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.