Alberta’s Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Amendment Act, 2020 rewrites the approval process for the first liquor licence in a municipality, Métis settlement or Indian reserve with no existing licensed premises. Instead of requiring a local vote, the bill gives the relevant municipality, Métis settlement or Indian band 90 days to approve or reject the application.
The Act also creates a framework for raffling liquor, lets the regulator impose licence conditions during the licence term, removes the requirement that people consume food while drinking liquor in designated public picnic areas, and expands regulation-making powers over fees, raffles and gaming winnings. The practical shift is toward administrative and local-government control rather than electorate-driven approval.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals the existing no-licence-area provisions and replaces them with a direct referral process. The relevant municipality, Métis settlement or Indian band has 90 days to approve an application; approval allows the board to issue the licence, while rejection or silence generally triggers a three-year bar on the licence and new applications. It also authorizes liquor raffles subject to regulation, permits licence conditions to be added during a licence’s term, removes the food-consumption condition for designated picnic areas, and expands the Lieutenant Governor in Council’s regulation-making authority.
Who It Affects
Applicants seeking the first licensed premises in a municipality, Métis settlement or Indian reserve face a new local approval process. Municipalities, Métis settlements and Indian bands receive the decisive local role previously exercised through votes or, for Indian reserves, band decisions. Liquor-licensed businesses, raffle organizers, public-park operators, gaming-facility patrons and the provincial regulator also fall within the bill’s reach.
Why It Matters
The bill changes who decides whether a new licensed premises can open in an area with no existing liquor licence. It replaces a formal voter or public-meeting mechanism with an institutional decision by the local government or Indigenous governing body. For operators, the bill creates new commercial possibilities but also leaves important details—especially raffle rules, fee-setting and gaming disqualification—to regulations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
For an application to open the first licensed premises in a municipality, Métis settlement or Indian reserve, the board must refer the application to the relevant local authority. That authority has 90 days to respond.
An approval gives the board discretion to issue the licence. If the authority rejects the application or does not respond, the board cannot issue the licence or accept a new application for comparable premises for three years from the referral date.
The bill also allows the local authority to approve an application after the initial 90-day period but before the three-year period ends. This creates a route to reconsideration without requiring a new vote.
The transition rules preserve the former regime for applications received before the new provisions take effect, avoiding the immediate reprocessing of pending applications under different rules.The Act removes a historic statutory restriction that barred most liquor licences in a specified area described by the former Liquor Control Act. It also gives the board power to impose additional licence conditions not only when issuing a licence, but at any time during the licence term.
That allows compliance requirements to change after operations begin, rather than remaining fixed at issuance.A new provision permits a person who is not a minor to raffle lawfully made, purchased or imported liquor under a raffle licence, and permits a non-minor to receive that liquor as a prize. The framework remains subject to regulations.
Separately, the bill removes references to consuming food from the rules for designated picnic areas in public parks, so the statutory condition for drinking in those areas no longer requires food consumption.Finally, the bill broadens the regulation-making authority under the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act. Regulations may address who sets or determines licence and registration fees, raffles, and when a person barred from entering or remaining in a licensed gaming facility or licensed premises can be denied a prize or gaming winnings.
Those provisions move several operational details out of the Act and into subordinate rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The local authority has 90 days after referral to approve or reject an application for the first licensed premises in an area with no licensed premises. No response has the same practical effect as rejection for the three-year restriction.
The board may issue a licence during the three-year restriction if the municipality, Métis settlement or Indian band later gives its approval.
The Act preserves the former rules for applications received before the new section 56 comes into force, so older applications remain governed by the prior framework.
A person who is not a minor may raffle lawfully made, purchased or imported liquor under a raffle licence, but the detailed rules remain subject to regulation.
The board may add licence conditions at any time during the licence term, and regulations may determine when barred gaming patrons lose eligibility for prizes or winnings.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repealing the old area restrictions
Section 1 identifies the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act as the statute being amended. Section 2 repeals section 54, which contained a historical prohibition on most liquor licences in a specified area. Section 3 updates the cross-reference in section 55 so the Act no longer points to the repealed multi-section regime.
The changes remove legacy statutory architecture rather than merely adjusting an existing approval form. That matters because later provisions must now operate through the new section 56 process.
Replacing local votes with institutional approval
The bill repeals sections 56 to 59 and replaces them with a single framework for areas with no licensed premises. The board must refer the application to the municipality, Métis settlement or Indian band, which has 90 days to advise whether it approves the licence. Approval permits—but does not compel—the board to issue it.
Silence or rejection prevents the board from issuing a licence or accepting another application for three years from the referral. The local authority can still approve the licence during that period. This eliminates the former requirement for a municipal elector vote or Métis settlement vote, while retaining a strong local veto and a defined waiting period.
Setting the three-year restriction and transition rules
The revised section 56 specifies when the three-year restriction applies and distinguishes the consequences for municipalities, Métis settlements and Indian reserves. For applications received after the new provision takes effect, the new referral and approval process governs.
Applications received before that date continue under the former sections 55 to 60 as though the amendments had not occurred. The transition provision is important for applicants and local authorities because it prevents the legal test from changing midway through a pending application.
Updating the extension power
Section 60 is amended to replace references to sections 57 to 59 with a reference to section 56. The amendment aligns the existing power to extend the 90-day response period with the new single-section approval process.
The provision preserves a mechanism for additional time while removing references to the repealed voting provisions. Applicants therefore still need to account for the possibility that the local authority’s response period may be extended.
Allowing conditions during a licence term
Section 61(3) is expanded so the board may impose additional licence conditions not only when issuing a liquor licence, but also at any time during its term. The Act does not specify the new conditions; the provision preserves the board’s existing ability to impose them with or without a hearing.
For licensees, the change creates an ongoing compliance obligation. Operating approval is no longer necessarily governed only by the conditions attached at the start of the licence.
Authorizing raffles of liquor
New section 85.1 permits a person who is not a minor to raffle liquor as a prize under a raffle licence. The liquor must have been lawfully made, purchased or imported, and only a non-minor may receive it as a prize.
The provision establishes statutory permission but leaves the operating rules to regulations. Organizers will need to look beyond the Act for requirements governing eligibility, administration and the types of raffles or liquor prizes permitted.
Removing the food condition in designated picnic areas
The bill removes the words requiring liquor to be consumed “with food” in the designated-picnic-area rules. It also removes the related enforcement ground that allowed a peace officer to require a person to stop consuming liquor because the person was not consuming food.
The remaining public-park controls—such as the designated area, posted hours and intoxication-related intervention—are not eliminated by these amendments. The change targets the food requirement rather than creating unrestricted public drinking.
Expanding regulation-making authority
The bill allows regulations to address who may set or determine licence and registration fees, adds raffles to the existing authority over liquor gifts, and authorizes rules on disqualifying people from prizes or winnings when they are prohibited from entering or remaining in a licensed facility or premises.
This gives the executive government and regulator more room to establish operational details outside the statute. The practical scope of raffle administration, fee-setting and gaming-winnings exclusions will depend on the regulations made under these powers.
Setting the effective date
The Act provides that its amendments have effect on April 1, 2020. That date also anchors the transition between applications governed by the former local-voting regime and applications governed by the new approval process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Applicants seeking to establish the first licensed premises in an area benefit from a clearer decision path and no longer need to secure a local elector vote or public-meeting vote.
- Municipalities and Métis settlements gain direct institutional control over whether new liquor premises can enter an area, without organizing a formal plebiscite for each application.
- Indian bands retain a direct approval role and can authorize a licence after an initial rejection or no-response period, subject to the three-year framework.
- Charities, community groups and other eligible raffle organizers may gain a new fundraising tool through liquor prizes, subject to the eventual regulatory rules.
- Liquor licensees may benefit from the removal of the food requirement in designated picnic areas, which reduces one condition attached to public consumption.
Who Bears the Cost
- Liquor licence applicants must manage a local approval process and may face a three-year prohibition if the local authority rejects the application or does not respond within the applicable period.
- Municipalities, Métis settlements and Indian bands must review referred applications and communicate a decision within 90 days, creating an administrative obligation even where the community has no existing licensed premises.
- Existing licensees face continuing compliance uncertainty because the board can add licence conditions during the licence term, potentially requiring operational changes after approval.
- Raffle organizers and liquor suppliers must comply with future rules governing liquor raffles, including age restrictions and any regulatory limits on prizes or administration.
- Gaming operators and patrons may face disputes over prize or winnings eligibility if regulations deny payment to people barred from entering or remaining in licensed gaming facilities or premises.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades broad community participation for faster, more centralized local decision-making. Municipalities, Métis settlements and Indian bands can respond directly to applications instead of running votes, but applicants must accept that an administrative delay or refusal can block access to the market for three years, while the board retains continuing authority to change licence conditions after approval.
The new approval model is simpler on paper, but it creates a sharper dependence on local administrative decisions. A 90-day deadline gives applicants a predictable reference point, yet silence triggers a three-year restriction rather than allowing the board to decide the application on its merits.
The bill also permits a later local approval during that period, but it does not explain how a local authority should revisit an earlier decision or how the board should process competing applications.
The bill’s reliance on regulations is another important pressure point. The Act authorizes rules for raffle mechanics, fee-setting and the denial of prizes or winnings to prohibited patrons, but the statute itself supplies limited operational detail.
That flexibility can make the regime easier to administer, while leaving businesses and organizers unable to assess their full compliance burden from the Act alone.
Finally, the power to add licence conditions during the term improves the regulator’s ability to respond to changing circumstances but weakens the finality of the initial licence decision. The bill does not, in the text provided, establish a new hearing requirement or a specific appeal process for those later conditions.
Operators therefore have to treat licensing as an ongoing regulatory relationship rather than a one-time approval event.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.