Criminal Code—Indian Act

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act.

This bill would authorize the governing body of a First Nation to exercise exclusive authority over the conduct and management of lottery schemes on its reserve lands and to license others to do so, provided that notice is given to the relevant federal and provincial governments. It would also amend the Indian Act to allow band councils to enact bylaws governing those activities.

This proposal represents a significant shift in Canada’s gaming framework. As we know, gaming in Canada is governed by a constitutional division of powers. The Criminal Code establishes prohibitions and exceptions, while provinces regulate and administer permissible gaming activities. Each province has developed its own regulatory model, whether it’s through statutes such as British Columbia’s Gaming Control Act, Saskatchewan’s Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Act or Ontario’s hybrid structure involving both the Gaming Control Act and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Act. In fact, it’s different across the country depending on the province or territory.

As the law stands today, lottery schemes are only lawful if conducted and managed by a provincial government, subject to limited exceptions. This means that First Nations, even on their own lands, cannot independently operate lotteries without provincial involvement. Bill S-241 would change that reality and would effectively end the provinces’ exclusive role in the conduct and management of lotteries.

Bill S-241 is framed as a recognition of First Nations self‑determination and as a tool for economic reconciliation. Those objectives are worthy of respect. The promise of greater economic autonomy carries with it the possibility of community investment, cultural renewal and improved social outcomes. These are goals that merit serious consideration. However, the promise of a bill does not relieve us of our obligation to examine its consequences carefully.

First, the structure of a First Nations gaming regime under this bill is largely undefined. There is no clarity about which regulatory body would oversee these activities, whether there would be a centralized Indigenous regulator or how standards would be enforced. We do not yet know what cooperation among First Nations would look like or how regulatory capacity and resources would be developed and shared.

This uncertainty is not a theoretical concern. It is a practical governance issue. Gaming is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country because it engages consumer protection, financial integrity and public health. If Parliament is creating a new authority to conduct and manage lottery schemes, it is reasonable to ask who will set and enforce the rules, how compliance will be monitored and what mechanisms will exist to address misconduct or disputes.

A centralized Indigenous regulator could provide consistency and shared expertise, while a decentralized model could respect community autonomy, but the bill does not indicate which path is intended or how either would function, nor does it explain how smaller or remote First Nations would build the technical and regulatory capacity required to operate complex gaming systems without disproportionate cost or risk.

Second, important jurisdictional questions remain unresolved. The bill contemplates the sale of lottery products within provinces. Would First Nations operate in competition with provincial gaming corporations? Would there be any duty to consult when provincial and First Nations gaming systems intersect or conflict?

These jurisdictional questions go beyond market competition and speak directly to constitutional balance and cooperative federalism. Provinces are currently responsible for consumer protection, responsible gaming standards and the integrity of lottery operations within their borders. If First Nations are authorized to sell lottery products within a province, it is unclear whether provincial regulatory standards would apply, whether First Nations standards would prevail or whether a new shared framework would be required. In the absence of clarity, overlapping authority could create regulatory gaps or disputes, particularly where player protections, taxation or advertising rules differ.

Similarly, if First Nations gaming operations compete directly with provincial gaming corporations, the question of consultation becomes not merely political but also legal and practical. How will conflicts be managed? What forum will resolve them? Clarifying these relationships in advance would reduce the risk of litigation and ensure that economic self-determination proceeds within a stable and predictable legal environment.

Third, the scope of gaming activity contemplated by this bill is unclear. Would it include online gaming? Could bets be accepted from players outside reserve lands, outside provinces or even outside Canada, so long as the operation is located on-reserve? These are not technical footnotes. They go to the heart of enforcement, consumer protection and international compliance.

Uncertainty about the scope of permitted gaming activity is not a minor drafting issue. It directly affects enforcement and public safety. Online gaming and remote betting are inherently borderless, which raises questions about which laws apply when players are located in another province or another country. If a lottery scheme is conducted on-reserve but marketed and accessed elsewhere, regulators must know who is responsible for player protections, age verification, anti-money laundering controls and dispute resolution. Without explicit limits or guidance, enforcement agencies may face serious challenges in determining jurisdiction and compliance obligations.

These ambiguities also carry international implications, as Canada could be seen to permit cross-border gaming without a clear legal framework. Clarifying the scope of authorized activity would protect First Nations from legal uncertainty while ensuring that consumer protection and international obligations are upheld.

We must also consider the effect on existing arrangements. In Saskatchewan, gaming operates through a partnership between the province and the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations through the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority. Revenues are shared among First Nations, the province and host communities. In British Columbia, First Nations participate in revenue-sharing agreements tied to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation’s profits. Similar models exist elsewhere in Canada, but they are all different, as I stated earlier.

What becomes of these negotiated frameworks if Bill S-241 passes? What becomes of the charitable and non-profit organizations that rely on lottery revenue to support health care research, amateur sport, cultural programming and community services? Will First Nations-run lottery schemes be required to reinvest profits in comparable public interest ways, or will different standards apply?

There are also practical regulatory questions. Will smoking bylaws, alcohol rules and public health protections continue to apply uniformly? Or could regulatory disparities create unintended competitive advantages for some operators over others?

Finally, and most concerning to me, is the issue of consultation. I welcome the sponsor’s indication that provinces and other stakeholders will be invited to appear at committee. Actually, this was previously studied, so some of that has already taken place, but it will be important to look at these issues again very carefully. That is important and necessary.

However, legislation of this magnitude should be built on meaningful and broad consultation from the outset. Many affected parties appear to have been brought into the conversation late or not at all. Late consultation does not merely complicate administration; it undermines trust. It risks positioning Indigenous governments, provinces and communities in opposition to one another rather than building a cooperative framework. If reconciliation is the objective, then the process must reflect it. Consultation should form the foundation of the bill, not be deferred until after its architecture has been drafted.

For these reasons, I believe Bill S-241 requires thorough, careful and continued study at committee. We must hear from First Nations who support and oppose it, from provincial regulators, from experts in gaming and online betting, from public health officials and from organizations that depend on gaming revenues to serve Canadians.

This is not a bill we can assess narrowly. Its implications touch constitutional balance, Indigenous rights, public revenues, community health and regulatory integrity.

As senators, our role is not to impede progress but to ensure that progress is responsible, fair and sustainable. I look forward to the bill being examined closely at committee and to hearing from those whose lives and communities will be directly affected by the proposed legislative changes.

Now, I do not sit on the Indigenous Peoples Committee nor on the Legal Committee, to which this bill will be referred — you’ll hear from the sponsor in a moment about that — but I will pay close attention and maybe go to such committees if time allows. I will trust the colleagues on those committees to continue to do their very good work in examining this bill very carefully when it comes to the front. I know all the committees are so busy, but this is a very interesting and important bill at this time, so I look forward to hearing what the committees will be hearing from witnesses and what the results will be at the end.

Senator Tannas, I know you’re very passionate about this bill. Thank you for your patience. I tried to speak to this earlier, but we had a very busy legislative agenda.

Honourable senators, as the critic, I raise these points to say it’s very important to examine these issues at the committee level. Thank you.