Closed vs. Open iGaming: Where First Nations Stand Across Canada

Canadian provinces have taken sharply different approaches to online gaming, and First Nations sit at a different point in each model. Saskatchewan announced on August 31, 2026 that it would extend the exclusive online gambling rights of the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority until September 2029. Alberta, by contrast, opened its iGaming market to multiple private operators in July 2026, and Ontario has run a multi-operator market since April 2022, with 48 licensed operators as of July 2026. For First Nations, the question is whether online gaming is something they own or something they compete with.

Saskatchewan: online inside the framework

The extension came through an amendment to the Gaming Framework Agreement between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. That agreement has governed First Nations gaming in the province since 2002. Under it, SIGA runs seven land-based casinos, including Dakota Dunes, Gold Eagle and Northern Lights, and has operated the PlayNow online platform since November 2022 using technology supplied by the British Columbia Lottery Corporation. Our coverage of the exclusivity extension and the SIGA expansion provides details.

The figures reported from SIGA's 2025-26 annual report support the case for staying closed. The authority posted its fourth consecutive record profit, with $418 million in gross gaming revenue and $167 million returned to the province. PlayNow net iGaming revenue rose 38 percent to $12.4 million, with more than 59,000 registered users. Profit from PlayNow is split evenly, 50 percent to Saskatchewan First Nations and 50 percent to the province's general revenue fund. The online business is still small next to land-based casinos, but it is growing, and every dollar stays in a First Nations-linked structure.

The amendment also clears the way for a pilot gaming centre on Flying Dust First Nation with up to 49 slot machines, part of a larger hotel and conference-centre development. That detail shows the agreement is not static; it is being used to extend First Nations ownership into new formats.

Alberta and Ontario: open markets

Alberta's July 2026 launch invited private operators into a regulated market, a decision that drew warnings from First Nations leaders about the risk to land-based casino revenue. Several Alberta First Nations operate casinos, and some have sought a role in the online market, as we examined in our analysis of the Alberta iGaming launch. Ontario's earlier opening produced a market with dozens of operators, where First Nations participate through revenue-sharing arrangements rather than ownership of the online product itself.

The trade-off is straightforward. Open markets generate more tax revenue and consumer choice, and they let large international brands compete. They also dilute any single stakeholder's share. In a closed model, a First Nations-owned operator keeps a defined fraction of a smaller pie; in an open model, First Nations hold a smaller fraction, or a negotiated royalty, of a larger one.

What the numbers cannot yet settle

Comparisons are tempting but premature. Saskatchewan's PlayNow is young, and its $12.4 million in net iGaming revenue is modest. Alberta's market had only just launched when this analysis was written, so no meaningful performance data exists. Ontario offers the longest track record, but its structure for First Nations differs from either of the others. We should be cautious about declaring a winner.

What can be said is that the choice reflects different political settlements. Saskatchewan's reflects a framework agreement negotiated over more than two decades, in which First Nations are co-architects of the system. Alberta and Ontario began from provincial lottery structures and added private competition, with First Nations negotiating their place afterward. The Saskatchewan approach carries risk if competitors in neighboring provinces draw Saskatchewan players online, a leakage problem familiar from U.S. markets; the extension to 2029 gives SIGA three more years to build scale before that question arrives.

For a broader view of how gaming revenue supports First Nations communities, see our economic impact report. The next markers to watch are PlayNow's growth rate, any renegotiation talks ahead of 2029, and early results from Alberta's operators once a full year of data exists.

One more variable deserves mention: federal and provincial constitutional arrangements. Gaming in Canada is regulated under the Criminal Code, with provinces holding the authority to conduct and manage lotteries and gaming, and First Nations participation therefore depends on provincial agreements rather than on any national framework comparable to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in the United States. That is why outcomes vary so widely from province to province, and why a First Nation's leverage often turns on the quality of its relationship with the provincial government and on whether a collective body, such as the FSIN in Saskatchewan, can negotiate on behalf of many communities at once. Collective bargaining has clearly helped Saskatchewan; whether similar structures can emerge in other provinces remains an open question.

Readers comparing the models should also consider who bears the risk. In a closed model, the First Nations-linked operator bears the performance risk of its own platform, including technology costs and marketing. In an open model, private operators bear that risk, and First Nations receive a negotiated share regardless. Neither arrangement is risk-free, and the better choice may differ by community size, location and appetite for operating a business.