Discussions

would taxpayers even consider funding this? IMO it is totally a non-essential service. If people want to gamble, then they should pay whatever costs are involved.

Do they subsidize other "entertainment outings"? I know of some areas where residents of the personal care homes are taken by handi-van on outings to events that they would not otherwise be able to attend.  
If the handi-van is available and they want to go, why would this be different than an excursion to the Peace Gardens?

The seniors on these outings are paying for these trips, they are not free to seniors. I am also quite sure that that bus that goes down there is always full to capacity. So that should tell you that the seniors are enjoying this outing!! It is no different than any other seniors trip that the hand van would take. It is an outing for seniors!!

With the cost being $10 per person and a full load being 18 people, $180.00 barely covers the wages of the driver. Therefore, the cost of fuel and fixed costs for the Handi van are being paid by taxpayers. I am not against the trips, but the actual costs should be paid by the 18 individuals that enjoy gambling. Gambling is not an essential service.  
 
I understand that a slight increase is coming, but still not enough to cover costs.

How are other 'outings' booked and paid for? As in the example of the Peace Gardens, or other day-trips - does this Handi Van charge actual price and divide it by the number of people who go?

im not in the rm but i would see the difference being one outing is a social/mental health initiative, and an occasional one, where the other is likely the opposite, plus the idea of need comes into play, if they can afford gambling then the need for subsidy isnt their and to top it off the casino they are being taken too likely doesn't pay taxes to the RM and makes a profit on the seniors so they should be paying for the transportation if someone other then the user should ...honestly there is all sorts of reasons why i wouldnt support taking seniors to throw away their money while the tax payer subsidizes them

Souris Glenwood charges $10 for a trip within town limits, we charge $10 for a round trip to Belcourt.

I am not in that area but I would be questioning the costs and location. That seems very cheap to go. One you are using taxpayers money that is already subsidizing the cost of the van. Then you are spending the money outside of Canada gambling. Why not ask Brandon Bus Lines how much they would charge to haul the seniors down there? I guess you could ask the same if a bunch of young adults paid $10 bucks to go drinking in Belcourt. Would everyone be fine with that?  
 
Edited by Fishin Guy, 2015-10-26 13:46:32

from the area and don't agree with it. I am glad they are going if they enjoy it but agree they could pay for it or apply for grants through the recreation organizations for it.

Perhaps they could go to the new Sandhills Casino, it must be a lot cheaper

Could triple the cost to cover it 100% and the majority would probably still go. It would be a drop in the bucket for what any of these gamblers/addicts spend in a night anyways.  
 
The machines are built to suck money out of people.

That most of these folks lived in that community all their lives and paid taxes for years to purchase the first bus and many, many, other things in the municipality and town. I agree that ten bucks is cheap, and that a better choice would be the Sandhills casino, at least then their dollars would mostly stay in the province. Seniors need outside activities to keep then=m sane, just like the rest of us, so please do not begrudge their trips even though you are supporting them, just like they supported you in your youth.

Mist said "Perhaps they could go to the new Sandhills Casino, it must be a lot cheaper "

Have to agree Sandhills would be a better choice as it appears to be closer, and no U.S. exchange.  
Other than that, if other recreational activities are subsidized, see no reason why this one shouldn't be. The seniors are free to spend their money however they wish.  
Don't let the old "gambling is evil" attitude cloud your judgement on this issue.

CatMan said "    Mist said "Perhaps they could go to the new Sandhills Casino, it must be a lot cheaper " Have to agree Sandhills would be a better choice as it appears to be closer, and no U.S. exchange.   Other than that, if other recreational activities are subsidized, see no reason why this one shouldn't be. The seniors are free to spend their money however they wish.   Don't let the old "gambling is evil" attitude cloud your judgement on this issue. "

the issues with subsidizing is they should be based on need, obviously if the senior, or anyone else for that matter, has money to gamble then i dont think they have a need for subsidization, I would also not be for a subsidy to take seniors to the airport to go on a trip or to brandon for a hotel weekend ect so its not just gambling but it is the activity  
 
 
also someone said these seniors have paid taxes for their lives, which is true ( somewhat, many didnt pay into some systems as they weren't in play for them or at the time) but as stewards for the system we cant just let that be a free for all to cover all expenses, we have to look at what is necessary so that everyone can enjoy life, seniors and tax payers, basically why would we subsidize these types of outing when the money should be spent hiring more nurses, making their homes better ect  
 
another question goes to need is, how often do these trips go, once a year, once a month or every week?

The handi van transporting our seniors is a small price to pay for the foundation they have provided for us... all of us! The depression, 2 world wars, many veterans, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who built our country and small communities. To assume a trip to a casino is a financial concern of ours in silly.... a budget and penny slots or not is a wonderful day of enjoyment and community engagement. They have done their time, paid taxes, raised their children and many others in the community. I don't know of another proportional age population that has given soooo much! To nickle and dime a senior is petty and somewhat disappointing... let us focus on real issues... how about those that have never ever paid a single tax dollar and receive far more in services, care, education and health services. I am happy to waste my tax dollars on seniors! With out them... there would be no ME! Lets try "paying it forward"

Considering that the monthly Casino gambling trips primarily service residents from Wawanesa or in close proximity, subsidizing these trips by all taxpayers seems unfair. Also, the choice of Belcourt over Carberry appears to be based on perks given to the gambling enthusiasts.

is it no FAIR that tax payers at some point paid for your education and they had no children themselves.......sometimes life is unfair....... sometimes we do what is good for the people and not for their own personal desire to grumble publicly. We all pay taxes for people on social assistance....... much bigger issue..... lets get people self sufficient, working, supporting themselves with pride, paying taxes for their own medical services. Seniors have done their time...... lets pick an issue that is relevant and has potential benefit for our community. It feels good to do good!

Recreation for residents of all ages is subsidized by the tax payers in any community. Whether it is the arena and baseball diamonds for the kids, golf course for the adults, libraries, etc......The list goes on.  
That's the way a community works and as Simone said "sometimes we do what is good for the people".  
This seems like unnecessary nitpicking from people who are opposed to gambling.

Comparing gambling to recreation is ridiculous. Recreation promotes healthy living in adults and young people. Gambling has no positive connotations whatsoever.

M.D. Rome said "With the cost being $10 per person and a full load being 18 people, $180.00 barely covers the wages of the driver. Therefore, the cost of fuel and fixed costs for the Handi van are being paid by taxpayers. I am not against the trips, but the actual costs should be paid by the 18 individuals that enjoy gambling. Gambling is not an essential service.     I understand that a slight increase is coming, but still not enough to cover costs. "

I'm assuming this issue is somehow related to your prior identified difficulties getting financial statements from the RM.  
 
Would you have any further details on costs to share? I'd imagine handi-van service cost on a per km/outing basis can be tough to break down due to grants, subsidies, and sunk costs.

If Financial statements are not available, other costings are also hard to get.  

http://cms.oakland-wawanesa.ca/_minutesDocument/August192015-RegularMeeting_5684076b6c.pdf  
 
 
interesting read.......

M.D. Rome said "Comparing gambling to recreation is ridiculous. Recreation promotes healthy living in adults and young people. Gambling has no positive connotations whatsoever. "

i would agree  
 
being senior does not mean they should get everything they desire, tax payers do pay for lots of senior programs that do promote healthy living, they also do not pay for some programs in all age brackets, each program should be evaluated and imo seniors can gamble if they choose but taking seniors to the USA to gamble isnt something I would want to fund

I have an aunt who used to take a bus trip down to a US casino. Maybe some of the seniors who go on these trips are 'high rollers', but I can assure you that my auntie and her friends were not. Sometimes they would spend a whole twenty dollar bill!! The 'positive connotations' were the social aspect of the day - they got out of the house, visited with others, had a good meal, saw some countryside without the stress of driving, sometimes saw some entertainment, etc. The 'health' aspects were beyond the gambling - many (if not most) people who go to casinos do not have a problem with/ addiction to gambling, and are not spending more than they can afford. Gambling is, in fact, recreation for many people - just as spending money on a concert or sports event for others.

Further relevant information may be found in separate discussion at:  
https://ebrandon.ca/messagethread.aspx?message_id=919990&cat_id=13  
 
I should first note that after reviewing additional minutes on the RM website at the link below, it appears to me that the legality of the resolution prohibiting social media usage may be undergoing some form of review or challenge:  
http://cms.oakland-wawanesa.ca/_minutesDocument/October52015-SpecialMeeting_de9172e008.pdf  
 
I am not privy to all facts behind the reason for the resolution being tabled and passed by a count of 4-2 nor any facts relating to any legal proceedings and therefore will not pass judgement on this case personally. That said it has been passed by council, is detailed at the link posted by an eBrandon member above and I have seen no information that would indicate it is no longer in place. As a result eBrandon will respect the resolution at this time and this discussion will be closed.  
 
Should there be a legal challenge to council's ruling eBrandon would also respect the results of that challenge whatever they may be and this discussion may be re-opened at a later date as appropriate.