Oct. 1, 2018 - Law Amendments Committee Proceedings
You. You. Call. The committee, for law Mehmet's to order please. Just. Welcome. This. Afternoon, a, couple of housekeeping matters. Washrooms. For public use are located, outside, and, downstairs. On. The main level as you're going down the stairs to the left hand side. Those. Who would, have cell phones if you could turn them to silent, mode and, if. Necessary you. Feel free to exit, the room to take calls, and. As. Presenters. Come forward. I would ask you to identify, yourselves. And. Those. Who. You would be representing. Speakers. Will have presenters. Will have an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes and. Members. Of committee have an opportunity, to respond, with questions, for a period of 5 minutes, and. We will give you although, some. Take exception to it but, to your benefit, and to you for your advantage we, will give you a notice, at. About two minutes so, you. At least you're in the frame of mind to frame up your comments, and. Capture, the essence of of. Your presentation. So. With that bill. 58, the Municipal Government Act and, Halifax. Regional Municipality. Charter. The, first presenter, mr., Nathan Rogers. Yes. If I can ask members, of the come to the table, mr. Rogers if, I can ask members of the committee to. Identify, themselves, and we'll start here on my right. Tammy. Martin MLA, Cape Breton Center. Gary. Burrell MLA held by shabak doe where. I John's MLA, Sackville beaver Bank, Bonjour. Bienvenue my name is Gaston Ramona the MLA for Argyle Barrington. That. Was still Oh. Garden. Hab councils of committee. Mark. Tre on the chair and MLA, for Lunenburg West, and. Karen, Kenley assistant, Clerk. Keith. Irving MOA King south. Rafa. De Costanzo, MLA Clayton Park West. Good. Afternoon Suzanne, Alana's crafty MLA Luneberg. Brenda. McGuire afternoon, Halifax Atlantic. Thank. You folks. Mr., Rogers the floor is yours. Okay. Thank. You very much, nathan rogers, halifax. I'm here, on behalf of the licensed professional, planners association, of nova scotia, often. Referred to as the acronym, l pants L. Pants exists, under. The professional planners act of Nova, Scotia, I really we have two, main purposes of that act is firstly. To regulate. The profession, of. Planning. And. Secondly. That is, to. Recognize. The. Practice. Of, professional, planning. And. What. I'd like to do today is just compare and contrast, or. Maybe not so much contrast but compare, the. Bill 58 which is before you and the. Objectives, of L Pan's which exists, under the professional planners, Act I'm. Gonna choose three main topics, that, are, pulled from our act in, which we employ, on a regular. Basis. And, I'll, just clarify. One point as president, of L pans I'm the chair of our board and, represent. Approximately, 200 members across the province to undertaking correctional, planning, so.
Back To the objectives, of the Act, first. Point I want to note is that our, objective, is to improve the quality of. Environment. In, Nova Scotia as, well, as communities, of Nova Scotia the. Bill. 58, intends. To do the same by. Enabling. Planning. Documents. That being municipal planning strategies, and subsequent, land use bylaws to, be consistent, across, Nova, Scotia today. We're in a situation where we have a number of Miss Powell these municipal jurisdictions, that don't have planning and from. The perspective of L Pan's consistent. Planning. And regulation. Is important, to improve quality environment, of our communities. Secondly. I want to talk about our objective, of participate. Participation. And cooperation, among different. Parties, with, regards, to planning. Matters bill. 58, proposes, the same type, of a Roach we're, consultation. Is required, between municipal. Units on matters. That are of like. Importance. Take for example flood. Plains flood. Plains and the river is associated, with them do, not adhere to, municipal boundaries rather, it's quite obvious in some regards, that they pass municipal, boundaries so, engagement, and consultation, between mrs.. X is that is paramount to the success of, protecting. Our environment and creating cooperation, between municipal, jurisdictions, there. There will be some trepidation probably. On this regard given, the impact of. Requiring. To, consult. Across jurisdictions. But through. Provisions. The. Miss Patty's can put together and. Engagement. With their professional. Professional planners and councils that can be achieved. The, third point that, I, want to raise regards, to the professional, planners act is protecting, the interests, of the public and. Consistent. And appropriate. Missile planning strategies, that, will be enabled through bill. 58, really, assists, in protecting, the interests of the public again. I'll turn, back to flooding. And a, known, issue which, is all relevant to us all climate. Change. The. Adoption. Of bill 58 will set the table for all, miss Patty's across the province to adhere, to. The. Professor. The. Provincial. Interest statements. Statements. Of provincial interests in particular, flood. Rick's risk, area, I'll. Just note a provision. Of the existing, statement of provincial interest. Planning. Documents, must, identify, flood.
Risk Areas, consistent, with the Canada Nova, Scotia flood, damage. Reduction program. Mapping. In any locally, known floodplain, the key to that provision is the first. Three. Words. Planning. Documents. Must. In. The case of Mizpah jurisdictions, that don't have planning documents, there's, no requirement, to adhere to the flood plain. Provisions. Of the same, unit provincial interest. And. This. Is furthermore, important, with the provinces. Intended. Coastal, protection legislation. It's, possible, I only. Speak on a, possibility. At this point but it's possible to the coastal, protection legislation. Could. Also. Consist of a statement of provincial interest and if, we are going to have a, consistent. Approach. To, how we manage our coasts, in especially, in Nova Scotia then. Consistent. Application at the municipal level is absolutely, important. I'll. Finish by saying that. L, p-- hands, firmly. Believes, that, nobody. Does anything alone, so. Cooperation. Amongst. Miss, pallies and the province, can continue. And we. Look forward our, 200. Plus members, that work for Miss Powell DS work. For the province. Work. For private sector or not-for-profits. Are ready to respond. Once. This bill is passed and ensure. That we. Can take a. Professional. And positive. Approach thank. You very much. Thank. You mr. Rogers questions. Mr.. Birrell well. Thanks. For this explanation. I'm. Just wondering, about thinking. About the. Municipalities. That presently are in the state of situation, of not having planning, and the, and the. Requirement. Through the bill that. They move into a planning, situation. Does. Does, l pants have any. Thought. About. Some. Of the financial. Considerations, of opus or possible, need for extended. Provincial, support, towards, those municipalities in, order to make that possible. I'm. Absolutely there will be a, financial, requirement, you. Could say a burden, on miss Polly's to undertake this that being staff. Resources, or. Hiring. Third parties to undertake the, required. Engagement, normally adopting, planning documents, so, I, I'm. Not deep, into, the, incentive. On. Financial. Portion. Of this but certainly that we do recognize, the the, costs, associated, with it but in, many regards, the, costs associated, with undertaking, planning documents, is minimal, to the to the economic. Development as well as health. Implications that. Planning. Can, achieve. Thank. You. Thank. You mr. Rogers. No. Further questions, thank. You for your comments, today thank, you very much. Mayor. Jeff Cantwell from, the, town of Wolfville. Mr.. Chair. Welcome. Members of the committee. My. Hometown MLA, oh. He's. An MLA. He's. The best one I have. That. I can tell you. Anyway. Committee members thank you for the opportunity, to. To. Address this. To. Address you with the law members committee my. Name is Jeff Cantwell mayor of the town of Wolfville, I'm. A member of the board of the Nova Scotia Federation, of municipalities. And chair. Of the towns caucus, I'm, extending regrets, on. Behalf of the President of the NSF, M councillor, Jeff Stewart who, cannot be here with us today is, attending, a meeting, in Port Hawkesbury with. Respect to resolutions, to be presented, at the, at.
The Annual General Meeting, in, November, the. Nova Scotia Federation, of municipalities. Is the voice of Nova Scotia municipalities. On. Behalf of my board and our members I wish to speak in support of bill 58. Concerning. Minimum standards, for land use planning across Nova Scotia's 50 municipalities. Our. Members raise this subject as a concern, in our towns task force report, of 2011. The. Task force thought it was important, of. Mr.. Irving. Letter, presentation. That you're making right now appears. To be regarding, bill fifty-five according. To its title oh really and, I. Should've put these you're, presenting twice as I understand, it so I am I'm, sorry. I'm. Terribly, sorry yeah okay though if, you're having difficulty, following. Thanks. Me. Now. I better get to the right one here again all right. Okay. And. Rather than begin over I'll, continue where it was. After. My identification. Our. Members raised this subject, as a concern, in our towns task force report of 2011. The. Task force thought it was important, for adjacent, municipalities to. Consult, with one another when making land-use, plans near. Municipal, boundaries and wanted, to pave the way for more meaningful, interminable planning and their. Agreements, they. Saw these goals as being important enough to warrant creating. Or mending legislation. These, were recommendations, of. The town's task force as, a. Number of our rural municipalities do. Not do, comprehensive, planning now, establishing. Minimum, planning, standards is an important, step towards regional, planning the. Statements, of provincial, interests, are important and addressing. Them through planning will be beneficial, to all Nova Scotians, I would. Also note the NSF M also passed a resolution in. 2017. On, economic. Development calling. For incentives, to. Encourage regional, land-use. Planning as a means of encouraging, economic, growth. NSF. M was pleased to see the, Department of municipal affairs undertake, consultation. On the, potential for minimum planning this summer municipal. Elected officials, andrea, knispel staff who could not attend these meetings were. Invited to provide feedback, in written, or electronic form. The. Bill resulting, from these consultations, and, efforts will. Help community, work together to, plan more sustainable. Futures especially, in the face of increasing. Infrastructure. Expenses. And climate, change, the. Bill will help to make local government, more effective and efficient, encourage. Meaningful, strategic, interaction, between communities. And councils. And improve the everyday lives of citizens as they move about our municipalities. We. Are pleased to see our members long-standing. Concern, is reflected, in the wording and passages, of this, bill it. Addresses, many municipal. Planning concerns and we believe it will help enable, effective local, government, and the, building of sustainable, communities for.
These Reasons, we, stand firmly in support of this bill, furthermore. The Nova Scotia Federation, of municipalities, and our members look. Forward to working with the province in developing, the regulations, to support, this bill. Thank. You. Thank. You America, well questions. If. Not I might just, to jump to mr. burrows comment, earlier with, respect to resources on we, do expect there will come. There. Will it. Will be required for. Education. Or resources yes. That'll be that'll certainly be incumbent upon a, new legislation. And it's. Going to take time however. There, is lots of experience, out there in this in. This field and. Today. It was mentioned, by. Mr. Rogers, for. Improving. Environments. Those. Environments not only floodplains, and there's a as. Mentioned, the economic development. Business. Doesn't know borders either and, for, us to restrict them like that it's seems, unfair so is. There a burden, on. Municipal, units there's, so many other units that have it the sharing of those resources should mitigate, any cost. That would, prove to be a burden. Thank. You mr. Kent well thank you. We. Will. Hold. Bill. 58. We have presenters. Later. In the day and, moved. To bill 49. The. Gaming Control Act. So. I'm. Led to believe that mr. través is actually, here. We're. Ahead of schedule believe. It or not so instead. Of having mr., trays wait till the end of the day we'd be more than pleased to accommodate, his presence, at this time. Welcome. Thank. You very much mr. chair much appreciate, it. Mr.. Chair members of the committee I'm. John través I am the, director. Of legal missable. Clerk and external affairs for, HRM. Which is a fancy way of saying the municipal, solicitor, and, allow. My colleague to introduce herself. We. Need our guests. Mic turned, on we go thank you that's better Thank You mr., chair Kelly denty HRM, Planning, and Development Director. Mr.. Chair members of committee thank, you very much for the opportunity to present to. You today on this important, issue land-use. Planning is a key municipal, responsibility and. HRM, supports, the move to ensure municipalities. Have, comprehensive, land use policies, in place however. We have some. Concerns about the approach this legislation. Takes, the. Department admissable Affairs consulted, on proposed amendments, during a summer the. Information, shared at that time was relatively, high level and spoke to general land-use planning requirements, and inter-municipal. Consultation. At. That time a trim provided, feedback indicating. Our support, for these two concepts, but noting concerns, about the legislation being, overly prescriptive. Bill. 58, houses. Using ministerial. Regulation. Rad. Instead of or rather than legislation. To establish minimum, planning, requirements, and consultation. Processes, between municipalities. Municipalities. Have no influence or, authority. Over the adoption, of regulations, as you know, ministerial. Regulations, are not captured, by the charters. Statutory. Duty to consult with municipalities. This. Direction, could have the effect of requirements, being imposed on, HRM. And other municipalities, that are not capable of being achieved or worse changing. Requirements during, ongoing, planning processes, the. Use of regulation, in this. For planning matters in, our view runs contrary to the goal of planning being a transparent. And participatory decision-making.
Process. The. Legislation, also allows the minister impose financial penalties, in, cases where minimum planning requirements are not fulfilled, by, withholding grants. And other funding. Withholding. Funds appears. To us to be an excessive, way to achieve, minimum, planning requirements in all municipalities. Given. That at many minimum, planning requirements are to be prescribed, by regulation, which, may change the notice, or municipal, involvement, it also leaves us in a potential, situation where, we may be unable to meet minimum requirements and, thus subject to financial, penalties. In. 1984. In. Councils original, Direction relating, to the. Need for an HRM Charter Review a term, was clear in terms of what has, sought in terms of a new Charter and it, was defined. At that time by council and remains the case that. Atrium, is looking to write for the recognization. Of the maturity, of HRM, that. Any, Charter changed to be strategically. Focused, be. Permissive, in nature provide. Increased, legislative. Autonomy, and provide. Increased financial autonomy. Legislative. Amendments, that see such a significant. Delegation, of authority to, the minister over municipal, planning matters runs. Counter to this request and direction from Council. HRM. To, be clear has already adopted a comprehensive. Set of official, planning documents, some, would argue to comprehensive. That. Cover are the entire municipality, our. Understanding, from provincial staff is that the intent of the legislation, here. In front of you today is. To require those municipalities who, have not yet adopted plans to do so as. A. Consequence. HRMS. Request is that the amendments to the HRM charter be removed from the bill and that, efforts be focused on a new HRM, Charter that has previously, been requested. Failing. Which we would request that the matter be deferred pending, amendments, that respond to our concerns. Thank, you very much for the opportunity to, speak. Is. It possible, mr. trays to, obtain. A copy of your presentation certainly. I I, have the base I have added a little bit and but I will provide that certainly thank you very much my pleasure questions. Mr., McGuire. Thank. You for, coming. Here today so I just want to kind. Of wrap this all up and, see. If I understand. You. Correctly mr.. Trays so, when you say when it comes to planning.
And. We're talking about HRM, in particular. What. You're looking for is. Obviously. Autonomy. To, be able to make your own decisions. And to. Show that the city is mature, City can act on its, own without. Having. Planning. I guess shoved down your throat and you, you have gone through a comprehensive, planning, when it comes to HRM, and. And. I guess what you're you're saying here is you know what's right. And. You don't want almost, Big Brother looking over your shoulders and telling you what to do. Maybe. I'm oversimplifying that, buddy, mr., Chairman I think. It would be more fair to say that a. A, strong, legislative. Framework. Is important, we recognize that we also recognize that there is a distinction, between, HRM. And that's reflected, in having a separate charter an immiscible, Government Act and, that as a situation. Of that and I'll be very brief as a consequence. Of that we, don't take any issue with the need for inter missable consultation. We agree with it I think, though our position, is that would be better reflected, in the legislation, rather than in the hands of departmental, staff and the minister through regular right through regulation, it's, that uncertainty that gives us some concern, so. So, you. Believe that HRM. Should. Of the. Ability to. Plan. Their own infrastructure, decide, what, areas have growth what areas don't. Am. I right in saying, that. Yeah. Yeah we do now so the, reason I ask this is I recently received a letter from City Council. In, regards, to. Infrastructure. And, so I'm confused right now. You're seeing this now and the letter that I received from City Council said. Well we don't want that infrastructure, but. Go ahead and do it if you want you, have the ability right and you, should do it if you want to do it so there on on. One side I'm hearing, from. People. That are in. Pretty. High authority, with the nature I'm saying wait, a second we want autonomy, this is our city we know how to run the city we don't need Big Brother and then, when, difficult, decisions, decisions. That, maybe. They. Don't want to have made they're. Passing, it over and saying well go, ahead and do it right so which is it so. There's, two, issues at play one, is here, we're here today talking about. Regulations. And legislation around, planning, as distinct, from infrastructure, but in the question planning, plays into it starts evaluating our alternative but with with respect we're, here today talking about this bill in terms of infrastructure. Certainly. Council, is free to make decisions, and I think what you're seeing in terms of in particular the. Extension, of water and sewer services is a question, as to whether it fits within the municipal planning strategy, of the day and if it does not recognizing.
That It may be then up to a higher power or a different power of government to extend. Those services, if they so choose and so that, essentially. Is a factual response, so. Well. Thank you mr., McGuire. Mr., Jones. Yeah. Thank you mr. chair I don't I. Don't see how. Infrastructure. And planning I understand, that, they are hand-in-hand but I see requesting, funds from the province, for projects. And, what's. Being asked for here I see those as two totally, separate things. Than the. Consultation. With adjacent. Municipalities which. From. My experience. HRM. Has done in the past on, their own is there. Anything, in, the. Bill that you see that HRM, is not currently, already doing. I. Can. I can take that question, there. Really isn't anything in the bill that we're not already doing that that is our point that, we do have comprehensive planning in place our concern, is with the unknown, of the regulations, so it suggests that minimum planning regulations will, be determined by the minister we, feel that could be a bit of a moving target with a number, of processes, that we have in place right now so in essence it's the regulation, not the substance of what's to be achieved, if. I could so mr. Treves D or miss did he do you think that health, acts Regional, Council, in lieu of the fact that I, would, assume that this would be something that would be coming forward in a future. Request for charter, changes, but, in lieu of that is council or do you think council would be agreeable to providing, the, province. With. You, know a little letter or an MoU of some type saying that they will, consult. Other. Municipalities. When appropriate. We. We. Currently consult, other municipalities, now. We. Would continue to do so for for, matters, that cross our borders would, have notice intervals said our policies as well of course and, so just, so if I do make a motion here at the at, the end of this so, it's to remove, the amendments I, missed. What you said at the very, very. Last. Sentence. You said there mr. Treves so, it's to remove, the amendments from. The HRM, Charter and request that there be an updated Charter for each area I. Think. It's. Essentially. The first portion which is to remove the amendments in bill, 58, that apply to the to the HRM, charter the, request, on a new charter is already outstanding in any event. All. Right Thank You mr. chair Thank You mr. trays. Mr.. Irvin, Thank. You mr. chair so just. So that that I'm, clear on what you're saying here is, there's. Nothing in this bill that is, not what you're doing already. You're. Concerned, that. Regulations. You're, concerned about consultation. During regulations. Is I, think your main point do you not see that there is merit, in having, a bill that. Treats. Processes. Equally, amongst all municipalities, and this is really just bringing in. Some. Consistency. Between, the. Other 49, municipalities. And HRM, in terms of the guy guiding, legislation, around planning, mr.. Chair to you to the member no. Essentially. The challenge, with this bill is that it it establishes, a framework by. Which the minister can bring in any number of different regulations. And our concern is what those regulations may intel I think. With with consultation, and, seeing you know what is on what, is on the table with respect to I let a legislative. Amendment, that. Brings that in evenly for all municipalities, we, would likely not have an objection subject, to and, being consulted on it it's the fear of the unknown and, and the reality, of, HRM. Being. In a situation, where we have a very large planning, staff a large number of planning. Documentation. In place already and the, concern that there is there's, a certainty around all, of that process which then gets upset, where, you have the potential for new regulations, which.
May Come at some point we understand. How they work and they do not have the same level of rigor as something, that comes in front of even this body to, be reviewed thank, you. Any. Further questions. Thank, you very much Thank You mr. chair. Would. Mr., Alton or mr. Visser's be present, so. We, will, refer, this bill to. Later. In the afternoon, when our presenters. Are here, and. At this time moved. To bill 49. The, Gaming Control Act. Our. First presenter, sue. Bird and. Correct. Me if I. Mispronounced. Your surname please. That. Was the correct pronunciation thank, you welcome, thank, you. I'm. Sue Burge I am the director of standards, and accreditation. With, the responsible, gambling council, in Toronto, and, I'm. Here to speak about the amendments to the Gaming Control Act and I appreciate the opportunity to, address this body. In. 2016. We, were invited, to come and conduct an accreditation. Basically. An in-depth review of the. Responsible. Gambling program, in place at, the two casinos in Nova. Scotia and Halifax in Sydney and I, was part of that process. At that time so. I thought what I do is start off with a bit of a description about the pro the program. Itself and then talk a bit about some of the results we we. Found as part of our audit. So. There's the RG, check is the name of the program it was developed by the responsible, gambling, Council, of Canada in 2010. Purpose. Is to support gaming, operators, in the adoption of meaningful. Responsible. Gambling initiatives. And evaluate. Those initiatives against, measurable, evidence and, form standards, so, we wanted to make sure it's working with the things that are in place are actually doing something. This. Program is recognized by. Regulators, and operators, is where the most rigorous, in the world and. It's, based on a comprehensive, set of standards, that. Essentially, we're designed to meet or exceed regulatory. Requirements. So in fact we try to go a bit further than. Most governments. In terms of the regulations they they, have in place. There. Are eight standards. And. Essentially. What they cover are responsible, gambling policies. Employee. Training. Voluntary. Self exclusion, assisting. Patrons, who may need help inform. Decision, making. Advertising. And promotion, access. To money so this would include things like credit, and so on and venue. And game features, so those that's the scope of what we look at, we. Have hundreds, of metrics that we use to compare and, measure the, effectiveness of these programs against. Today. We've completed, about a hundred and fifty such accreditations, all, across Canada, and then, Singapore. We've, also used. These standards, to review, and assess lottery, horse racing, and VLT, programs, in, Australia, the, UK and, elsewhere so, they are internationally. Applied. So. The process that we use it's a structured, process. It's much like a financial, audit would be in a sense it. Starts, with data. Gathering, we. Do a review of, basically. Policies, and procedures that are in place at casinos, we, then conduct a physical review of the site so we actually go and visit the, casinos we spend a couple of days taking. A look at the site we, interview key staff we. Conduct staff, surveys. Anonymous. Staff surveys we also survey, patrons, so customers, we talked to them about responsible. Gambling policies, and procedures in place and we. Asked for a demonstration. Of the voluntary self exclusion, process, when we're on site. We. Then look, at all, these all this data that we've gathered, and we. Look, at things like senior staff commitment, to responsible gambling and a whole series of other measures. Then. We go back we we develop, our report, and. Which, includes a series of recommendations so. It's, broken into eight sections based, on the standards, and we have recommendations, each of those areas and. Which. Like any other audit process, we submit, a draft report, to. The casino, we, go. Back and forth a little bit to talk about any gaps or. Misrepresentations. Or whatever and then we, submit. That final, report to an independent, accreditation. Panel, and, we. Have national, body of experts. And we, go through a process with them where they ask questions they poke. And prod a little bit and once. That process is complete to everyone's satisfaction we would go ahead and accredit the casinos. The. Accreditation, period is for three years and there, is a requirement for an annual update to be submitted, each. Year just to provide, any changes, to the program may have happened over that 12 months, so. That's the process, or. Finding, specifically. For, Nova Scotia, as, I mentioned we conducted, this review, in March of 2016, it wrapped up in August of that year so, it's about a four month process. Across. All standards, both casinos, scored. Well with. The exception of voluntary, self exclusion, program, I. Should, say that in, order to receive. Accreditation, you, must achieve, 70%.
Or Greater overall, and each, standard, must achieve 50% minimum. The. Seven, of the eight standards did well. Self-exclusion. Barely. Passed at Halifax that came in at 58% which, is very low for this program and Sydney. Came in at 65 percent. So. Clearly. There are a number of issues with, voluntary self exclusion, that we identified. With. Regard to Nova, Scotia casinos. So. A series of recommendations that we put forward included. Moving. Away from the sole option of a lifetime, ban term which obviously is part of this amendment, that's before the legislature, and to, implement a less onerous, reinstatement. Process, both, of which we believe, and based on research which you hear more about I'm sure, has. A has. Been found to have a significant, chilling effect on uptake, people. Get intimidated. With. The whole notion of lifetime, etc, so that as a result the numbers the involvement numbers are not generally as high. Research. Has shown that most experts, favor. A continuum, of band lengths it. Serves. Suits, the unique. Circumstances. Of individuals, as opposed to once, one-size-fits-all. In. Canada, across, all jurisdictions other. Than Nova Scotia, the range is from six months to five years and years. And be customized three five and that lifetime option, the lifetime auction does exist if people want to take that. Research. That we've conducted the risk was responsible, gambling counsel, showed. That a strategy, of active reinstatement. Is important. As. Long as the process isn't. So onerous, that might deter people from getting involved in the program in the first place. Different, approaches, can, be taken. Depending. On whether somebody has fulfilled their, self a solution period without incident. And and, often, there are breaches that, can happen and what, we've found is that if. People at the end of their term are forced. To reapply for entry, they. Can go through any number of programs. Such as a little. Educational, and some jurisdictions, will require. People to watch an educational, video go. Through a process and have discussions and make a determination themselves. As to whether they're ready to return. Many. People as I said do opt, for. A lifetime ban if they think that's best suited to their particular circumstances, other. People might just decide they need a six-month break because their. Family circumstances, have changed or, their their, job. Situation, has changed whatever. So. I one make point though that in addition, to variability. Variability, and. Active. Reinstatement. Program there's. A number of other recommendations. That responsible, gambling council made to the. Casino. Corporation, and these, come under the heading of policy, and practice there they're not obviously. Legislative, changes but their policy, and best practices, in policy, and this, would include things like actively, promoting, the program educating. People but it exists, both within the casino environment and, outside of it. A, registration. Process. At the casino or off-site that's respectful. Presented. In plain language. Includes, information on help resources. And. Offers, a referral to counseling, because quite often that's something. That people are willing to take up at that moment. And. Frankly, you know we believe that this is the right path that this would bring Nova Scotia in line with other provinces. And the way they manage their for a voluntary, self-exclusion, and, I. Think it's really important that that these. Are implemented, and I think it will help yet. You know Nova, Scotia to a first-rate. Exclusion. Program if if. They're implemented. Thank. You, thank. You very much for your comments, questions. Miss. Lola's Croft. Thank. You for your presentation. I'm sort. Of. Curious. About, voluntary. Exclusion. You, said, there you. I'm, checkout, different examples, of it can you give me an example of. Voluntary. Exclusion. Touching, in terms of bam, demonstration. Yeah oh oh yes, yes so. We we actually it's. Not mystery, shop because they know what they were there and we've we've met them but we asked their.
Security Staff it's generally security, that do the registrations. To, actually take us through the process so, we, always travel in team of two we do our site visit two people one of our staff will, take notes the other will actually sit down and go through the process so. We asked the security person to from. Beginning to end, what. They would do in order to register someone, in this program, and. The. Differences in score is interestingly the, policies, etc are the same between the two casinos but the scores were a little bit different and in, part it's because, one casino did a better job of the registration, process than, the other they, they just they took more time they, encouraged questions, they. Explained. The process in, plain. Language so. We take all of those. Elements. Into, consideration, when, determining. So. Of all I just need clarification, on, a voluntary. Life. Exclusion. You. Cannot change your mind but. It's long as I understand, it is well, it's it's, involuntarily. Voluntary. Okay or. Okay, M. Word yes okay. Thank you very much. Mr.. Jones. Yeah. Thank You mr. chair I'm just if you would excuse, my ignorance I'm, really not familiar. With your. Group so I just want to ask a quick question I looked, at the website and I see, it says that it's an independent, nonprofit organization. I'm curious, to know how. Where, the funding comes from free for your agency is it funded through the federal government is a defeat for service, structure right, yes, it's, a blended. Approach we don't, receive federal funding, but we do receive, probably, fifty percent of our budget from the provincial, Ministry, of Health in. Ontario, so, we run a number of programs in. Ontario, that are paid for by government we. Also have a research department which. Does internal, research just best practice research we also do fee for service so for. My program for example there. Is a fee for us to deliver this, as, I said we have we, devote to staff to the process, for about four months. The. Standards, that we base the program on our, public. Domain you know they're on our website, and so. It's a bit of a blended model okay. All, right Thank You, mr.. Can't stand it Oh a, quick. Question I actually know somebody who has. Registered. Or, prevented, himself from. Gambling. A very responsible, person wonderful. I didn't. Understand, is it different, in different provinces or, different, casinos, that give. The information differently. I didn't, understand what's why Halifax, had, it's. Just yeah we look at the. Type and the scope of information that's provided at, the time often, when people are at that point and they've just made, what is a very difficult personal. Decision. They, can be upset and you. Know any number of. Emotions. Going on so what, we look for our very, professional. Registration. Process, where a lot of information is handed off that. The processes, is explained and again. In plain language in. That, it's offered in different languages, because of you know just so that people can function. In their own, mother. Tongue, we. Look, for something that's not rushed, that's, private, so. There's a whole series of metrics that we use to. Measure how. Well a, registration. Is being handled and it. Does, vary from province to province yes sir, my experience, is very positive about and he's he's, a Nova. Scotians, and tasks and it's absolutely no, problem with what he has experienced.
Some Surprise, that Halifax, has, a, problem, that was mine well I think where, you're seeing the low scores generally, is because it's it is the band length issue is, the bit is the real problem it's not so much necessarily, the way the registration, was carried out at that moment at those two casinos but, rather that the. Band length the, lifetime option was the only opportunity, for people that the reinstatement, required, somebody going before a tribunal which, a lot of people would find could, find very difficult. The. Numbers that. Are people, that are registered himself a solution are relatively low compared, to other jurisdictions, so. III know I wouldn't want to say that it's because it was mishandled, at either of those casinos at that moment but rather the. Other policies. That are in place are, well legislative, issues, that are in place that don't. Give people more flexibility. So. That's. That was the issue thank, you. Thank. You Joseph. Mr.. Berle. But, thanks for this clear explanation, I, just. Was wondering about the point you are making about. The. Extra. Policy, recommendations, you made coming out of the accreditation, about. Ease. Of registration. And promotion. Of the option, of self exclusion, can you give us any sense of. How. You view compliance. With those recommendations since, 2016, I. Think. Well. A lot of those issues are policy. Issues, you know practice, are. You talking about compliance in Nova Scotia or. Yeah. We found a very good compliance with with the requirements, that were in place we. Just think that the requirements, in some cases in some elements of the process, should change but. For, the most part the both, casinos. Scored very well in, all, other areas so training was very well, conducted. The, staff were trained across the board. Their. Corporate policies, were good where they could be it's just of course they're restricted, in terms of things like and. Lengths. And things, that we're talking about today. But, for the most part they scored very well what dragged them down was, in fact the voluntary self exclusion, program so just. So the committee's, aware we're going we're, invited to come back in 2019. To do another, audit. Of the program and. We'll. Go through exactly the same process again and and with if these changes are adopted, and the practices, they're put in place to support VSE, and others then I expect their scores, will go up, thank. You. Thank. You very much. Without. Further question. Appreciate. Your comments. Mr.. John Kelly. Welcome. Mr. Kelly. Mr.. Chair members of the committee I appreciate. The opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. And. To. Express. My support for what you're doing. I. Spent. Until. Last year 20, years as the, CEO of the responsible, gambling council. And. Before, that about, 20, years in policy, development with, the government. Of Ontario, not. In gaming, policy, but disability. Children's, services those kinds of things so I come, at self. Exclusion, from the point of view of. Good. Public policy but. Also the point of view of gaming policy, what the best thing to do to manage. Gambling. In a way and to reduce the risk that someone will get into gambling problems. Over. 20 years the responsible, gambling council, we looked at Gaming, policy. At, prevention. Policy, we developed, many prevention, programs including, the. Accreditation. Program that Sue Birds just talked about we. Talked with, gamblers, we talked to people who, have had, first-hand. Experience of gambling problems, policymakers. Gaming, providers, in an, attempt, to come up with the best set. Of best, practices, that we could think of and we developed. A set of best practices related to. Self. Exclusion, two and two different occasions one was a general best practice in self exclusion, and another, one related, to specifics.
Of Reinstatement. Self. Exclusion. When. It was originally created was. The, the person the self exclusion program was in Kansas in the United States. It. Came. With which. I'll speak to a little bit later the. Withholding. Winnings, in. The United States withholding, winnings has been part of their policies, since self-exclusion. Was introduced, one. Of the few areas where, the United States is actually ahead of kin in their public policy. Self. Exclusion has evolved, it was originally. A catch-and-release. Program, as some people in the gaming industry call, it that is you're. Not supposed to be here you you agree, that you will not come and we will try to catch you it, was enforcement. Oriented. Over. The over, the, last 20 years it's evolved, a lot to a program, who, is designed, to help people to support people to give people more options to, help them manage. Their gambling. Not. Just, for, people, who have lost control but. For people who choose to, use. This tool for. Other. Reasons so people. Choose. Self. Exclusion for a whole variety of reasons I'll, come back to that in a minute. So. We. Having. Looked at self, exclusion, through all of these processes. We. Came to the conclusion, that based on all of the evidence the research the testimony, the the. Testimony of individuals, that these, three, provisions that you have before you. Voluntary. Individuals. Setting their own band lengths. Disentitlement. Of winnings while. People are excluded and a, defined reinstatement. Process where. Useful. And good changes. Individual. Choice in setting ban lengths has many advantages. The. First advantage is you do not have to make a commitment for a lifetime, that's. A hard thing to do some. People will, try out self exclusion, will will. Commit. To self exclusion, for six months and try, it and renew their ban there. Where, you have a variety of bans you have more flexibility. And you, have more. Responsibility. For the individual. Themselves you, keep responsibility. For the individual, more keep them engaged in the process in managing. What they want to do. It's. Less intimidating. The. Disentitlement, of winnings.
Removes. The. Incentive for, people to gamble, if, you. Can't win if you say I'm excluded. From this venue are all venues and I. Know that, I cannot, win if I go back that, takes away an incentive, now. In. The United States this has been done as I mentioned for many years in Canada it's becoming more and more it's, it's kind of come across the the, country beginning, in British Columbia, where it was introduced, about eight, years ago so, disentitlement. Is, another. Tool, to, support, the individual, and to support self exclusion. Active. Reinstatement. Processes, in many places. When. A person's, self excludes. They, excel phix clewd for a period, of time and when that time ends their. Name, comes off the list they can come back, simple. You can walk in the door in the next day. The. Active, reinstatement. Process changes, that it says if you want to come back you have to go through a process of first. Of all indicating. You want to come back you meet with somebody from a venue, some, operator, or someone, who. Is a. Perhaps. That, there are people, who work in the on-site responsible. Gambling centers, in across. The country, you, meet with the person you talk to them about your plans in some cases you work out a plan about how you're going to come back safely in many. Cases, people are required. To go through some kind of educational. Program before they come back there's. Also usually, a cooling-off, period, in Ontario for example, there's a cooling-off period, of over a month you. Say. You want to come back you meet with somebody from, the, from. Some gaming, operator. You, have a discussion about your plans. You. Have an educational, process and then, you have to wait another month before you come back it's, to. Enable. The person to come back fully. Considering. The implications, of what they're doing. So. What, you're. Proposing to. Do in. Nova. Scotia with. These three provisions.
Will. Bolster and, improve, the self exclusion, program and it. Cannot. Help but make it a lot stronger and, oh, and it. Is likely to, mean that a great number of people, who. Would. Not have chosen self exclusion, because. Of the lifetime, ban will. Now be able to opt into it so. Thank. You and I'm happy to respond. To your questions, Thank. You mr. Kelly very informative, questions. Thank. You very much for the presentation, I just. Sorry I missed, which. Group are you with or who you representing, right. Now I retired. From the responsible, gambling Council. A year. Ago so I'm not representing. A group I am. Particularly. Committed. To. Good. Public policy, and good gaming policy, and I think these are good so I asked, to be to, speak. With this committee. Right. Okay thank you because, it would have been nice if, this. Amendment was happening, in the context. Of an, update. To the responsible, gaming strategy. I would, have liked to see that more. And more talked. About and involved, I have a question, for you regarding gambling, I. Was. Told by people who, are gambling, addiction. Experts, that. If, you have a gambling addiction it's, like alcoholism, or any other addiction. Even. If you spend one quarter, in a, gambling, situation. It's the same as if you spend a million dollars the. Rush that, they get is in, the anticipation, of. What, is going to come it doesn't even matter whether they win or they, lose it's the it's the adrenaline that runs through their system, while, they are anticipating, the. Win so. In, that sense is there really any such thing as a responsible. Gambling. Ruse. Or, program. For someone who is an addict, you. Know, over. The last 20, years in, the, gambling area and before that in the drug and alcohol area there. Are, you. Always hear this about. One. Drink or one and. I don't. Doubt that that's true for some people yeah. It's. True for addicts if, you could allow our presenter, to speak that yes and yes I'm just adding, to what he had to say I think that.
You. Find, a range. Of. Opinion. Among people. Who. Are the, treatment, providers, like the ones you're talking about. It's. Quite possible. For, many people, to say I am. Doing something that's destructive, and I'm going to stop, and. Take. Their, responsibility. In their own hands or I'm going to cut back like I just think that the the, view that one. Drink. Or or. One. Kind. Of experience. With gambling, I, that. That is not a universal. Experience. Wow. I acknowledge, that this, is an experience for some people the person who started the responsible, gambling Council was, a compulsive. Gambler I won't go into his life story but there is no question about and, he. Absolutely, believed, that that, he could not, but. I think he would have acknowledged, Tibor bar Sony was his name he tooi died about a year ago. That. Many. People do. Not have the same experience they. Are not that as far, down the road and, there need to be options, for everybody. Not. Just people. Who are at, the, core of an, addiction and, I think that that's a part, of self. Exclusion, and all, responsible. Gambling policies. Need, to provide for the whole range of people thank. You as. Somebody who is an addict I'm an alcoholic have, been my entire life, sober 23, years now almost 24, I can, tell you that yes one drink is too many and. 5,000. Or not enough so. When somebody is an addict, it's, a lot different than somebody who just does it for the fun of it and can stop, believe. Me it is very very, difficult for, an addict to stop especially. On their own so. So. The idea that, there is this. Responsible. Gaming. Program. It's. Great for people who are, not addicts, but, I would say that for the people who are the core people who are actually spending most of the money in. Gambling. It. I, don't know if it really helps, whether. It's a lifetime, ban or not once, an addict usually, you're you're an addict, but. I have to say that it concerns, me greatly that, the, province, has taken, off this. The. Ban and I. Think we need to look a lot more carefully, at addiction. And, what the causes, and how how, we can can, solve, and help the people with, addictions. To deal with their problems, thank, you. Thank. You mr., Jones. Yeah. Thank You mr.. Chair mr. Kelly I'm just curious are. You do you live in Nova Scotia now, no I live in Toronto okay alright thank you. Miss. Martin. Thank. You mr. chair I know. This was talked about during. The during. The reading, of this bill in the house and I don't know that a clear answer came from it but I'm about your experience. In other jurisdictions, about the forfeiture of the money so, if I'm at a gambling addict, and I spend $1,000, and I win $5,000. When. I'm discovered, do I get my thousand, dollars back and then the, the somebody. Keeps my $4,000, where does that money go. In. Terms of the getting. The money back most. Jurisdictions. Do. Not provide, any of the money coming back partly, because they don't know how, much there actually is like if somebody, plays. A slot machine and then place another one that plays they, have great difficulty, in tracking, the money unless they're, they're very specific circumstances. I, have. Heard, about. People. Who got some money back when it was absolutely clear how much money they spent, in. Terms of the money forfeited. That. In, most, jurisdictions goes, into, some. Form of earmarked, fund which. Is used, for prevention. Or treatment, some. Or perhaps research, into.
Problem Gambling so it's not, it. It's. Not returned, to general revenues, because, that would appear to be, a benefit, to the. Organizations. Providing, gaming so I. Think. Most. Jurisdictions who. Have. This. Kind of forfeiture, program. Would recommend. Keeping. The money separate. And identifiable. And using. It for the purposes, of reducing problem gambling. Thank. You and that would be my hope that it would be used for the you know prevention, and treatment of, mental health and addictions and or whatever else could be if. I might say it's it's all so unpredictable money, but. Once. You. Introduce. A forfeiture. If. You're successful, that, money should go down, because. People should gamble less, because. They're not going to win so you, could get a certain, amount of money early, on but, it's, it's completely unpredictable money, so to use it for any form of operating, cost makes it, questionable. Source. Clearly. We should know where the money is, going when. And if it is forfeited, though I guess there's live. Thank. You mr.. McGuire. Thank. You for being here today I just had two quick questions the, previous speaker. I think. The point the previous speakers she was trying to make was that with. A lifetime, ban. Problem. Gamblers, are less likely, to sign up. Because. They see it as that's it forever. And. Other. Jurisdictions, have had more, success, with. Helping. Keep. Problem. Gamblers. Out of casinos, by. Having. Extended. Periods instead of a lifetime ban do you agree with that sorry. Having, having, a set period instead, of a lifetime, ban so five years ten years I. Do. Think, definitely. That. Having. Less. Than a lifetime ban, is a good idea and. Once. You do that to. Engage, the individual. In helping, in their choice. Is. Another benefit, like. A. As. I said and I think, super, said as well this is. Having. To make a lifetime. Decision, and, know. That it's going to be, enforced. And you're. Going to be subject. To a, very, complex, process if you want to come back. Is. A deterrent. So. Having. More flexibility. To make your decisions, that fit your lifestyle, that. Fit your life now, I read, just this morning for example about a man in Ontario. Who. Had. Ban. 20. Years ago and it. Was essentially, than a 20 a lifetime. Ban and he, gambled. He. Set. Up a ban he was going through a difficult time in life he retired and his wife died he got into gambling heavily, he banned himself, and this is 20 years on, so. There's. An example of a person, who was. Going through a bad patch in life and maybe needed self-exclusion to help him get through that he. May not have needed a lifetime, ban, he. He. Might have chosen, something different it were if I were available at the time but, it was very it. Was part of his life at the time and. Better. To offer that, person, options. That. Keep. The decision-making, in his hand and take it away from him so. One last question may I ask what your experience, is in your educationists. My. Experience, I worked. For the last 20 years as CEO of the responsible, gambling Council, I worked, for about 20 years before that as a policy adviser a policy, director with the government of Ontario, I have. A PhD. From. University. Of Edinburgh and public policy, and administration. Thank. You. Mr.. Don trimmer, thanks. This is probably a question I probably should have asked him his Berge as she was here but how robust, should a program, of self exclusion, be because. The question I. Understand. The program is here at least at the casino may be another question for mr. Roberts when he comes up it is, you. Know you, self exclude. They. Create a exclusion. Sheet for you and they put it in a binder. The. Security's gonna have to check that binder once in a while so really, a person can get in and out of that casino probably, a few times before he, or she is noticed, so how robust should the program be in self exclusion. Well. I guess.
The. Accreditation. Program. Expects. It to be quite robust the. Standards, that were created for RG check I was involved in the original. Design. Of RG check. Looks. To quite. A number of provisions whatwhat, do you do to find. Somebody. What. Do you do for example how. Robust, are your, processes. When you're coming in you could have a binder, right. You could have some form of a better, form of picture, you could have. In. British, Columbia license-plate recognition that's. Cameras. That are. Picking. Up license plates as they come into the parking areas you, can have facial recognition, so. There are quite. A number of. Ways. That you, can identify. Somebody. And quite. A number of choices in terms of what you do after that you know kind of do you just. Move them out or do you say come and talk to me you, know let's find out why you here you. We got somebody on site in most places including, Nova. Scotia you can talk to some, that D on-site responsible. Gambling centers, they're called different things in different places but, all. Of these provisions are really are really useful. But. It's the combination of them that the accreditation program, is looking for and the more robust that, the higher, the score is super. Just said thank. You thank. You mr. Kelly appreciate. Your time you. It's. Mr. Chris Roberts. Welcome. Mr. Roberts thank you very much and excuse. The nasal voice I'm on the tail. End of a cold. So. I'm just. Circulating, a few, comments we have I thought it might be helpful, to, have somebody, from the casino that, deals with with, with, our guests and with these programs on an everyday basis, available, to answer questions so I'll speak for a very short period and then you, know be available, for any questions you may have again. I'm on the front line you, know dealing with with our guests and of course with our staff all. The time so my, name is Chris Roberts I'm the general manager of casino. Nova Scotia the operations, in both Halifax, and Sydney I've, worked in the gaming industry for, the better part of twenty years starting, in horse racing into. Slot operations, and then into. Into, casinos I've been at casino Nova Scotia now for just more than three years I have, experience, in in, jurisdictions. Across the country Alberta. Ontario British. Columbia, and and. Now into Nova Scotia so. I certainly on behalf of a great Canadian Gaming, our parent company the operator of the casinos, in, Nova Scotia very, supportive, of the changes that are being recommended this, is part of a, robust.
And Collaborative, process, that's. Involved, the casino that's involved, our crown partner, in our crown regulator, and of course, you. Know many many seasoned. Experts experts. That know a lot more about responsible, gambling than I do I'm. Certainly happy to answer any questions about, the operation, but unlike. The last speaker I do not have a PhD in public policy, or. Extensive. Professional. Responsible. Gambling training. So. Responsible, gambling at casino nova scotia is very, much part of our culture, so for all 500-plus team members at both sites there's. A fairly robust training program, in. Place there, are refreshers, every. Year for, each of our staff as well so we, have a number of you, know we're very very blessed to have a number of 20-plus, year employees, it doesn't mean it's a one-and-done you don't come in and do a responsible, gambling training, and then never, hear of the subject again it's something that that. We, deal with on a regular basis. Retraining. And, it's it's part of our culture as I said but we do town hall meetings when. We meet as. Departments. There's, regularly. Responsible. Gambling, checkpoints. As, part of the business so we have active committees at both of our sites that deal with responsible, gambling just, to give you a little background VSE is part of that but BSC is just one tool in a robust responsible. Gambling, toolkit. That involves, our on-site, responsible, gambling resource, centers training. Conversations. And. Then of course counseling, and other tools that are available for. Staff or for guests that, have questions or or, need more information so. I really wanted to speak in in support of the programs but as I said really. More just to give you an opportunity to ask questions of. Me since I'm the one that's on the ground dealing. With this in, Nova Scotia all, the time so I'll. Turn things back over to you mr. chair. Miss. Anne. Thank. You very much judge mr., chair, thank. You for coming here today and doing. Your presentation. I have, a couple of questions do you anything do you know anything about the, the my play program. The, fact that there. Was a decision to eliminate it with, no alternative, plan really, established. And. Following. The elimination, of my play, VLT. Revenues, in Nova Scotia rose, by eight eight million, do. You have any of, anything. To say about the my play and, whether, it should be have. Something else put in its place so. My, knowledge. Of my, play is is, sort, of tangential, I I wasn't, involved in the my play program it predated, my time being in Nova Scotia I'm certainly familiar with. With. What my play is and how it was rolled out and how it was used my. Play was not in use. At the casino properties, I was a VLT. Program, I used, throughout, the province I am, certainly not an expert on live play I think you'd be better, served with the NSG, see, thank. You I wasn't sure if they had it, at the casino or not. Can. You tell me have there ever been any suicides. At, our, casino, here in Halifax are any attempted, suicides.
There. Are none none that I know of. Again, I've only been here three years but. There are none none, none that I know of at the casinos, at either Halifax, from Sydney do. You know what, the ratio or, would. Be for. Ceno's, across Canada, if there have been very many suicides. I know that in other, jurisdictions. In America, and Australia other countries there there are suicides, almost every year from. Gamblers, who are addicts. Throwing. Themselves out windows, and things like that, in. My own family my my. Cousin's, husband, actually committed suicide from, gambling, as. Well from his gambling addiction which, nobody was aware of until, he, suicided, he, chose suicide so, just curious if. You know anything about the, rate in in, Canada I don't. Personally know, what the rate is problem, gambling is. You. Know it's a serious matter it affects a lot affects people it affects a lot of people I have people, in my family who. It's affected, as well but, as far as the ratios, or statistics, or numbers per, Casino I don't, have any access to those numbers okay, and do you think that this is an if I may we have other presenters, we can come back to mr.. Don Ramon I'm, just wondering since I did ask the question of the previous previous. Speaker just how does the exclusion program work today in, the casino and and how do you envision it to work, after. These changes go in place yes so. Two. Speakers ago the. The. The lady from the responsible, gambling pronounced will walk through the the. Process, so and are and are either of our sites what will happen is there. Will either be a behavior, that's noticed and that's really what it's about it's you know for our staff they're trained to notice behaviors, to, notice key messages, it's. Not a matter it's very very rare that someone. Walks in and presents themselves to a an, employee and says I have, a gambling problem. You. Know please, help me or or, what services, do you have it, much. It's. Much more. Overt than that you, know it will usually be, things. That are noticed, keywords. That are mentioned and typically, what a staff member will do is in a very non intrusive way.
Because. The the the first thing you learn in responsible, gambling training, is you don't walk up to someone and say hey it seems like you may have a gambling problem it's. It's it's a it's a a much. Softer. Presentation. And giving people the ability to, ask for that help, once voluntary. Self-exclusion. Becomes. An option or becomes something, folks are talking about it's then elevated. This is not the kind of thing that people are not comfortable talking, about this in in a public space. You, know this is for some people this is is a very sensitive matter. So what we'll do is it, will be elevated typically to a senior, security. Officer, or security, supervisor who, will remove the. Guest from the floor they'll. Go to a private, place that's operated, just off the casino floor in both properties in Halifax and Sydney where, they can have a quiet conversation, talk, about what, options are available. You know visa via the via the voluntary, self exclusion program and. At that time a player, can either take, information, can ask questions, or can activate the program if in fact they activate, or opt into the program there. Are there's paperwork, to fill out once. That's all. Said and done of course there's there are photos and. And, there are databases. Where this information is, entered into. One. Of the benefits of being. In small communities like Halifax, and Sydney is that, most of our staff for players that are voluntarily, self excluding, we have a relationship, you know with these folks we know who they are, whether. It's gaming. Staff directly, on the floor more, likely, security. Staff on-site or, the, unknown or, the part may the unseen, entity, of surveillance, who, have access to, these databases these. Photos, and. It's. Not an uncommon occurrence for. A an excluded, player to be noted, on-site it's not an uncommon occurrence for, them to be intercepted, before they even make it to a table game, using. You know these these. You know that the staffs familiarity. With these folks in the databases that are available so as. As the previous speaker said we, do not use. Facial. Recognition software, in, Nova Scotia at, the present time it's certainly something that could be looked at in the future it, is a it is a more manual, process, but. We. Have very. Few. Voluntarily. Self excluded, players that, would not be known to to. Casino staff, Thank. You. Mr.. Jones. Yeah. Thank you very much so. Currently. Where it. Where. It's kind of only one level of exclusion. With. The. Amendments. To build this in front of us, with. The staggered. Levels, is. That going to be harder, to enforce. More, confusing, or, how. Do you feel that t
2018-10-04 13:53
