Hon. Tracy Muggli: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-241. I would like to thank Senator Tannas for putting this bill forward and providing an opportunity to challenge ourselves with how we manage gaming this in this country. I support the objective of this bill. I believe it is an overdue conversation about economic reconciliation, and Indigenous jurisdiction over economic activity is a core part of that work.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 92 focuses on that point. It calls upon the corporate sector to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, as a reconciliation framework and apply it to core operational activities involving Indigenous Peoples and their lands and resources. We know that UNDRIP itself recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have the right to determine priorities and strategies for the development and use of their land and resources.
Colleagues, I believe that gaming on reserve lands falls squarely within that space, and that is why I support the principle of this bill.
I understand that gaming is a complex sector. The relationship between federal, provincial and Indigenous jurisdictions is hard to map out, and changing it is a wicked problem. Nonetheless, principles like UNDRIP and Call to Action 92 were not in place when provinces were granted authority over gaming. Indigenous governments were not a part of that decision.
Bill S-241 provides an opportunity to revisit a system that was constructed without Indigenous participation and reconcile with our past mistakes. I think it is incumbent upon us to do that work, no matter how complex or difficult it might be.
In Saskatchewan, my provincial leaders regularly speak about economic reconciliation in general terms. They even declared it a governmental priority last May. I welcome that sentiment, but it is important to understand just how far our country has to go. In British Columbia, for example, it is my understanding that First Nations share just 7% of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation’s net income.
Saskatchewan’s model, while seemingly more favourable toward First Nations as revenue generators in comparison, also illustrates the imbalance in our systems. In Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority operates Indigenous gaming and distributes the profits from their facilities based upon the Gaming Framework Agreement. As I understand it, under the current framework, after an off-the-top allocation toward the First Nations Addictions Rehabilitation Foundation, half of the remaining gaming profits are distributed across all First Nations in the province, largely on a per capita basis, and 25% is returned to host communities through community development corporations based on performance. The remaining 25% flows directly to provincial general revenue. I believe Métis communities receive some funding from the provincial allocation.
Provincial governments remain significant beneficiaries of gaming revenues, even as Indigenous communities provide the land and a heavy share of the capital, labour and long-term investment that make those revenues possible.
Living in Saskatoon, I come to this debate informed by conversations with Indigenous leaders across the province, including Chief Darcy Bear and the Whitecap Dakota Nation Council. Whitecap’s experience shows what Indigenous-led investment can look like. Over time, they turned their casino into a broader tourist destination. Imagine making deep capital destination investments in a golf course, a hotel with an expansion in the near future, a casino with a recent expansion and even a Nordic spa in the works.
However, even as they build out these investments, they remain junior partners in a system that depends on their success.
It is also worth noting that our current model is not the only possible path forward. There are existing approaches that place Indigenous governments in a stronger position when it comes to gaming. In the United States, for example, tribal state compacts are authorized through federal legislation and built upon the premise that tribal governments remain the primary beneficiary of gaming revenues. That approach has been reinforced in both legislation and through court decisions dating back to 1987 in California. They emphasize Indigenous self-government and economic development as legitimate interests that outweigh state control in the gaming context.
My understanding is that those arrangements generally require that the majority of net gaming revenue remain with the host Indigenous community. From that starting point, states may still participate in revenue sharing. The key difference is that negotiations begin from Indigenous jurisdiction rather than state control.
I hope committee deliberations will consider what can be learned from those approaches, without suggesting that any one model be adopted wholesale.
At the same time, opportunities must be considered along with potential risks. That is why committee study will be important.
Former Saskatchewan senator Brent Cotter raised the issue of equity among First Nations during debate on an earlier version of this legislation. I spoke with him about this concern not long ago. Senator Cotter supported greater Indigenous participation in gaming governance, but he cautioned that communities located near major population centres or tourism hubs are far better positioned to benefit from gaming than smaller or remote communities.
In Saskatchewan, we have a shared revenue model that supports a wide range of First Nations, including those that do not host gaming facilities. His concern is that if individual First Nations can opt out of existing provincial frameworks, it could weaken collective benefit models that currently support a broader range of communities. That could have real impacts on communities that have not had the same access to capital or market opportunity.
Having said that — and it has been noted by Senator Tannas — other forms of First Nations revenue-producing economic development are not tied to revenue sharing with all other First Nations and provinces.
For me, the bottom line is that economic reconciliation requires that we trust Indigenous governments to make their own economic development decisions and investments.
Additionally, Bill S-241 does not directly address how gaming or potential gaming communities would participate in or benefit from a new framework, and that is something that should be considered. A memorandum of understanding signed by 15 First Nations in Canada in 2024, including 8 from within Saskatchewan, recognizes and outlines an Indigenous-led approach. This includes the need for a national Indigenous gaming authority — something that Chief Darcy Bear described to me as necessary to implement fair gaming practices. Additionally, the issue of access to market will need consideration.
Based on conversations that my team and I had with the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority and the Minister Responsible for Lotteries and Gaming Saskatchewan Corporation, the Honourable Jeremy Harrison, market saturation is a concern that must be considered. The Saskatchewan minister has indicated that he does not support this legislation.
Discussions will likely be very robust regarding any market controls in this industry, whether there should be limitations on new entrants or, like other industries, whether the market should decide. Committee study will help us to assess these questions and determine whether amendments might improve the bill.
That is a constructive step, but if Bill S-241 passes, similar discussions will also need to take place across the country. In the face of this complexity, the Senate should hear directly from communities with limited gaming capacity to understand their concerns, not just to inform our work on this legislation but also to help provide reference material for folks across the country regarding best practices and how to shape the Indigenous-led systems of tomorrow.
Committee consultations should also engage Métis groups. This legislation reflects the reality of reserve-based gaming. At the same time, Métis communities are rights-bearing Indigenous Peoples, and their economic participation in gaming has largely depended on provincial policy choices. The committee should consider whether this legislation has indirect effects on Métis communities, and their perspectives must be heard.
Another issue raised by former Senator Cotter is jurisdictional mechanics. As I understand it, this bill would effectively displace provincial gaming authority where a First Nation chooses to exercise jurisdiction. I would hope that the committee carefully examines both the benefits and the potential drawbacks of that arrangement by including the voices of provinces and territories and what impact these potential changes would have on them.
But again, this should be done while being mindful that economic reconciliation takes genuine effort and may not be comfortable for everyone at the table.
I will also say that as the former director of Mental Health and Addiction Services for the Saskatoon Health Region and the Saskatchewan Health Authority, I know that gambling is not only an economic activity; it has well-documented impacts on addiction and mental health, which creates a duty of care for those who operate gambling systems and raises questions about how associated harms are addressed.
As Bill S-241 proposes a shift in gaming jurisdiction, I have no doubt that First Nations regulation is committed to the same — if not enhanced — responsible gaming standards and treatment supports.
Colleagues, what is ultimately necessary is to understand how this bill would function in practice, given the complexity of the gaming system it would affect. Committee study will allow us to hear directly from a range of First Nations, including communities with limited gaming capacity, and to assess whether this approach is workable.
We know of models outside of Canada that put Indigenous jurisdiction first, so this is possible. We know that this legislation aligns with UNDRIP. We know that economic reconciliation is key to broader reconciliation. We know that many First Nations are thriving in many economic sectors, and we know that many First Nations have extensive and successful experience in the gaming industry and have, in fact, invested significant capital in creating a fulsome tourism experience.
We have reached the point where it is incumbent that we examine closely and listen to First Nations about what economic independence looks like and move forward toward getting there while removing colonizing oversight.
For these reasons, honourable senators, I support referring this bill to committee. Thank you. Meegwetch. Marsee.