B.C. Casino Sales Reshape First Nations Gaming Ownership in Canada
When the pending sales close, First Nations will own most of the casinos Great Canadian once ran in British Columbia, with a land return and a new set of operators.
A quiet but significant change is under way in British Columbia gambling. Over roughly two years, Great Canadian Entertainment has agreed to sell eight of its nine B.C. casinos, and in nearly every case the buyer is a First Nation. Once the transactions are complete, Great Canadian will retain only Chances Dawson Creek in the province. The pattern, reported by Canadian Gaming Business in late July, marks a shift in First Nations casino ownership in Canada from revenue participation to direct operating control.
Who bought what
The Snuneymuxw First Nation has been the most active buyer, acquiring five B.C. casinos from Great Canadian over two years, including Casino Nanaimo, River Rock Casino Resort and Great Canadian Casino Vancouver. As part of the Casino Nanaimo transaction, land in the Snuneymuxw xwsol'lexwel village was returned to the nation, which paid market value for it. The Tsleil-Waututh Nation agreed to acquire Hastings Racecourse and Casino in Vancouver, a deal we covered in our report on the Hastings acquisition. The Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe acquired Elements Casino Chilliwack, described in our coverage of the Chilliwack transaction, and the Semiahmoo First Nation is acquiring Elements Casino Surrey at Fraser Downs.
The result is a market in which several different nations each hold a few properties, rather than a single consolidator. That is a meaningful structural difference from provinces where one Indigenous-owned entity dominates the sector.
Ownership rather than revenue sharing
Canadian First Nations have historically participated in gaming mainly through revenue-sharing arrangements, because the Criminal Code assigns responsibility for conducting and managing gambling to the provinces. Our explainer on section 207 of the Criminal Code describes why that framework differs sharply from the U.S. tribal model under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In B.C., First Nations have generally received a share of provincial gaming proceeds through negotiated agreements rather than owning the facilities.
Buying existing commercial operators reaches the same economic destination by a different route. Instead of waiting for a legal change that would give First Nations jurisdiction, nations acquire the businesses that already hold provincial approvals and operate within the existing regulatory structure. The nations become owners of operating companies, with the profits, the employment decisions and the risks that come with that status. Our analysis of revenue sharing versus ownership sets out the trade-offs.
The same pattern in Alberta
British Columbia is not alone. In Alberta, Indigenous Gaming Partners, a group of five rural Nova Scotia First Nations working with Sonco Gaming, bought PURE Canadian Gaming's casino assets at the end of 2024, including properties in Edmonton, Yellowhead, Calgary and Lethbridge. In late March, the group's PURE Casino Entertainment acquired Gamehost Inc., adding Deerfoot Inn and Casino in Calgary, Rivers Casino in Fort McMurray and Great Northern Casino in Grande Prairie, along with hotels. The two buyers, Snuneymuxw in B.C. and PURE in Alberta, are now among the largest First Nations casino operators in the country. We profiled both in our overview of Indigenous-owned casino operators.
Early results are modest in scale but concrete. Glooscap First Nation, whose chief executive Michael Peters chairs Indigenous Gaming Partners, reported earning more than $600,000 in roughly six months from the first PURE casinos, directed to community services such as housing and health care. Those figures predate the Gamehost acquisition and should be read as a first-stage indicator.
A different model from Saskatchewan
Comparing these deals with Saskatchewan's long-established model is useful. There, the First Nations-owned SIGA operates casinos under a framework negotiated with the province, as discussed in our report on the SIGA expansion. In contrast, the B.C. and Alberta acquisitions are asset purchases from a commercial operator, without a provincial agreement that designates First Nations as the sole operators. That difference matters for exclusivity: a nation that buys a commercial casino acquires the license-holder's rights and limits, not a protected market position.
Risks and open questions
Buyers take on the full range of operating risk. Casino real estate is capital-intensive, and acquisitions are often financed with debt that must be serviced from operating cash flow. Provincial regulators set licensing conditions that the new owners must meet, and the entry of regulated online gaming in Alberta, which opened its market in July, adds competition for in-person visits. PURE has registered a province-wide digital brand, and River Cree Resort and Casino has said it plans a licensed online platform.
There is also an open policy question. Federal lawmakers continue to debate legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act in order to strengthen and codify First Nations jurisdiction over gambling on their lands. If such a measure advances, the ownership model could evolve again, from commercial acquisitions toward jurisdiction-based operations. If it stalls, acquisition is likely to remain the most direct route to control.
What it means
The B.C. sales demonstrate that First Nations in Canada can use capital markets and negotiated land returns to assume a role that law has not yet fully granted them. The land transfer in Nanaimo is the clearest example: ownership of the business was coupled with the return of village land at market value. Whether other nations follow will depend on financing conditions, provincial approvals and the pace of federal reform, but the direction of travel is already visible.