Positives Of The Bill
The opening of the regulated iGaming market in Alberta has been one of the most discussed events in the iGaming industry this year, and a new bill, Bill 48, was presented to the Alberta Government at the end of March. This bill, which will seek to allow private operators to enter the province, has since come under scrutiny from lawmakers during parliamentary debates.
Minister Dale Nally introduced the bill, which proposes creating the Alberta Gaming Corporation to oversee a private-sector market in the province. Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis (AGLC), which already operates the Play Alberta platform, would be the regulator for online casinos and sportsbooks.
Nally stated that the purpose of the bill is to encourage more players to gamble on regulated sites. He pointed out that currently, more than half of the players in the province are gambling on regulated sites. This, he states, increases the risk of these players being exposed to gambling-related harm. The Minister said that these sites will often pray on vulnerable individuals.
In his opening statement, he also reinforced that the purpose of this market was not to create money for the government, but to help gamblers in Ontario have safe options. He finished by saying, “We know gambling will never be safe, but there are ways to make it safer and more responsible. That’s what we aim to do.”
There was also support from other members of Nally’s party, the United Conservative Party. Justin Wright said that the bill will provide regulated, socially conscious gambling options for players, while Nolan Dyck said that it will provide options that are not predatory and that have safeguards.
Not Specific Enough
The proposal has been met with some backlash from opposition party members. The New Democratic Party MP Gurinder Brar said that while the bill's intention was praiseworthy, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. He said that there was a lack of detail in the bill and that certain elements were not laid out.
Fellow NDP MP Peggy Wright also argued that there was not enough detail in the bill, arguing that if the bill is rushed through, it can lead to a level of risk and danger that should not be taken.
