Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Alberta Preparing a New Regulatory Framework for iGaming

Published

5 minute read

With the success of the iGaming market in Ontario, Alberta is looking to it as a blueprint for its own plans in that arena. Despite this, there will likely be differences in the way the two provinces regulate this industry.  These potential differences will likely be based on the strategies laid out by Dale Nally, Alberta’s Minister of Service and Red Tape Reduction.

The manner in which Alberta eventually decides to handle its iGaming regulations will be crucial to maintaining a healthy balance for the industry there. Many other regions have begun seeing the drawbacks of over-regulation in this field. As a result, many new-age casinos operating offshore have been gaining popularity over traditional ones that are often stifled by restrictions. 

This is because restrictions place more onerous burdens on operators and cause lengthy delays with everything from sign-up procedures to payout times. However, offshore casinos have become a revelation for players tied down by these restrictions. For example, crypto casinos and the perks found at sites like an instant payout casino have seen the number of players from regions like the US, UK, Asia, Europe, and even Canada soaring in recent years.

Instant payout casinos in particular have grown very popular in recent years as they offer players same-day access to their winnings. This phenomenon has been playing out amid ever-tightening regulations on iGaming sites being deployed in many prominent markets. 

While reasonable regulations have their benefits, many players feel that most jurisdictions are over-regulating the industry now and players have begun to respond by flocking to offshore sites. Instant payout casinos offer a perfect refuge since platforms like these feature fewer restrictions, more expansive gaming libraries, more privacy, and more generous bonuses.  

While Alberta is drawing heavily from Ontario’s regulatory guidelines, it also wants to retain some aspects that will distinguish it too. Minister Nally has indicated that Alberta will seek a less onerous regulatory regime than Ontario. However, as it is with Ontario, there won’t be a limit imposed on the number of iGaming operators permitted. These would also not require any partnerships with land-based casinos. 

This approach is expected to foster a competitive online betting environment. As such, huge operators are expected to set up shop there and operate freely alongside the government-run Play Alberta—which currently holds a monopoly.

Nally’s ministry has already been busy working on these new regulations and is set to keep being so as it will also be directly responsible for overseeing iGaming regulations and their enforcement. This ensures a separate regulatory body need not be created. It also addresses concerns raised by operators that Alberta’s Gaming, Liquor, and Cannabis Commission (AGLC) would have a conflict of interest if it managed the new regime as the AGLC is a market operator since it runs the Play Alberta platform.

All in all, Alberta’s approach currently does look good and at least considers the need for making it as simple as possible for new entrants to gain access to the market. Alberta’s method to  “conduct and manage” gambling activities is in direct contrast with Ontario’s, where iGaming Ontario (iGO) is simply a subsidiary of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO).

The revenue-sharing model will also be looked at. Currently, Ontario operators are taxed 20% with the province making $790 million of them last year—with more expansion on the horizon. On that note, Alberta has hinted that it may seek a higher percentage. With other things like consults with indigenous communities and other stakeholders, and setting up transition periods for “grey” market operators, there is more work to be done. However, for now, the future of the iGaming industry in Alberta looks good indeed. 

Before Post

Todayville Content Team works with a wide variety of clients to develop compelling content solutions. Our experienced team develops strategic campaigns that use video and storytelling, digital advertising and social media to help our clients position and distinguish themselves in the market.

Follow Author

Alberta

Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.

The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.

According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.

For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.

Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.

Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)

And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?

In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Edmonton public school board takes action in defiance of Alberta’s proposed pro-family policies

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

An Edmonton school board submitted a motion to defy Alberta’s policy requiring parental knowledge if a child goes by different pronouns at school.

On November 5, the Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new pro-family policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

“The Division’s current policy on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression is part of our mandate to provide a safe, welcoming and healthy school environment for students, staff and families,” the board claimed in the motion sent to the Board of Trustees.

“The policy changes being proposed by Premier Smith will contradict what our Board, and previous Boards of Trustees, have worked hard to ensure: the safety and well being of all children in Edmonton Public schools,” it continued.

The new policies, introduced last week by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith under Bill 27, will mean that sex-education classes will not be included in a child’s education, and teachers or school staff will no longer be allowed to conceal whether a student begins to use different pronouns or names.

Once Bill 27 becomes law, schools must notify parents of what is being taught at least “30 days in advance and be given the opportunity to opt in rather than opt out of this instruction.”

However, while Alberta is working to keep parents informed and children safe from the radical LGBT agenda, the Edmonton board has argued parents must be kept in the dark to prevent them from stopping their children from accepting the falsehoods of the LGBT agenda.

“For transgender youth who choose a name different from the one given at birth, use of their chosen name in multiple contexts affirms their gender identity and reduces mental health risks, which are known to be high in this group,” the board claimed.

However, significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Additionally, as LifeSiteNews previously reported, many Ontario parents revealed that public schools did not ask for parental consent before “gender transitioning” their children, resulting in child-parent relationships being destroyed.

Furthermore, many teachers struggle to keep secret from parents. A Saskatchewan teacher who wished to remain anonymous previously told LifeSiteNews that she feels guilty about keeping secrets from parents and supports the decision to keep parents informed.

“I fear that we are not supporting students or parents when we keep secrets,” she explained. “We have many students using alternate names, which sometimes changes frequently during the year, and then are asked by parents if we were aware of the changes after the fact. I feel responsible for keeping the secret and I don’t think it’s fair. I think schools are already taking on too many ‘parent roles’ and it’s important that parents play the ‘parent role’ not teachers!”

Continue Reading

Trending

X