CD-1 (519) Amendment Referral Back to Staff

Yeah. Thanks, Chair. I've submitted a motion to refer to the clerks.

Councillor Fry, we're just going to get that amendment pulled up so everyone can see it and the public as well.

Sure, and I'll just read it out in the preamble. So it's that CD1 519 text amendment and gaming control act approval 39 to 65 Smythe Street be referred back to staff to report back with further health impact assessment HIA analysis pending the report and consideration of recently commissioned studies, the BC Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch's Household Prevalence Survey and StatsCan Canadian Community Health Survey, both of which are expected in spring and fall of this year, respectively. In putting this forward, I think that we've heard that there are some gaps in the analysis here and indeed in the report. And I do point to the existing problem gambling severity index data that BC Lottery Corporation collects by surveying 500 players per quarter who are attending casinos in the lower mainland. And I think we have, you know, with the proximity and with the understanding that there are... I do know anecdotally and from observation that there are a number of East Asian seniors that gamble and that don't seem to be captured or named as high-risk gamblers, and that both of these studies are addressing, I think, some of those concerns and providing us with important data to reflect on the health impacts of gambling and, in particular, vulnerable problem populations, that it would be prudent to refer that back pending the these reports that are coming from the provincial government and StatsCan, respectively.

Thank you, Councillor Fylde. I need a seconder. Councillor Maloney? That's seconded by Councillor Maloney. We're now in an amendment queue. Councillor, if you wish to debate the amendment, and just to be clear, it is a referral back to staff, please put yourselves on the queue. Go ahead, Councillor Orr.

Yeah, I like this amendment for sure. I think it's prudent and responsible. I don't think we need to rush this decision, and it's our job to make data-driven choices here. So I will support. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Orr. That concludes our speakers on this, so I will call the vote. And again, this is an amendment as a referral. back to staff please vote on online and clerks all we need a vote assist in opposition thank you and council that fails with myself councillor Kirby young councillor Montague cancer class and councillor miser Councillor Zhou in opposition

Thank you. Okay, that brings us back to the staff recommendation. Councillor Fry, did you have anything further?

No, thanks, Chair.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Fry. So we're back to the main queue. Councillor Maloney.

Go ahead. Thanks. Yeah. Unfortunately, I've seen governments in other parts of the world become increasingly dependent on gambling revenues to pay for government general expenditure. And this dependence stood in the way of effective action to mitigate the serious social harms caused by problem gambling in vulnerable groups. I do find it hard to accept that we're doing enough to prevent problem gambling from when a casino has an absence of views to the outdoors and from slot machines and has 24-7 operating hours. I mean, our supermarkets aren't open 24-7. I understand that some people think, what's the point when people can access online gambling? But I don't think that failures to regulate online gambling give us an excuse for... for us to shrug our shoulders and give up. And I don't see evidence that this expansion will reduce the harms of online gambling. I also heard that there's nowhere else to go and nothing else to do after an event at Rogers Arena finishes. I think we need to work to give people other options. I think there's nothing stopping this business or any other from expanding non-gambling attractions to attract and accommodate patrons. So I'll be voting against this.

Thank you, Councillor Maloney. Councillor Orr, go ahead.

Yeah, I just kind of echo those sentiments. I think we need to be really cautious about expanding gambling in our city. Increasing the number of thought machines will generate revenue, but it exposes our most vulnerable residents, especially older adults and low-income people. And noting in the staff report, It said roughly 5% of players with problem gambling generate about one-third of that revenue. Players with incomes under $40,000 are the second highest risk group for problem gambling, leading to disproportionate financial and health impacts on residents least able to absorb financial losses, and that mitigation cannot fully offset the underlying risks. So what we're saying is that it's kind of okay if a few vulnerable people are targeted if that means increased revenue. Data also showed that the age group most prone to problem gambling was the 65-plus age group, and that has risen in years. We have to be careful about comparing this to harm reduction of drug users, as one counselor alluded. Harm reduction of drugs, hard drugs, is not a revenue source. We don't advertise it to tourists as an attraction. Its main goal is to simply keep people alive and prevent disease. Harm reduction for illegal drugs operates in opposition to criminal justice systems that penalize use. Harm reduction for gambling exists within legal regulated industry where operators have a duty to generate profit while also discouraging overconsumption. So it's much more like our approach to alcohol. Slots are not the same as our toxic drug supply and to say otherwise is very dangerous. I think this is also underlined by the fact that PARC has shifted to a casino-first approach. which targets problem gamblers. The staff report says if approved, the expansion may expose additional people to elevated risk of potentially long-lasting gambling-related harm based on research plus possible... indirect impacts to others, increased demand for health and social services. We heard about the increased amount of policing calls around park. We heard about a pattern of overstated rejections and declining revenues. We heard about the health impacts from our expert here, suicide, addiction, family issues, theft, bankruptcy, and that is overrepresented in marginalized communities. And despite mitigation, harms don't just affect the gambler. About six other people are also affected. We heard that specific numbers weren't provided by this facility, that there's not a great accounting of harms versus accounting of benefits. No data on the success of mitigation, like for how many suicides has this prevented. I just think that this really increases the likelihood of harms. I don't think the community benefits offset these social costs, and I think we should have waited for the report, but that was defeated, so I oppose this expansion. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor, for your comments. Councillor Frye, go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. You know, we heard quite a few references tonight to the emergence of phone games and that kind of new approach to online gambling. And indeed, that is a prevalent thing. And I think that we live in extraordinary times. And we know that... like social media, like trading cyber currencies, and indeed, you know, online gambling, these are all driven by complex new systems with algorithms and designs that pull people in with deep immersion. There's structural features with the lights and the sounds and the bells and the whistles and feedback loops that are moving people into this more disassociative trance-like state. where they lose track of their time and their surroundings. And this is technological advancements that are gripping people and bringing them into the world of specifically slot machine type gambling. Now, I love the Park Casino as a destination place. Beautiful designs, lovely room. I don't gamble myself, but I do recognize that we are entering a new era of these kind of high intensity games reward systems in slot machines that are incredibly addictive. And we know that this ratio of risk and reward is being gamed, if you will, to grab people in with this sort of near-miss engineering and the kind of technology that gets people hooked in so close and so close. And I worry that this sort of almost one dopamine spike kind of approach to winning gamblers over and hooking them is a tough one to justify. And I think that we know that this new technology that is new technology and it's emerging in the last couple of years is reason enough for us to pause to have the expert analysis from the provincial and federal agencies that are looking at what does problem gambling look like? in 2026 and not based on incomplete data from different sources, I think is critical and important if we are going to pursue what we just recently passed as far as a healthy city and those kinds of strategies that we are rightly proud of as far as what guides our city decision-making. But I think we're missing that in this analysis. And that for me is a mistake to approve.

Thank you, Councillor Frey. Councillor Zhou.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I'll just give my comments brief because we have a long night. You know, I just want to respond to one of the comments from a Councillor saying that government is increasingly relying on the money from the gambling industry. I find this pretty funny because of this expansion only generated $1.3 million additional. And we're talking about more than $2 billion city's budget every year. So I find $1.3 million is a very small portion. So I just don't buy that argument that governments rely on the money from the gambling industry. And also, I think, I feel there's some fear-mongering about this expansion. We are not building a brand-new casino. And, you know, even with the increase, the number of slot machines in this location is still much less than Burnaby, Richmond, even Lanley. And also what we heard tonight, we have very robust gambling addiction programs. And also the additional revenue will help us reinvest into those programs to help us support a lot of nonprofit organizations. So I think it's not a vote tonight about whether gambling is perfect or not. It's not. Absolutely not. But it's a vote about whether we should regulate gambling. thoughtfully, just like we regulate cannabis and other industry. So I think the expansion makes sense to me because it is paired with increased contributions, strengthened agreements, ongoing monitoring, and also public transparency, and also the ability for council to revisit this decision for future. And also, just to be clear, reject this proposal would not eliminate gambling. It will not. But it will reduce our leverage. It will weaken our ability to attach conditions on this regulation. So I'd like to support this expansion because I want to support the 14 jobs created by this expansion and the many unionized positions. I'm thinking about these 14 families. They have a consistent income benefit from this expansion. So I'm thinking about them. I want to support them. I want to support small business because with this expansion, there will be additional revenues for the small business, which is already in a very tough economic situation right now. And also, I want to support nonprofit organizations. As we heard tonight, there are 15 nonprofit organizations in the city of Vancouver that benefit from this social and community benefit program. And also, you know, because of our responsibility gaming agreement and also the financial assistance agreement, a lot of nonprofit organizations and the staff will be beneficial from that. So with that, I want to support this expansion. Thanks, Chair.

Thank You Councillor Zhou I don't see anyone else on the queue to speak in that case. I'm going to call the vote Thank you everyone for having your cameras online if you are voting you do need to be visible just a reminder and Please vote online I'll take a vote assist in favor, please

Thank you. Thank you clerks. So that passes with myself councillor Montague councillor class and councillor miser and Councillor Zhou in favor.

Oh And sorry, my apologies Councillor Bligh councillor Fry councillor or and councillor Maloney in opposition Thank You council that concludes item number two I'll make space one minute for people to clear the room and then we'll move on to item number three

Okay, so we are going to move on to item 3, which is CD1899, text amendment 33603384, Van Ness Avenue, and 3347, Clive Avenue. Just going to make sure I have quorum here. Can we confirm quorum?

Before we begin this item, does anyone believe they have a conflict of interest? Hearing none, the clerk will now read the application and summary of correspondence received to date.