THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 19, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to consider the subject matter of Bill S-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpieces away from all microphones at all times. When you’re not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
I want to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg nation. It is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of this committee. I’ll now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot from Saskatchewan.
Senator Robinson: Good morning. Mary Robinson from Prince Edward Island.
Senator McNair: Good morning. John McNair from New Brunswick, the unceded lands of the Mi’kmaq people.
Senator Martin: Good morning. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator White: [Indigenous language spoken] Judy White from Ktaqmkuk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone.
Today, we will begin our study of the subject matter of Senate public bill, Bill S-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act. This bill would authorize First Nations’ governing bodies and those designated by them to conduct, manage and regulate lottery schemes on reserves.
I would like to now introduce our first witness today: the Honourable Scott Tannas, sponsor of the bill. He is accompanied by Mehek Noorani, Director of Parliamentary Affairs for the Honourable Mary E. Robinson. Thank you both for joining us today. Senator Tannas will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.
I invite Senator Tannas to begin his remarks.
Hon. Scott Tannas, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, chair, and thank you, colleagues. I thank the committee for initiating this study, and I look forward to a complete engagement of it.
It’s an honour for me to be able to sponsor Bill S-268. The bill was drafted in close collaboration with First Nations, most notably Chief Roy Whitney and his people of the Tsuut’ina nation and Chief Bobby Cameron of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, or FSIN.
The bill was introduced in the Senate on June 20, 2023. It passed second reading on May 30 this year and was assigned to both this committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for joint study. Assignment to two committees is rare, but it happens. In this case, we believe it’s appropriate since the bill touches upon amendments to the Criminal Code, which is typically a matter that goes before the Legal Committee, but it also affects issues of Indigenous self-government and economic reconciliation, which are of great interest to this committee.
The objective of the bill is to recognize First Nations government’s authority to operate gaming enterprises on their reserve lands. It ensures that First Nations have both the recognition and the capacity to exercise their sovereignty over commercial gaming. It is also a tangible step toward economic reconciliation, directing employment and revenue to First Nations communities for First Nations communities.
The bill respects various historical and current positions of First Nations governments. It doesn’t grant rights; rather, it provides a recognition of rights and a mechanism for communities to take up this right to control gaming activities on their reserve lands. The bill, essentially, gives First Nations governments the parallel authority that was given to the provinces with respect to gaming, but it restricts First Nations’ authority to their reserve lands only.
I’m going to talk briefly on some background regarding gaming in Canada, particularly in the modern era of gaming in Canada. It is all controlled by the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code starts by saying that gambling is prohibited and then goes on to say, “unless it is controlled through provincial regulation.” This occurred through an agreement that happened in 1985 between the federal government and the provinces where the federal government ceded this authored and provided this exception to the prohibition to the provinces. As was typical in 1985, there was no consultation with First Nations at all, there was no thought of First Nations governments and there was silence on whether this actually applied on First Nations reserve lands, as so many things do not between the federal government and the provinces.
That is the state of modern gaming now.
It is ubiquitous. It’s taken on a new life. In addition to location-based gaming, now we have online gaming, as well, that is growing. It continues to take market share away from location-based gaming, but location-based gaming is still the highest proportion of revenue in the country.
Regarding First Nations gaming in Canada today, there are somewhere around 40 commercial gaming operations on First Nations reserves. They employ thousands of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Many of these operations operate through a patchwork of revenue-sharing agreements with provincial governments. Other First Nations operate on their own, asserting their sovereignty and without provincial recognition.
That’s the state of the gaming industry today.
Support for this bill is widespread across Canada’s First Nations governments, including major gaming nations, and is backed by the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, resolution number 69 from July 2023. A number of non-gaming First Nations have also supported the bill on the principle of sovereignty, and you’ll hear testimony over the coming weeks from some of these communities as part of your study. I expect you will also hear some opposition to the bill from those whose economic and/or jurisdictional interests rely upon the status quo. I look forward to hearing those concerns and engaging with them through this process as a member of the committee and as sponsor of this bill.
I’m going to leave it there. Mehek Noorani, who has been with me through this process and, thanks to Senator Robinson, continues to help me with this file — she and I are happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thanks, colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
We’ll now move on to questions from senators. I’ll open it up by asking the first one. In the drafting of this legislation, have you consulted with any of the provinces to learn about their position on Bill S-268?
Senator Tannas: No, I have not. We had a fairly good idea of what the provinces’ positions would be. I did have an opportunity early in the process to consult leaders in my own Province of Alberta. I got the answer I expected I would get and that you could all predict.
This is a change of both jurisdiction and direction of revenue for provinces, and there’s no doubt that this will have a cost to them. They are, at the moment, the exclusive authorized purveyors of gaming. They have a monopoly, and this seeks to recognize that they actually don’t and that there are First Nations governments and First Nations territories and lands that are not within their jurisdiction. That is of concern to them, and I would expect we will hear from them. I think that there has been, to be fair, in many provinces a significant amount of recognition that there is some kind of a jurisdiction here involving First Nations, because if you look at that patchwork of agreements, virtually all of them have some mechanism by which some portion of the take goes to First Nations. While we may see provinces come and present here, I don’t think we should be surprised by that. It is their ox that gets gored here.
Senator White: Thank you, chair, for allowing me to go early on the list, as I have to step out for another meeting.
Senator Tannas, thank you for bringing this bill forward. You stated that this bill is meant to put right a historical wrong by including Indigenous people in a conversation they were initially left out of. I guess, in a way, it offers a sense of self-determination through having jurisdiction over their own lands.
As you know, this committee has heard time and time again that there has been little consultation and collaboration, so I would love to hear the insight that you had for the consultation process you undertook in drafting this bill. Do you believe there are any gaps in the consultations that you undertook?
Senator Tannas: We co-drafted the bill with leaders and lawyers from FSIN and from Tsuut’ina, so we had input from First Nations stakeholders from the beginning. We followed that up with Canada-wide work, both through AFN and through our own efforts. We had great consultations with communities across the country. We filed the bill on the last day of parliament in 2023, and then spent that summer communicating. We actually had great engagement across the country. It was remarkable.
Since we filed the bill, we are aware of and we agree with some amendments that will be presented at the legal committee that tidy up some language that is in the bill — and those were generated by First Nations communities, and presented and agreed to by all of the First Nations communities. It’s been remarkable. First Nations communities are also working together on building a memorandum of understanding around a national Indigenous gaming commission that would help lay out what the best practices are and the rules of the road that should be followed in order to ensure that consumers and communities are protected, and that the other federal laws, including anti-money laundering and so on, are followed. That all sprung from that first summer of engagement that we had after we filed the bill and went home for the summer.
Senator White: I want to clarify something. Is there some kind of model or process that you have that could help us? Something we could use to say to the government, this is how we did it with Indigenous people, led by Indigenous people that you may want to replicate. That’s where I’m coming from.
Senator Tannas: I’ve spoken on this many times and expressed my own frustration over this. I don’t think our little modest two-person office should give advice to the government, but I agree that there is a process somewhere that needs to be better developed than what exists now.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator White.
Senator Arnot: Thank you Senator Tannas and Ms. Noorani. I have known that Chief Bobby Cameron of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations is very much in favour of this bill, and he was just re-elected for, I think, his fourth term as chief of the FSIN recently. I understand his position and arguments and that of the FSIN and AFN, so I have a couple of general questions.
You’ve emphasized that Bill S-268 respects Indigenous sovereignty and the principle of self-determination and the recognition of the rights of Indigenous people. What evidence have you found that there is an existing or inherent right to gaming? I ask that in the context of, if this is a right, would this authority not be undermined by federal and provincial oversight, especially given the need for First Nations to notify provincial governments of their intent to exercise their power?
Senator Tannas: That’s a very good question. On the last piece, this notification process, this was something that came out of my own experience watching Indigenous communities when we were passing the legalization of marijuana. There were communities that came here and asked if they could be excluded from that legalization, and were told that there was no way they could be excluded. I thought that was a shame.
We turned it on its head and said that there may be communities that do not want to take up this right, so let’s put something in that makes it so that you have to give notice that you’re going to take up this right. It can’t be stopped, but it puts everything back in the community’s hands to decide whether they want to go forward with this or not, and we expect that there will be a number of communities that won’t go forward with this.
We also think there may be a number of communities that prefer to stay under the provincial regime. They like the provincial regime, and there are a lot of benefits. This is all part of — on the provincial regime — what we saw in the development of Indigenous gaming in the United States, where First Nations either join the Indigenous gaming commission or they made an agreement with their state.
That was the thinking behind this idea that you must give notice. It was to allow the maximum amount of flexibility, because there are probably only 40 out of 640 communities today that are operating in the gaming space, and would immediately — most of them — want to take up this right.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for that explanation. The bill allows for First Nations to develop their own bylaws for regulating gaming activities. How do you envision First Nations balancing the need for self-regulation with adherence to the broader federal and provincial gaming standards?
Senator Tannas: This, again, is why this bill is relatively brief. It comes down to this: We either believe that First Nations governments on their own lands have the authority and the capacity to develop the regulations and govern their operations, or we don’t. It furthers, in my view, a paternalistic view if we start hanging a bunch of conditions on things from here. First Nations communities need to be able to develop their own regulations.
Having said that, the First Nations themselves are already mobilizing with consultants and together and through a memorandum of understanding, a set of principles around which they would govern themselves. That is further proof that we need to start trusting First Nations governments with more and more, and stop hanging conditions on everything from afar.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here, witnesses. You talk about this patchwork of agreements, and I’m interested in a couple of examples. Of course, I’m interested in the Alberta example, but also any others you might want to add on to that.
We talk a lot about revenues. I understand the model currently. There’s the cost of operation, so I assume that, out of all the revenue that comes in, the cost of operation is removed, and then we’re talking about whatever the formula is based on the province.
So I’m curious about the cost of operation and how it fits into this model. Apparently, it’s not that simple.
My add-on to that — and I still have another question, but I might have to go to the second round — what would happen if this passes with the current agreements that are in place?
Senator Tannas: Those are two good questions.
There really is a patchwork of agreements. Some take money off the top. For some, it’s profit. Some are split with the host nation, and then there is a pooling process that distributes to other First Nations at the discretion of the provincial government.
With some, there actually is 100% of the revenue going into the First Nations community itself. There are some conditions on where the revenue gets spent, but 100% of the profits are being held in some Indigenous communities.
It really is all over the place.
Some of them are even community-specific with the provincial government where they have an agreement. There are probably 20 different examples that we have here — probably more — so it is all over the place.
Senator Sorensen: What would happen with those current agreements?
Senator Tannas: In our bill, we deem that all of those things are null and void.
Senator Sorensen: Okay.
Senator Tannas: Then it’s up to the community to say, “No, I want to keep my deal with the province,” and so they would enter into a discussion with the province —
Senator Sorensen: Give notice.
Senator Tannas: — to say they don’t want to cancel. But it allows for the nullification of everything that is on reserve lands now to be done when the bill passes.
That deals with multi-year agreements and so on; it puts everything on the table for negotiation immediately.
Senator Sorensen: So there are definitely some negative social consequences of gaming across Canada, regardless of whether you’re Indigenous. You say there are 40 gaming communities across Canada. Is there any sense that this bill would, therefore, cause a rush on increasing gaming opportunities in communities because there might be an opportunity for some or greater profit?
Senator Tannas: I don’t think it will create any new gamblers who weren’t there. There are plenty of opportunities for gambling without First Nations having to build or add to the opportunities.
However, I would say that it does create opportunities within the control of First Nations across the country for them to participate, gain market share and initiate market share if they’re not in it now, but those will be business decisions that First Nations will have to make. There are examples across the country of First Nations making great business decisions and generating tremendous revenue for their communities, as well as jobs. There are also examples of less great business decisions, just like there are, regardless of the community, where it has not worked out.
I think it levels the playing field for all First Nations communities that have or see an opportunity to enter this space without having to ask the permission of the province and without having to negotiate, with no leverage, an agreement with the provincial government to enter into the business on their own land.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Senator Tannas and Ms. Noorani, for your efforts on this bill. As a former chief within my community, I have some experience about the use of revenues from gaming — own-sourced revenues — and the benefits they have within a community setting with respect to programming, services and things of that nature.
Just a bit on the supposed negotiations with those with provincial agreements. Can you comment on how this bill will position First Nations as it relates to negotiations with their provincial counterparts? To add a second question there, there was some talk, if I recall, of disagreements or disputes with provincial and territorial governments. How do you think those will be resolved; how will this work through in light of this legislation? Thank you.
Senator Tannas: In terms of the position, I think that it levels the playing field. Whether or not this bill passes, the provinces will control the majority of the gaming; the provincial governments will retain control. However, for First Nations that are currently involved in gaming and have made or intend to make massive capital investments, they will be able to have control of their own destiny. In that process, they’ll be able to weigh a pact with the province, with all of the administrative and regulatory burdens of going on their own or joining some yet-to-be-developed national organization but one that seems to be gaining momentum.
So it allows for a fairer negotiation as opposed to one where the province decides what they’re prepared to give First Nations communities.
Your second question, which I didn’t write down, I’ve already forgotten it. Sorry.
Senator Prosper: With respect to potential disagreements with federal and provincial governments, how do you see that being worked through with this legislation?
Senator Tannas: Most of the provinces are already directing a portion of their revenues to some kind of First Nations funding mechanism. It isn’t a 100% revenue loss for the provinces, but in virtually every case, they will see a percentage loss.
But I don’t think it’s the financial impact that will really be an issue. I think this is the vanguard of what we need to do on a host of things that need to happen, with revenue sharing around resources being the most important. This is penny ante compared to resource revenue sharing, but if we can’t get this done, and if the provinces can’t find their way around this, then I’m not terribly optimistic about the next level of revenue sharing and partnerships that need to happen as we go forward with economic reconciliation.
In the cold light of day, when the provinces look at what they are giving up financially, it’s not as big as they might first have thought, when they think about it without looking at the numbers. It’s a paradigm shift that needs to happen.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Good morning, and thank you for your patience. We are here at last. I know the work you have put into this, as has Ms. Noorani and others. I’ve been listening to your responses to various senators’ questions. I had questions, but now I have other questions, so I’m trying to organize myself.
I’ll start with a recent comment you made regarding the patchwork of various gambling frameworks that exist. Different provinces have different arrangements, but are you concerned or should we be concerned about patchworks within a province? There are going to be a number of different agreements or arrangements, so doesn’t that create even more patchworks? What would your response be to that concern?
Senator Tannas: Yes, I think it does. I think it creates, in some provinces, multiple jurisdictions that will have their own approach to gaming and will be regulating themselves, either locally or through adherence to a national association. That will be different.
As it exists right now in the provinces, each individual casino operator makes an agreement with the government. Those agreements are all individual. They are not with the casino association of Alberta, and then they do it, there is already a patchwork of agreements between First Nations and provincial governments, private businesses that are not located on reserves and provincial governments as well.
I do not think it will create any new agreements more than there are right now. I suppose you could say it would create less because First Nations wouldn’t enter into an agreement, they would have their own set of rules and they would be off running their own and doing their own thing.
Senator Martin: Each nation could have its own. I am talking about the existence of a patchwork of many different things. That is what we could envision?
Senator Tannas: I think so. Again, First Nations recognize that the regulatory burden, that administration and, frankly, just the scale needs to happen through a larger association. There are a lot of industry regulating organizations that provide the rules of the road and endorsements for their members, and there are conditions of membership in order to access those things. It is a change, but it is a devolution, though, of authority down to First Nations that doesn’t exist right now.
Senator Martin: I understand what the bill aims to do. With those nations that do not want to opt in to become autonomous in how they handle their gambling, you said there is a pooling process where the economic benefits would go to other, smaller nations. Does this legislation ensure that sort of equitable economic outcome for the others?
Senator Tannas: Thank you for that clarification. Right now, in many provinces there is a revenue sharing that is customized for First Nations in a number of places where the host nation gets a piece, then there’s another piece that goes to the province, but is then administered by the province and then they parcel the money out to projects to other First Nations who are not the host nation. They decide where that money should go, and they make an assurance that it will get parcelled out to other First Nations. In some provinces it is done through other mechanisms, but there is, in many cases, a sharing of wealth between the host nation and other First Nations in the province.
This bill does not provide for the continuation of that. It does not prevent the continuation of that. It leaves it up to First Nations, where it should be.
We had a number of First Nations at different times at some of the conferences that we attended that talked about this in two different ways, and yet they come together around it. Number one is that First Nations that are located close to metropolitan markets, that is their resource that is unique to them. If you are an Indian reservation and you are beside a city, that city, the economic activity and the customer base that exists within that city becomes your resource. That is how it should be viewed. If you live on the ocean, if your community is on the ocean, the fish in the ocean are part of your resource. If you live in northern Saskatchewan, where uranium mines are, that resource becomes your economic opportunity.
It is only in gambling under the construct of the provincial authority that they have, that they decide where the money is going to be divvied up. There is no obligation for a coastal community to share their revenue in some formula that somebody else decides with their brothers and sisters across many nations in their province or, indeed, in the country. Similarly in the uranium, forestry or agriculture situations. Yet, for gaming nations who happen to be near major metropolitan, tourist markets or whatever, the provinces dictated that they are going to share their revenue with other First Nations. That was something that we didn’t want and didn’t think was appropriate that we codify in this bill; that is up to First Nations to decide. It is not our business.
The other piece that was talked about in conjunction with that is, of course, as part of economic reconciliation and the building and strengthening of Indigenous communities economically, the better-off communities are going to participate. There are many examples of Indigenous communities with good, strong economies helping those that are trying to build theirs. That is the example they point to, not some formula that a provincial government cooked up in a negotiation where there was only one side who had all the cards.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to Senator Tannas and Ms. Noorani for all of your hard work on this. I am pleased that we are getting at the economics in this committee. As you said, I know this is a tiny edge of the wedge here. Hopefully, this will open up larger conversations for this committee and perhaps even studies beyond bills on economic reconciliation. I welcome this. I always welcome any initiative, particularly a legislative one, that rights a wrong and develops a new standard of fairness and that puts the cards in the hands of the people who should be holding those cards. I welcome this bill and this conversation.
Our colleague, Senator Sorensen, started in on this line of questioning and did not go too much further. We all know that with this form of revenue generation that there are enormous social risks as well; that is not a secret, and I want to give you a chance to speak to this. Critics have highlighted the social risks of gambling, such as addiction. Goodness knows, this is not strictly addictions in First Nations communities, and the customers in these cases will be First Nations customers as well as other customers. There is also potential for market saturation. How does — if it does at all — Bill S-268 empower First Nations to create their own robust regulatory frameworks to address those risks while maintaining that autonomy? This is all about autonomy. I am curious if there are examples of existing Indigenous-led gaming operations that have successfully implemented responsible gaming measures. How might this actually contribute to more development of responsible gaming interventions and initiatives?
Senator Tannas: The bill doesn’t provide or require anything in this area at all, the social elements of gaming. It does talk specifically about Indigenous communities and governments working by themselves or in concert with other Indigenous governments. That is the enabling piece that allows for the creation of an Indigenous gaming commission, authority or association.
We know there is a lot of work going on now around that. We are very pleased to see it. It has been remarkable. It was taken up, not by the drafters and the co-developers of the bill, but by other communities that said they can make that contribution, take that project on and get going with it.
That is working across the country right now, as well. I am sure you will hear more about it from other witnesses during your study.
There is a good opportunity for excellence in regulation and conduct to occur, along with innovation. To be frank, innovation is not a word that people would typically associate with a provincial government. Customer service and all of those things that you see in the gaming industry are all currently dictated by the provinces. This gets it a little closer to the customer and probably provides more response and the potential for more compassion. They are the ones who will be dealing with customers who are struggling with those issues. It brings the issue closer to those who are managing it than, I would say, it is with the province.
That said, the provinces carry the load on a lot of addiction and the social fallout of addiction. I know from the conversations we have had all the way along that this is not about trying to escape the social responsibility that goes with being a gaming operator; that is not what it is about. And it is not to try to make extra money by not doing certain things that any right-thinking person would see as the right thing to do.
Senator McNair: Congratulations to both of you on the work you have completed so far and in getting to this point. It is good to see you here.
Senator Tannas, I like the nuanced way you described and that it is not about granting rights but the recognition of rights. The trigger of the exercise of those rights is the written notification, I assume. It is a good way of describing it, conceptually. That is a different approach to looking at it.
Some of my colleagues have talked about the negative consequences of gambling. To your point, we’re not going to create more gamblers, necessarily. They are out there.
I saw that one of the frameworks or revenue-sharing agreements pays, off the top, money to addiction services. You spoke about best practices or models going forward. You discussed how some of the First Nations groups are already trying to define the principles that would govern this.
I would like to hear more about that. I know we will be hearing from some witnesses, but can you give us an idea of numbers and how those talks are taking place?
Senator Tannas: We have been observers at a number of the meetings that have happened, but we have kept ourselves out of it, senator. I know that some of the communities that are holding the pen and leading this process will testify and be happy to provide information on the development of this agreement, and I would rather leave it to them.
To build upon the question we received from Senator Coyle, I would not hesitate to ask any of the witnesses who come on the social issues. They are very aware of it. They can speak to what they are doing, in addition to what they are required to do already. They can speak authoritatively and from specific examples.
Senator McNair: The provincial governments could take a lesson. Thank you.
Senator Martin: Senator Tannas, you said there will be other witnesses who might be able to answer these questions more clearly. As I am listening, this recognition of rights — the bill, which is about jurisdiction and direction of revenue — with that comes the responsibility to address the social concerns as well as issues like money laundering. I am on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, and this is a very big reality in Canada.
I want to go back to the idea of a national Indigenous gaming commission, about which you say there have been discussions and that this is in the works, so to speak. You also mentioned the cannabis legislation. What I remember from that study is that jurisdictions that had already legalized cannabis warned Canada to take its time. We rushed into it.
Do you think that, with the importance of such a commission — which I am absolutely happy to hear is in the works — is this legislation too soon? Should there be other entities in place to ensure the success of this legislation, once enacted, not the other way around? That is my concern in thinking back to the cannabis legislation, as well as the fact that this is a great right and responsibility that comes with it.
Senator Tannas: That is a great question. It is the chicken-and-egg kind of question. That is one of the questions that needs to be answered during committee study.
I am impressed with the professionalism and commitment of the 40-odd communities that are involved in gaming now and their desire to do something collectively around this. Their sense is that it is the right thing to do. They have taken this on. They are running a parallel process to this legislation.
We have some protections around what you are talking about with the idea that communities need to go through a process on their own in their own communities to decide whether they want to take up this right. Some communities that are already operating, are sophisticated, et cetera, they will take up their rights immediately. Why wouldn’t they? Others will take their time.
That was the piece around Indigenous communities that got me thinking about how we make it so that people who do not want to wake up one day with gambling now being legal and they are not ready for it — how do we protect that? That is where this takeup and notice period occur, which provides some protection.
The other pieces come down to a matter of trust and respect. We could have made a list of conditions as long as your arm in order to facilitate the recognition of rights. All that does at the end of the day is to further the paternalistic trap that we do not want to fall into.
It might be the case, though, in pragmatic terms, that when we hear all of the testimony, there will need to be other conditions. We can all agree on what those are. But I would say, at this point, I have a lot of faith in the communities that are engaged in this activity now and in the communities that might consider it that they will make the right decisions in the right amount of time.
I was satisfied with not starting down the road of throwing conditions in here, there and everywhere.
Senator Martin: It is not so much a condition. I was thinking of the timeline and timing of things.
Senator Tannas: So a coming into force kind of thing?
Senator Martin: Yes. We are already informed by the existing casinos and gambling in this country, as well as what happened in British Columbia. There was a big commission on that.
But I really think the importance of a national Indigenous gaming commission — and that if it is going parallel that the timing be right.
I agree with you that this is an important right for First Nations, but we already know what can happen and what the risks are. I am really concerned about the timing and the coming into force.
Senator Arnot: Senator Tannas, I believe you have outlined the alignment of this bill and the concept of economic reconciliation with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. How does Bill S-268 go beyond symbolic alignment to meaningfully advance the rights and the well-being of First Nations people in Canada, particularly if there are some critics who put forward the idea that there is no inherent right to gaming?
Senator Tannas: There is an argument that there is an inherent right to gaming. That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court 30 years ago. We know the Supreme Court, over the course of the last 30 years, has made some significant strides in the recognition of rights that they probably would not have made 30 years ago. We know it is a living tree or whatever you want to call it. I’m not a lawyer.
The fact is that while some might say that the inherent right question has been asked and answered, it is fair to say that it is always there. It appears to be there in some of the behaviour of the provincial governments in wanting to get a deal with First Nations as it relates to gambling. There is a legal question there somewhere.
All that aside, this allows First Nations communities to risk the capital, knowing fully what is at stake, and to develop it further based upon the generation of income that comes from this. They can develop their own communities.
Senator Prosper talked about own-source revenue. The federal government has helped to develop an institution that is specifically designed to facilitate capital lending to First Nations based upon their own revenue. They can then use that to build infrastructure, housing and fund all kinds of capital projects, in addition to enjoying the revenue for other things.
The real tangible piece here is the money that First Nations would get through this that they don’t have to share with the province or, rather, they don’t have to give it to the province and then ask for it back. They would simply have that to allocate to whatever the most important initiatives are at the time in their communities. They would have significantly more of it, and they can invest confidently in other complementary areas, such as hotels, golf courses, convention centres and entertainment complexes that all go along with gaming that we see everywhere else when we go to Las Vegas or wherever. It is not just a casino sitting there; it is an entire centre of recreation that generates far more than just the casino does.
The Chair: There are two senators left. We have a hard stop at 10 a.m. You have three minutes each. Please keep your questions and answers to that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. I will ask the second part of my last question again: Do you know if there are examples of existing Indigenous-led gaming operations that have successfully implemented responsible gaming measures? That is my first question.
My second question is: Have you been shopping this in the other place? What kind of support do you feel might be there?
Senator Tannas: Yes. I am aware because of conversations with the casino operators we worked with, but my preference would be to have them — they will be here.
Senator Coyle: Yes, we can ask them.
Senator Tannas: A number of sophisticated operators and the chiefs are coming. They can speak far better than I can. I would leave that to them.
Again, what was your second question?
Senator Coyle: Is there support for this bill in the other place?
Senator Tannas: One of the reasons I thought it made sense to do something and put a private bill forward was that I had been told by chiefs that they had a lot of encouragement and that there was something coming on this from the federal government — some recognition. There had been years of this discussion through successive governments, and nothing was appearing.
There is conceptual support. Why not? It makes sense in the context of everything we have talked about in terms of reconciliation and moving things forward. It never got high enough on the priority list, so it needed support.
We have a sponsor who quickly registered and who has experience with the gaming file over in the House of Commons. They are keen to help us. We did speak to a number of parties and offline with people in the ministry. We felt that while it isn’t a slam dunk to get through this process — no private bill or Senate public bill is — but it was not an immediate “no” by any means. I think it will get fair consideration over there.
Senator Prosper: Senator Tannas, I appreciated your response to Senator Arnot. There is a major difference between going to government and asking for money, year after year, versus having resource recognition and an ability to generate revenue and what that all means for First Nations on a year-by-year basis. You can build from there.
Getting back to Senator Martin and the chicken-and-egg scenario, is it too quick? Do we need a commission first? It is hard for me to think about a theoretical exercise of alignment without something on the table here.
Getting back to the idea of a commission, you mentioned that there are ancillary or parallel processes, such as a memorandum of understanding. Are there any other examples in terms of gaming commissions that you can think of, perhaps with our neighbours to the south or otherwise, where that was taken up and administered?
Senator Tannas: To some degree, and this illustrates the point, which is one of the reasons why the Indigenous gaming communities are so keen on this: They do need to arrive at the same time. They are complementary and need to be run in parallel, so that is what is happening.
That experience is born out of what happened in the United States. What happened in the United States was a Supreme Court decision that turned things upside down.
We do not want that. That is not the way it should be done. We should be able to do this in a fashion such that everybody sees it coming for a long period of time. We are now a year and a half into this process of seeing it coming, with more to come. It is nice to see that Indigenous communities, on their own, are developing what they should be developing to prepare. Thank you.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank again our witnesses for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them to our clerk within seven days.
I would now like to introduce our next witnesses, from the Department of Justice Canada, at the table in person with us today, Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel and Team Leader, Criminal Law Policy Section; and via video conference, Jarrod Olson, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. From Indigenous Services Canada at the table and with us in person today, Lyndon Simmons, Director of Economic Program Management, Lands and Economic Development Branch. Thank you all for joining us today. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks, of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question and answer session with the senators.
Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel and Team Leader, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Myself and my colleague Mr. Olson are here in our capacity as experts in criminal law to assist this committee as you embark on your study of the subject matter of Bill S-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act, which, as you know, engages the issue of the ability of a governing body of a First Nation to conduct and manage lottery schemes on reserve. What I propose to do is just provide a brief overview of the relevant legal framework, including the existing criminal law and the bill’s proposed reforms.
As a starting point, as you heard, the Criminal Code prohibits all forms of gaming and betting, except those that are expressly authorized. This broad prohibition originated in 14th century England and was adopted in the very first Criminal Code in 1892 on the basis that games of chance constituted a moral vice. Despite this broad prohibition on gaming and betting, the Criminal Code contains two exceptions that allow for gaming and betting in certain circumstances. One exception is the federal system of pari-mutuel betting on horse racing, and the second applies to lottery schemes that are conducted and managed by the provinces and territories. In general terms, this means that the provinces and territories have the power to regulate gaming and betting activities in their jurisdictions. This exception has been in place since 1969, and it permits the provinces and territories to offer a broad range of gaming and betting products, pursuant to the Criminal Code.
Some provinces and territories, through their powers to conduct and manage lottery schemes, have provided some scope for Indigenous governments to be directly involved in gaming and betting, or to receive economic benefits from the resulting revenue. The extent of this involvement varies across jurisdiction and is at the discretion of the specific province and territory.
In 2021, the former Minister of Justice engaged with Indigenous people and the provinces and territories to determine the level of interest for further discussion of Indigenous involvement in gaming and betting. Responses from that consultation were diverse, but many indicated that they were interested in exploring a framework that would give them greater control over this industry. Further, in 2023, in the federal Action Plan for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the federal government committed to advancing discussions on the participation of Indigenous peoples across Canada in the industry and in its regulation, collaboratively with the provinces and territories.
This brings us to the bill. As you heard from Senator Tannas already this morning, Bill S-268 proposes to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act to provide the governing body of a First Nation authority to conduct and manage lottery schemes on First Nation reserves, or on another reserve if there is an agreement between the two governing bodies. In essence, what the bill would do is provide the governing body of a First Nation with the same level of authority to conduct and manage gaming and betting on reserve lands that the provinces and territories currently have, pursuant to the Criminal Code. That is, essentially, to build and operate casinos and license charitable lotteries among other activities.
There’s a very high-level review of the criminal law and the bill, and that concludes my remarks. The department looks forward to following the work of this committee as you continue your study and we welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wells. We’ll now open the floor to questions from senators, and we will start with Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Bill S-268 would grant exclusive authority to First Nations to conduct and regulate gaming on their reserves. Does the Department of Justice have concerns about how this might conflict with existing provincial jurisdiction under section 92 of the Constitution Act, and how does the government plan to reconcile these potential competing authorities?
Ms. Wells: In answering this question, senator, I’m mindful that the government hasn’t taken a position on the bill. The minister is monitoring the study of the committee and looks forward to hearing the witnesses that you intend to call, recognizing that those are the types of issues that this committee is likely to explore.
Senator White: I have a couple of questions. The bill contains a deeming provision, which states:
For the purpose of this section, a First Nation’s reserve or a part of a First Nation’s reserve within a province is deemed not to be a part of the province . . . .
In debate in the Senate during his second-reading speech, Senator Cotter called the clause “unusual,” and said that he couldn’t understand why it wasn’t included in the bill. I know you weren’t privy to those discussions, and I’m certain the legal and constitutional committee will consider that in greater detail, but I’m wondering if you could explain to the committee how you understand the deeming provision and more importantly, why might an Indigenous reserve need to be deemed no longer part of the province in which it is situated?
Ms. Wells: I’m going to turn this question over to my colleague, Mr. Olson.
Jarrod Olson, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. That’s an excellent question.
What we have in the current framework within the Criminal Code, as Senator Tannas laid out quite well, is that currently the provinces hold that — what this is, really, is a criminal exemption. As Senator Tannas noted, gaming in itself is prohibited, but we’ve created and crafted some exemptions for that. Chiefly among those is that the provinces have the ability to conduct and manage their own lottery schemes.
It’s key, because I think paragraph 207(1)(a), which is, effectively, the section that gives the power to the provinces to conduct and manage their own lottery schemes, requires that they conduct and manage that lottery scheme within their province.
There are exceptions to that. They can coordinate with other provinces, but the general scope of their ability under that exemption exists within the territorial scope of their provinces.
Again, as you’ve noted, our department is not involved in the drafting of the bill, but our understanding of that particular provision is that it does offer — as I think Senator Tannas noted — the ability for First Nations to opt in to exercising the abilities that Bill S-268 proposes to provide. The deeming provision, I think, is required, because what Bill S-268 seeks to provide is the authority for First Nations to conduct and manage their own gaming schemes within the territorial scope of their reserves. In the background, of course, the provinces have the ability to operate the territorial scope of the provinces.
If you’re asking me for my understanding, my understanding is that that provision exists as a way of delineating the scope of whom has jurisdiction to operate or conduct and manage their gaming scheme within a geographic or territorial description.
I would suggest that would be our interpretation of that particular section. It’s interesting, just as a side note — and I don’t want to go too far down a hole here, but it’s interesting, because I would understand it to say that the First Nation reserve is exempted from the provincial territory, only once they opt in under proposed clause 2.2. I think it offers some variability as to when the First Nation — at least within the terms of the act — would be considered part of the province and when it would not.
Senator White: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: My first question would be to either Ms. Wells or Mr. Olson. Senator Tannas was asked this question, but I would be curious for some further comment from you.
With an amendment to the Criminal Code, First Nations would be required to notify the Government of Canada and the relevant provincial government of its intent to exercise authority over on-reserve gambling operations. One, what would the purpose of this notification be, and, for further clarity, would the federal or provincial governments have the ability to delay or deny the exercise of that authority?
Ms. Wells: I’ll defer to Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson: I’ll be happy to answer that.
Thank you, senator. I would say, again, as we’ve all noted — and I’m going to continue to note as we go through this — that this is a Senate public bill. We were not part of the drafting of that, so I’m going to go on what our reasoned interpretation would be, just upon reading the bill.
I’m not sure I can speak to the purpose of the provision specifically. I can give you our interpretation of what the provision would allow and what it does. In this case, again, we have a provincial scheme right now that exists in place through the criminal exemptions provided by the Criminal Code for gaming. Those schemes exist, and they exist across the broad territorial scope of the provinces to which they existed.
The notice provision, I would assume, is because it’s requiring First Nations to provide that — sorry, to step back. Under paragraph 207(1)(b) is where we find a lot of the First Nations gaming schemes that operate currently.
You have witnesses coming tomorrow — I believe, Chief Bobby Cameron from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, and Chief Roy Whitney from Tsuut’ina Nation around Calgary. Both of those definitely have gaming facilities that operate within their territories, within their reserves, but they tend to operate under licence from the provinces, which operates as a charitable organization or a charitable scheme. Under paragraph 207(1)(b), provinces are authorized to license charities to operate, conduct and manage their own gaming under terms provided by the provinces.
I would suspect that the notice provision is required to the province, because those gaming operations that currently exist on reserve are done under the licence issued by the provinces, and because now a First Nation is going to exercise authority that Bill S-268 proposes to provide them, it’s going to require some level of coordination with the provinces to understand that they’re no longer operating under the licence under paragraph 207(1)(b) and that they would now be operating under their own authority that would be proposed by Bill S-268.
Senator Sorensen: I just want to get to the final part. I’m assuming, then, if this bill passes, the provincial governments or federal government could not deny the notification?
Mr. Olson: That’s what I was going to get to. Thank you, senator.
Senator Sorensen: Perfect.
Mr. Olson: There’s nothing in the bill that appears to suggest that there is any level of ability to prohibit a First Nation from enacting its ability.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses.
As I understand it, through the Constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction over gaming. There was an exception made with respect to the province, operating gaming operations within their provincial territories. I guess my question is this: It’s perfectly within the competence and jurisdiction of the federal government to enact this bill, which, in essence, makes a parallel duty or a right for First Nations to operate gaming operations as the provincial gaming system operates.
It’s strictly within the federal competence to do so, right? Or is there some kind of argument that the province can use to say that the federal government can’t do this?
Mr. Olson: Thank you, senator. Maybe I’ll take this one.
Again, senator, when we talk about gaming, at least for our purposes, certainly for our purposes from the Criminal Law Policy Section, we talk about gaming within the Criminal Code, because there is a general prohibition. That’s the framework that exists is that we take a broad look at gaming. Gaming is prohibited, because, as Ms. Wells noted, it was deemed to be a social and moral vice.
There’s a general Criminal Code prohibition — and we’re not constitutional law experts, and I don’t want to suggest that we have a broad level of knowledge on constitutional powers — but within the criminal law, the federal government exercises that ability to, first, prohibit conduct under the Criminal Code — so we’ve prohibited gaming in general — but then the federal government has decided that in providing these exceptions, which is the provincial ability to enact and conduct and manage gaming schemes, and it has been around since 1969. The sole authority was provided back in 1985 through the amendment of the code, but, in essence, it’s been around for quite some time now. It was done as an exemption to criminal law. It was done as, “We want to delineate this scope of conduct as being criminal, but we’ve now provided an exemption for that.”
To my understanding, that would fall under — again, I’m not a constitutional law expert — but that would fall under the criminal law powers for the federal government. What Bill S-268 proposes to do is to expand that criminal exemption.
Senator Prosper: Is it your answer that the provincial government cannot, in some way, shape or form, deny or prevent this from happening, that is, First Nations exercising that exception under the Criminal Code?
Mr. Olson: Again, within the context of the bill itself as it’s drafted, certainly there’s no provision there that would provide the ability to do so.
If you’re asking from a constitutional law perspective, that might be something this committee would investigate further and perhaps hear from witnesses who have broader knowledge.
Senator Martin: I’m returning to clause 17 of the bill which states that upon establishing the authority to manage lottery schemes, a First Nations reserve is not considered to be part of the province. This definitely introduces questions about jurisdiction and the role the province would then play, if any.
I understand the governing bodies may enact bylaws. My question is who will take on the provincial responsibilities for regulation, such as responsible gaming and preventing money laundering? What resources would be provided, and by whom? Would any of it fall on the federal government or Indigenous Services Canada? I’m trying to understand what the division of resources, if any, is and where the responsibilities lie.
Ms. Wells: Thank you for that question. I will defer to Mr. Olson first. I will add to it, if there’s anything he would like me to address afterwards.
Mr. Olson: As you have noted, this bill seeks — as Senator Tannas spoke to — to provide First Nations with the same abilities the provinces have.
Our understanding after reading the bill is, once that First Nation decides it wants to use these powers, the Criminal Code would then authorize it. As you mentioned, they would no longer be considered under that deemed provision to be part of the province.
It would seem that, based on the authority they’re provided under the Criminal Code, they’re provided to the same level that the provinces and territories have been provided. It would at least suggest that — again, I’m not an expert on First Nations law — they would be involved and in charge of regulating that scheme in the same way the provinces and territories are. While the provinces and territories have had many years of developing a broad scope of regulations in respect of all aspects of gaming, First Nations would have this ability as well.
Certainly, there are many who have been involved in this scope of gaming to some level — again, Chief Bobby Cameron can speak to that tomorrow — where they have a lot of experience in this area. Some will already have systems in place, I think, or ready to be put in place for implementing their powers under the act. I would think it falls to the same line that, right now, provinces and territories, you have this exemption from criminal liability; you’ve created this scheme; you are responsible for the walls within it.
Senator Martin: It would fall entirely upon the First Nations because, in essence, they have the same power as what a province or territory would have. You don’t see any role for the federal government? The resources needed for such regulations would have to come from within the nation itself?
Mr. Olson: As I mentioned, Senator Martin, I don’t want to speak too broadly, because I’m not an expert on federal Indigenous relations. I think there’s room for negotiation there. Again, I don’t want to stray too far into that territory, because that’s not an area I have a depth of knowledge on.
Senator Martin: We will probably have witnesses to whom we can ask this question again. Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: Following Senator Martin’s question, but asked in a different way, is there anything in this bill that would provide an exemption to Indigenous governments and gaming operators from the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act that would somehow get them out from under anti-money laundering, or AML, and anti-terrorist financing, or ATF, national regulations that exist today in all sorts of areas?
Can you provide clarity? If not, would you be able to provide a follow-up opinion for us on whether or not this bill creates some kind of a hole where AML and ATF suddenly doesn’t apply?
Mr. Olson: I’m going to apologize to you. We don’t have any direct knowledge with respect to how anti-money laundering, anti-terrorist financing, specifically applies in the context of this bill. That would be something our colleagues at the Department of Finance would be better placed to respond to. There are people there who work almost exclusively in that area.
Senator Tannas, you know as well as I do, there’s nothing in the text of the bill that would do so. In broad strokes, if you’re looking for further expertise, that would be something that our colleagues at the Department of Finance would be better placed to answer.
Senator Sorensen: I’m going to ask a question to Mr. Simmons. It is a higher-level question and off the scope of the bill.
Many Indigenous communities have infrastructure challenges that have hindered their ability to take advantage of economic development and, my personal interest, tourism opportunities.
First Nations who wish to open casinos and other attractions face challenges accessing capital, maintaining and improving roads, enforcing safety and security, many challenges.
At the highest level, can you let me know how the government is helping Indigenous communities address those issues so they can reap the benefits of tourism and business investment?
Lyndon Simmons, Director of Economic Program Management, Lands and Economic Development Branch, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for your question.
There are many things my specific directorate does when it comes to providing access to capital. We have three main programs, the first one is called LEDSP, which is the Lands and Economic Development Services Program which is really a capacity building program. It helps First Nations study what they want to do, develop land-use plans, think through what their business plans are going to be and what the environmental impacts are from any activities they’re going to be doing on reserve.
The federal government provided additional funding for that in Budget 2022. We’ve seen a great uptake in that, and many smaller and emerging First Nations have started doing that work.
The second program I run is called the Community Opportunities Readiness Program, or CORP. It is a grants and contributions program that directly starts funding First Nations to acquire and develop their own businesses. There’s a long list of eligible and ineligible businesses this funding could be eligible for. The gaming stuff is an eligible expense. We have provided funding to quite a few First Nations when it comes to gaming, entertainment and tourism.
It’s a $50 million budget for every year. As I’m sure you can understand, there’s a lot of demand for this funding. We do have a national committee that meets every year to figure out which projects are the most ready and will provide the best financial return for First Nations.
Every dollar that we spend through CORP usually yields a $5 to $7 return on investment, and so it’s a really good program. The last one is called the Strategic Partnerships Initiative, and that is for large projects where multiple government departments can get together and provide funding for things.
Your question was, do the economic development programs, that I am responsible for, provide money for infrastructure and those kinds of things? The answer is, yes, those are eligible expenses, but with a $50 million budget, it does not trickle down to the First Nations the way it could.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for that. I will dig more deeply.
Senator Prosper: I appreciate your question, Senator Sorensen, and I will follow up with Mr. Simmons. From your latest response, I want to get this clear, I think it was within CORP, which my community has had access to for a development project. You mentioned that gaming was an eligible expense, or people could apply for it for that purpose.
Am I correct in your mentioning that for every dollar of funding it generates roughly $5 to $7 in return? How does that happen? How do First Nation communities leverage those types of revenues for the larger advantage of development?
Mr. Simmons: Thank you for the question. It is project-specific. Some of the projects we do are for fishing communities who want to use the leftover waste to make dog food. Many innovative things have happened. We provide money for infrastructure. For example, running a waterline to a gas station so they can run a car wash.
The economic returns are different from project to project. A lot of the returns are in employment, particularly in employment of Indigenous employees. That is one of the criteria we have for applying for funding for the program. Also, the ability to have own-source revenues coming back to the community from those projects.
Those projects take time to get up and running. You build it, you need to get into the marketplace, and people start doing the things they need to do to generate revenue. We don’t look at it as one year at a time, like a one-and-done; a lot of the data we look at is over an eight-year period.
For the gaming projects that we have funded, the returns have been a lot greater than some of the returns we have seen from some of the other projects. I don’t have any specific numbers here. If you have specific questions on what kinds of returns can be expected from projects like this, I would be happy to have my folks take a look at that.
Senator Prosper: I would appreciate any further information that you could provide later.
Senator White: Mr. Olson, you may be the one tasked with answering my question. What jurisdictional issues do you foresee between the existing agreements and the allocation of authority to First Nations on reserve?
I ask this because — to put it in context — during debate in our chamber, we heard concerns that this bill may come into conflict with existing agreements between provinces and certain First Nations or the gaming corporations in First Nations. In your opinion, does this bill pose a threat to any existing agreements?
Mr. Olson: Thank you, senator. Yes, I will probably be the one to handle that.
To return to the nature of those agreements, they are inherently specific agreements between First Nations and the provinces and territories or those specific provinces to which they apply. As Senator Tannas spoke to during his time, they are quite varied across jurisdiction, and I think there are probably variances within provincial jurisdictions as to what the content of those agreements are.
I cannot fully speculate on what the impact will be, because we don’t know the nature and full extent of each of those agreements. What I would suggest, certainly, is that this is something that this committee might want to examine, and you might need to hear specifically from provinces and territories to understand how they would react to First Nations enacting their own authority.
I would suggest that it is something that the First Nations themselves are going to have to look at, particularly the ones that won’t launch their own gaming schemes. Their interests will be the ones that will have the most interest in maintaining those agreements or at least finding a way to maintain revenue from gaming even when they don’t participate in that system and whether or not the provinces are going to want to allow that. Again, it is a change to the provincial jurisdiction. It is taking away something that they’ve had sole authority over for, again, the last 30 years.
I cannot speculate on how they would react to such a change. Certainly, it is something that would need to be investigated.
Senator Sorensen: Mr. Simmons, do you find that the applications to the $50 million funding programs come from all areas of Canada? You mentioned that First Nations, Métis and Inuit are also involved, but do you think it is fairly diverse across the country in terms of applications?
Mr. Simmons: Yes. I probably get five applications for every project that I can fund. All applications are made through the regional offices because they work directly with First Nations and Inuit communities. My programs are lands-based and provide funding to folks who either have lands set aside for reserve or under treaties, but the Métis are not included in the funding that I provide right now because it is lands-based.
We ensure that half of the funding goes directly to each one of the regional offices so they can ensure that there is equitable distribution. There is a regional office in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and —
Senator Sorensen: Okay. Not that I am biased toward the west, but that was the answer I was looking for.
Mr. Simmons: I grew up in Treaty 7 territory.
Then we save half of the funding for some of the larger projects. Each region does not get a large project every year, but we ensure that in every five-year cycle it is spread equally.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I’ve learned a lot.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Sorensen.
The time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank our witnesses for joining us today. If you wish to make subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to our clerk within seven days. That brings us to the end of our meeting today.
(The committee adjourned.)