Senator Tannas: Yes.

Senator Tannas: Until six o’clock, I’m open.

Senator Tannas: I mentioned this in my speech, and we didn’t spend a lot of time on the North because there isn’t much going on up there in the gambling world, right? It’s not something, and it doesn’t appear in the Criminal Code — territories are not mentioned. It says “provinces.” It doesn’t say “territories.”

The objectives here are to deal with First Nations gaming on‑reserve where there are, in fact, 30-odd casinos operating today.

To the extent that if there is language we can find that the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or somebody else wants to propose, we would definitely welcome that. However, from what we could tell, it would require something completely different than what is in the Criminal Code and what we’re proposing to do, which is specific to reserves.

Senator Cotter: If I may, I have a jurisdiction question, Senator Tannas. The language in the preamble speaks to the inherent right of First Nations and the like, along the lines that Senator McCallum had raised earlier, but the bill is actually structured to be a delegation under the Criminal Code, so I’m curious about that.

Another dimension of this is that the structure of the bill says that when a First Nation gives notice to Canada that it intends to establish a gaming regime on its reserve, that First Nation, for the purposes of gaming, is deemed to no longer be part of the province in which it’s situated. It struck me as a unique provision that First Nations, for certain purposes, are deemed not to actually be part of the province anymore. I wonder if you could speak to those jurisdictional questions.

Senator Tannas: Yes. They are part of the challenge of reconciliation. It certainly will come across that way in things like child and family social services. It will come that way in education. It will come that way in health. It will come that way in a whole bunch of different areas over the course of time, and it will have to be dealt with.

All we wanted to do, and the simplest thing to do today, was to put Indigenous governments on their reserves where they have jurisdiction in the same position as the provinces. That was the simplest way to do it. There may be, in the fullness of time, other ways in which it could be done. There may be a point when the provinces can’t agree on things and we have to come up with a national gaming scheme. Who knows? But I would not want a new set of soothing words about a “someday, maybe” national gaming program that would include First Nations to get in the way of doing something that’s simple and elegant today.

Senator Tannas: It is technologically neutral. It doesn’t speak to whether or not a First Nation has the right to make book in Ontario. It doesn’t say it can’t. It doesn’t say it can.

It’s the same problem that the provinces have with each other. It’s the same problem that we have with the Bahamas. It is sovereign governments that don’t know how to protect their own gaming in a world that is the way it is.

Court is probably the best way to go, but this bill will not impact it, positively or negatively — in my opinion and in the opinion of the counsel for drafting — one way or another.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly on behalf of all members of the Canadian Senators Group about the horrific attacks that occurred in Israel, and now the unfolding human catastrophe in Gaza. As global citizens, we are quite rightly horrified and heartbroken.

As parliamentarians, I think we must be clear-eyed, and we must urge our government to focus on easing the suffering of all those people by providing aid wherever and whenever it is needed. I think we must urge the government to exercise serious diplomatic influence in order to stop the potential spread of this horrible contagion of war.

Canada has a strong legacy of promoting peace in the world and defending human rights. When former Canadian prime minister Lester B. Pearson accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, he said:

Of all our dreams today there is none more important — or so hard to realise — than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.

Colleagues, that is Canada’s role in the world, and its role — more importantly — now more than ever.

These are difficult times with the prospect of even darker days ahead. Hope is hard to find in the face of terror and horror, but may we always be driven by our faith that peace will always prevail.

Thank you.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I want to add my voice to those of Senators Gold and Plett, as well as Senators Saint-Germain and Tannas in the wake of the atrocities in Israel.

First, to all those who have lost a family member or friend, especially our fellow Canadians, I offer my deepest condolences. To those without news of a loved one, please remain hopeful.

Next, I want to express our solidarity with Israel and its people. I also want to clearly condemn the unjustifiable acts committed by members of Hamas, a terrorist organization that doesn’t hesitate to kill, injure or kidnap innocent civilians, including children.

[English]

In my opinion, the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7 are clear breaches of basic human rights and cannot be justified under international law, including the rules of war. In fact, they are barbarian acts that confirm that Hamas is a terrorist organization that must be neutralized.

Of course, Israel has the right to re-establish law and order within its borders. In fact, it has the duty to protect its citizens and visitors against any repetition of these outrageous acts.

The countries and organizations that supported Hamas will have to be held accountable for their complicity in the atrocities committed. For now, the minimum they can do is work diligently for the release of all hostages. I also invite Canada to exercise global leadership to help secure the release of all hostages.

Finally, I was deeply saddened to see groups in Canadian cities last week showing support for Hamas, considering their atrocities against civilians. Colleagues, our country is built on the rule of law and respect for the life and dignity of all, irrespective of their origin, belief, religion or opinion. These core values are part of our social contract as a country — let us reaffirm them loud and clear.

Hatred and acts of support for Hamas have no place in Canada. I invite all leaders and influencers, including political and religious ones, to reaffirm these values and to call for a lasting peace in the Middle East based on mutual respect and the two‑state solution.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Scott Tannas moved second reading of Bill S-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act.

He said: Before I start, thank you, Senator Boisvenu. I know we will have time to celebrate your legacy. You have left us a bill to honour your legacy, and it is much appreciated.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-268. I am a first-time sponsor of a Senate public bill. I have been here 10-plus years and this is my first bill.

For the record, I’ve been a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples since my very first day in the Senate. It has not always been easy, but it has been an honour to work with members past and present on issues and obstacles to reconciliation.

I’d like to thank First Nations people in general and Chief Roy Whitney of the Tsuut’ina Nation and Chief Bobby Cameron of FSIN — the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations — for their initial inspiration to me to take this step on behalf of all First Nations.

Let me talk about the objective of the bill. This being second reading, my speech will be relatively short. I’m happy to answer questions. I’m going to try to stick to the principle of the bill.

Simply put, the bill affirms First Nations’ governments’ jurisdiction and power to govern gambling activities on their reserve lands, and does so in a way that matches identically provincial jurisdiction and powers in their respective jurisdictions.

Bill S-268 would formalize First Nations’ control of gaming only on-reserve. It would displace provincial control over those activities, including licensing and — here’s the tricky part — the appropriation of the profits. The desired outcome is that all activity and profit would be under the control of duly elected First Nations governments for gambling on their territories and reserves, in the areas of their jurisdiction. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year that would accrue to the benefit of the First Nations communities involved. That’s what this bill attempts to do.

Here’s some context around the history and the situation today. About 40 years ago, the federal government entered into two agreements with the provinces that effectively devolved gaming — or what they called back then lottery schemes, as they were termed — to the provinces. This devolution involved changing the Criminal Code to say that only provincial governments could manage or conduct gambling or, as they called it, lottery schemes.

Of course, this being 40 years ago, there does not appear to have been any thought or consideration given to First Nations, or territorial governments for that matter; not surprising, after all, because the ink was barely dry on the Constitution at this point.

Since that time, First Nations governments have attempted to assert their right and jurisdiction in this area, citing section 35 of the Constitution and backed by evidence that gaming and gambling have been part of Indigenous culture for millennia, and certainly predates the arrival of and contact with European settlers.

Many First Nations governments entered the gaming industry in the hope and expectation of eventually realizing their jurisdiction. They developed infrastructure and expertise in good faith despite an uneven and sometimes unfair relationship with the provinces. Today, there are more than 30 Indigenous community-owned gaming facilities on reserves across the country.

Successive generations of First Nations leaders and delegations have engaged with and been assured by ministers of the Crown that the federal government is working toward recognition of rights and jurisdiction of gaming on reserve lands. Many years of soothing words to that effect have been heard by leaders and delegations.

It has become clear that nothing is happening. Nobody is working toward anything regarding this issue. Why is that? In this era of reconciliation, why is that? I suspect the real reason is because it’s hard, because doing what’s right will cost somebody who previously had a monopoly to have that monopoly removed and face competition and innovation and, ultimately, see less revenue than when they had a monopoly. This is what real economic reconciliation looks like. It’s hard.

Much effort has gone into reconciliation in the past 10 years or so, particularly with acknowledging the truth of our past; providing funding and development of Indigenous governments; and providing resources and jurisdiction in the areas of education, culture, social services and community development — all cost centres, by the way. We’ve provided jurisdiction and resources in all of those areas.

There is still much work to be done on these fronts, but talk has definitely turned to action — speaking as somebody who has an arc of time of 10 years watching Indigenous matters through the committee.

Economic reconciliation is more difficult because it disrupts the status quo. It displaces those who were advantaged by the policies of the past. It involves money, new competition and redistribution of market share. But it is overwhelmingly, colleagues, the right thing to do.

After decades of uneven and unfair suppression of First Nations rights and jurisdiction, and after years of quiet promises and assurances by ministers of the Crown, as we move past symbolic reconciliation toward tangible economic reconciliation, it is time to do this. To quote John F. Kennedy from many years ago, “We should do this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”

Colleagues, there are a number of nuances in this bill that will hopefully receive study and reflection at the Indigenous Peoples Committee, and I welcome the opportunity for improvement through the committee stage.

I will leave my comments here for now. I’m happy to answer any questions that you might have today, and you will certainly hear more from me about the bill — in greater detail — at third reading. Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Tannas, I was hoping to garner a bit more detail about your bill because it is not something I have had a chance to delve into. Usually, at second reading, I hope to hear a bit more detail.

Did you consult with any provincial governments when you were drafting this bill about this very dramatic change to the gaming environment in Canada?

Senator Tannas: No, I did not. I intend to invite provincial governments to come and tell us what impact it will have, but, at the end of the day, this is about sovereignty — for Indigenous and First Nations peoples — and they either have it or they don’t. We either believe in reconciliation, and that they have jurisdiction on their own lands, or we don’t. I know what we will hear from the provinces, and you know what we will hear: It will cost them money. This will come out of their cut of casino betting and other betting that occurs on reserves. We’re going to give them the chance to come and talk about that. Maybe some provinces will see this as a positive step — one that is doable and within their purview to support.

Just as the federal government didn’t consult with First Nations when they gave the power to the provinces, we did consult with First Nations and received the support of the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, through their gaming subcommittee. They have already started to work on some initiatives in support of this, should it pass — but no, I did not talk to the provinces.

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Senator Tannas, will you take another question?

First of all, thank you for your commitment to the Indigenous Peoples Committee. Just for clarity, does this bill protect the interests of those First Nations who do not want to have lottery schemes on their reserves? If this bill passes, will it bind all First Nations to take part in the gambling industry?

Senator Tannas: That’s one of the nuances that I mentioned. When we were drafting the bill, I remembered when we had the marijuana legalization. We had First Nations and Inuit communities come and say they wanted it to stay illegal in their communities, and whether there was a way we could make it happen. I thought we might see that same desire in some Indigenous communities; they may not want to have anything to do with this.

The bill accomplishes that by asserting the right, but, in order to activate the right, First Nations communities give short notice to the Government of Canada that they intend to take up their right. In that way, those who don’t want to, don’t. Thank you for the question.

[Translation]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Thank you very much, Senator Tannas. I know the term “economic reconciliation” comes up a lot, but I’m from the community of Maliotenam, which is 15 kilometres from Sept-Îles . . . We vigorously opposed getting a casino for reasons such as public health, mental health and organized crime. That was some years ago.

Now we see the effects of all that. Even though we rejected it, we still found ways to reduce gambling addiction.

I remember when the bill was introduced, and I need to know what mechanisms were put in place. You can surely see why this makes me uncomfortable as an Innu woman and a First Nations member who would like our nations to be self-governing. We don’t have a lot of territory, and gambling is unfortunately seen as a solution sometimes.

What mechanisms did provincial and territorial governments put in place when they created this kind of gaming and built casinos? The government also has to promise support for mental health and fighting organized crime.

What mechanisms are there in your bill to ensure that people look beyond economic considerations to broader reconciliation that includes security, health and so on?

[English]

Senator Tannas: That is a great question, thank you.

Let me say that if we truly believe in reconciliation and we believe in Indigenous governments’ jurisdictions, you can’t put a whole bunch of conditions on them when we hand them over something that is already theirs. If we believe it is already theirs, it is tough to start making conditions and rules for them.

The Indigenous governments that are currently involved in gaming recognize this. Again, another nuance in the bill contemplates the ability for Indigenous communities to establish an Indigenous gaming commission where they would work together on common standards.

Would they actually make it somehow mandatory or put into law some way in which they have to do that? Probably not. It would probably be more along the lines of an association that would audit and make sure the standards were being followed, and if they weren’t, it would issue consumer warnings.

But the point is that is the work that needs to be done of that order of government that wants and actually believes they already have, in some cases — in fact, there is a community in Quebec that is probably against this bill because they’re worried that, somehow, there is an admission they don’t have the rights they believe they have now. They operate how they feel like, and they dare anyone to come and tell them they don’t have the rights.

This bill allows First Nations governments, as they take up the jurisdiction, to also cooperate on a regulatory regime that they will decide.

Thank you.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Tannas, will you take a question or two?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Tannas, there was a question. Had you finished your question, Senator Cotter?

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Tannas had begun to answer it. He answered me in private, but I think he might like to provide an answer to it here.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Tannas, will you take another question?

Hon. Pat Duncan: Will Senator Tannas take a question?