Despite growing concerns from stakeholders, Ontario recently launched its provincially regulated iGaming Ontario \u2013 a risky bet on a new online gaming market where digital gaming companies will win big, while yet again First Nations stand to be amongst some of the hardest-hit.<\/p>\n
According to the province, iGaming allows Ontario to capture revenues from the unregulated digital gambling sector, which operates in a legal grey area. But despite the province\u2019s claims, the current stakeholders who will be hurt have raised myriad concerns regarding the viability of the model and its impact on Ontarians. The government disregarded the requests of stakeholders to pause its implementation until existing gaming agreements were reviewed and constitutional obligations were met \u2013 creating legal risks for the province.<\/p>\n
Instead, the government could have upheld its commitment to economic reconciliation through a shared jurisdictional approach. Oversight of gaming cannot be a unilateral endeavour of the province. The model must ultimately increase the efficacy of revenue-sharing and its resulting benefits to Indigenous Peoples.<\/p>\n
For decades, Ontario has maintained a highly regulated, limited gaming market. The province\u2019s monopoly over gaming activities, which was granted through\u00a0a 1985 agreement<\/a>\u00a0with the federal government, has limited entrants into the market, preventing wide proliferation of casinos and lottery gaming options. It has long been the government\u2019s position that the maintenance of a limited market is critical to ensuring that gaming can be conducted in a socially responsible manner.<\/p>\n Ontario\u2019s gambling profits flow from a hidden tax on the vulnerable<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A reasonable approach to maintaining such a market would have included tethering iGaming to existing land-based gaming operations. That approach would benefit from the expertise of casino operators and their access to responsible gaming resources while respecting existing agreements between the parties.<\/p>\n Attempts to compete with the province have historically been quashed through legal avenues \u2013 particularly Criminal Code<\/em> provisions. Indigenous governments that have established gaming facilities on First Nations\u2019 lands have\u00a0faced criminal charges<\/a>\u00a0for violating provisions that defied the province\u2019s control over gaming. The restrictive approach has in many cases shut out Indigenous participation and economic development opportunities for First Nations, although there are some successful examples.<\/p>\n Ontario\u2019s long history of controlling gaming is part of what makes its approach to iGaming so puzzling. The model creates a largely unlimited market for internet-based gaming, as long as operators can jump relatively low financial and regulatory hurdles \u2013 a far cry from its previous position about conducting gaming responsibly. To many stakeholders, including Indigenous governments, municipalities, and labour organizations, the province\u2019s approach to iGaming prioritizes a fast implementation over a safe one. It\u2019s going all in with someone else\u2019s money.<\/p>\n Following the government\u2019s January announcement regarding iGaming\u2019s launch date, First Nations, including Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN<\/a>), which I represent, voiced their objections to the province\u2019s model. To my community and many others, the province\u2019s rushed gaming strategy is a threat to our collective futures. For MSIFN and other First Nations across southern Ontario, past investments in gaming activities have provided a source of economic activity that supports further job creation and community development. Participation in the gaming sector has allowed Indigenous governments such as ours to build economic opportunities in our First Nations.<\/p>\n Twenty-five years ago, MSIFN opened the doors to the Great Blue Heron Casino \u2013 the product of immense risk-taking and ambitious investments. That investment was the catalyst for additional economic development in the community,\u00a0creating job opportunities for MSIFN members and supporting our cultural revitalization efforts. Revenues generated by the casino have allowed us to provide health care, education and housing to members. Most recently, our First Nation was able to lift a long-term boil-water advisory because we could provide clean drinking water to our residents.\u00a0All of this while donating more than $35 million to local charities, individuals and local governments since its inception.<\/p>\n Those advancements are now at risk. Research has shown<\/a> that the introduction of iGaming will strip away revenue from casinos and thus the funds that our First Nation relies on to move forward. Funds required to operate water-treatment systems or provide health care are at risk of quickly disappearing. In spite of these concerns being raised in multiple requests by our council and others, the government has refused to consult with affected Indigenous governments \u2013 a violation of its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate First Nations that are impacted by its policies.<\/p>\n In informal meetings with Indigenous leaders, the government has not explained how, or even if, it will address iGaming\u2019s revenue cannibalization or its employment impact on Indigenous communities.<\/p>\n Following the government\u2019s quiet announcement of the launch of iGaming, MSIFN,\u00a0Six Nations of the Grand River<\/a>,\u00a0Shawanaga\u00a0First Nation<\/a> and the\u00a0Mohawk Council of\u00a0Kahnaw\u00e0:ke<\/a>\u00a0voiced concerns over the province\u2019s failure to provide consultation. To each, gaming either contributes to their First Nations\u2019 economies or is seen as an opportunity for growth. Yet, despite requests to the province, the government refused to develop accommodations to address our concerns.<\/p>\n Through its actions, the government has suggested that the introduction of a gaming platform is a greater priority than protecting the already fragile economies of First Nations. The government\u2019s rejection of requests for consultation both offends the principle of nation-to-nation relations, which it\u2019s obligated to maintain with Indigenous governments, and defies its many claims about reconciliation. The current model ultimately missed the opportunity to increase revenue-sharing and economic opportunities, which could have been achieved through the creation of a shared regulatory environment. The province cannot claim to be committed to a respectful path forward when it willingly runs roughshod over the serious concerns of Indigenous governments.<\/p>\n The adverse impacts \u2013 as noted by gaming stakeholders<\/a>, including labour organizations<\/a>, municipalities<\/a> and gaming operators \u2013 are not limited to Indigenous governments. Recently released models suggest that iGaming will trigger layoffs \u2013 with the brunt of those impacts being felt by\u00a0working-class families<\/a>\u00a0in host communities across Ontario. When asked, bureaucrats and parliamentary assistants were unable to offer anything resembling a cohesive plan to prevent sector-wide layoffs \u2013 in fact, they couldn\u2019t even confirm that iGaming operators would be required to set up shop in the province.<\/p>\n Similarly, the province\u2019s strategy has left communities that host casinos in a place of uncertainty about the future of their fiscal plans. Host\u00a0communities\u00a0benefit from a portion of revenues generated at casinos in their area, with those funds used to support\u00a0services such as health care and education. Naturally, a reduction in gaming revenue will mean fewer funds to maintain existing standards of care. Those impacts will be felt most profoundly by those who rely on municipal services, particularly vulnerable community members. Without amendments to their agreements, local governments will be forced to revisit their financial plans<\/a>\u00a0and make challenging decisions about a path forward. For many, it will be devastating.<\/p>\n