In early February 2026, a group of major private-sector iGaming operators, known as the Québec Online Gaming Coalition (“QOGC”), filed a brief as part of Québec’s 2026-2027 pre-budget consultations, publicly urging the province to create a Québec-specific regulatory framework for iGaming activities, like casino games and sports betting. QOGC’s argument can be broken down into three main points: (i) Québecers are already playing online across a large range of (unregulated) sites, (ii) unregulated iGaming weakens consumer protection, and (iii) Québec is leaving significant tax revenue on the table by not licensing and taxing commercial operators.
The coalition’s press release puts a concrete number on these issues, pointing to approximately 2,000 sites that are accessible to Québec residents, and claims that Québec is missing out on more than CAD $300 million per year in potential tax revenue.
What Do They Want?
The QOGC is advocating for an “Ontario-style” competitive market. In other words, to allow private operators to offer online gaming in Québec if they meet licensing requirements, comply with operating standards, and pay an agreed tax or revenue share.
Under this framework, the province could keep Loto-Québec as a major (or even dominant) market participant while still modernizing oversight. But, the key question remains: is the provincial government interested?
Loto-Québec’s response was blunt, characterizing QOGC members as “illegal operators” and criticizing the idea that opening the market would improve player protection.
The Arguments
The main argument for a single-operator model is not “more choice is bad,” but that a government-run monopoly can (at least in principle) better align product design, marketing strategy, and responsible gambling initiatives with public policy objectives. The current model also enhances accountability. Profits flow directly to the province, and oversight can be structured through government mandates rather than through an obstacle course of licensing conditions.
The challenge in this case is that those theoretical advantages erode when consumers are already choosing to engage with unlicensed, offshore alternatives. If players who want broader product selection or different promos simply leave the regulated offering, then the monopoly may end up with neither full control nor full channelization – just a smaller share of a larger, less supervised ecosystem.
From a consumer-protection standpoint, the debate comes down to one major question: which model better reduces harm in the world as it actually exists? The QOGC argues that you reduce harm by pulling play into a regulated environment that reflects consumer demand. More regulated options lead to more supervision, more reporting, and more enforceable safeguards, rather than leaving those options to operators outside Québec’s reach. On the other hand, Loto-Québec’s thesis is that you reduce harm by limiting legal supply and refusing to legitimize what it characterizes as “unlawful competition.”
The budget context signals where this might go next. Québec’s Ministry of Finance structured the 2026-2027 pre-budget consultations to accept briefs from different sectors and then publish the submitted documents. The QOGC’s involvement in the process doesn’t guarantee change, but it does create a public record of their case.
When Do They Want It?
There are a couple of signs we can watch for to determine whether this feedback will be incorporated. First, whether Québec’s upcoming budget materials (or post-budget commentary) contain even indirect signals, such as language about “modernizing oversight,” “digital consumer protection,” or “enhancing enforcement against unregulated online gambling.” Second, we should keep an eye on whether the government engages in a more formal policy process (a consultation paper, a working group, or targeted stakeholder meetings), as we saw in Alberta.
The coalition’s move doesn’t mean Québec is about to flip to an open market tomorrow, but it does mean the debate is being framed in concrete terms at a time when provinces are paying attention to digital policy trade-offs. If Alberta’s launch proceeds on schedule later this year, that will add another Canadian precedent and may increase the pressure on Québec to justify why its approach should remain different. In the meantime, Québec has a policy choice to make: either invest in making the crown model work in a world of abundant offshore supply, or adopt a licensing framework designed to pull that supply into a supervised perimeter.
