC (Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission) operates on a model roughly equivalent to our own.  But the contrasts are startling, and not in a good way.

Serving a population of 3.7 million, 800,000 less than BC’s, the AGLC generates $1.4 billion in net revenue, compared with our $1.08 billion net.  This is a return, by the way, of $378 per capita, compared with BCLC’s performance of $239 per capita.

Alberta records capital assets of $200 million, and BC’s are $147 million.  Given the relative operational sizes, BC’s capital expenditure would be expected to come in at about 75% of Alberta’s, or roughly $30 to $40  million annually.  Instead we are clocking at around  three times that spending.  Last year we spent $92 million in capital expenditures, a figure slated to rise to $120 million by the next fiscal year.

 

To put it another way, Alberta generates $35.89 in profits for every dollar of capital expenditure, and BC comes in at $11.72 to one.  This disparity only becomes more glaring when the population differential is considered.  In terms of return on capital spending per citizen, Alberta buries us--4 to 1.

 

And they do this without coddling private developers and interfering with free market competition between hotels, bars and restaurants.

 

 While Alberta’s business performance leaves us in the dust, perhaps the most troubling aspect of this whole story is in the treatment of charities and non-profits. 

 

Gambling was legalized in Canada in 1969 for the express purpose of supporting charities and non-profits with non-tax dollars.  For better or worse, an entire economic architecture has built up over 40 years on the foundation of this legislation, generating significant GDP and employment.

 

Most charities do not have large staffs and development offices in affluent communities.  They rely on a broad and effective network of volunteers and fairly low-paid but exceptionally high value employees.  They run seniors’ centres, aboriginal suicide prevention crisis lines, brain injury support groups, sports and arts organizations, and meet thousands of other needs we can’t even imagine.  They are the silent invisible army that we cannot live without.  Sometimes we never think of them until the day we need them ourselves.  And when that day comes, they do not fail us.

 

(3) Comments

Diane January 12th 2011 | 10:22 PM

Thank you for keeping this topic with much needed information coming out to the public.  As a member of a Non-Profit Arts and Cultural Society that has lost our gaming funding and find ourselves threatened with closing our doors soon, I am happy to see that these facts about how the gaming monies are being indecently used are still coming out in the media.  We need to keep the general public in the know, if we aren't directly involved it is easy to forget these political acts that are in direct opposition to the original ideals that brought gaming licences to Canadians and our organizations.

Ella January 14th 2011 | 11:11 AM

We thought the year 2010 was bad for charities and not-for-profit organizations receiving Gaming Funds, let's wait and see 2011. The impacts of loss, cuts and delays in disbursements of Gaming Funds last year will mostly be reflected this year in a broader way, where cash reserve is dropping to below zero, coupled with increase in demands for services, it is a tough battle to fight. We need to keep this concern of how to spend the gaming monies alive, under close scrutiny, brought to public awareness, talk about it.

pwlg February 11th 2011 | 4:16 PM

We need to fund our arts and other social services through our taxes.  If we can afford to put new roofs on an underutilized sports stadium, funnel money into underutilized convention centres and slash corporate taxes then we must be able to fund all of those agencies listed by the author of this piece.

Would like to share the following with the readers of the Observer:

An except from a speech given by John Ralston Saul to the graduating class of 2003 at the University of Calgary.

"Now let me give you a simple example of failure, mine and yours.  We live in a democracy which manages astonishingly low levels of violence, high levels of public education and health care, and a myriad of other services.  Yet we have gradually convinced ourselves – in fact we peevishly assert – that taxes are unfair.

We live better than ever before, yet complain about every penny given to support that public good.  This has become so strident that governments everywhere are now afraid simply to say:  "look, these are the services and these are the taxes required to support them."

Instead, they increasingly resort to stealth taxes.  Indirect taxes, served up in bits and pieces, in the hope that like children, we won't be able to put the myriad numbers together.

Colbert, Louis XIV's prime minister, described this perfectly 300 years ago:

"the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest number of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing."

This is our failure – the citizen's failure.  We are acting like children.   Sometimes we act like both immoral – and worse still, amoral – children.

Take state-run gambling, the most stealth – like of taxes.  Today our governments take in $11.3 billion in revenues.  Four times more than a decade ago.  Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are the leaders.  Alberta alone has a net annual profit from gambling of $1 billion dollars.  This rivals oil revenues.  And Alberta has the highest per capita spending on gambling – $604.

Well, some say, that's free choice.   Leave us alone.

Well, I would reply, that completely misses the point.

Right across Canada, the point is the same.  Public officials are spending millions, tens of millions of dollars on slick advertising to seduce citizens into gambling and gambling more.  If citizens wish to gamble, that is their privilege.  But for governments to set out to use the tools of the public good to corrupt citizens; that is quite another matter.  It is an unethical abuse of the idea of choice.  This advertising is aimed at the poorer, who pay less under normal taxation rules.  It is aimed at those most likely to be seduced; that is, most experts point out a link between gambling and depression.  And a link between depression and suicide.

The idea that public money would then be spent to deal with gambling addictions, and the awful results, such as suicide, simply adds insult to injury.  It means that a bit of public money will be spent to try to undo some of the damage that gambling, created by public money, itself has created.

And handing over 15 to 20% of these gambling profits to charities is precisely aimed at silencing the very organizations in society most likely to raise ethical concerns."