[Mapleson]

The federal purview for regulation of gambling extends to all matters relating to interprovincial and international disputes. 

I hold the position that variance among provincial gambling laws will cause a drain on indigenous provincial incomes, especially noteworthy amongst low-income, social assistance-receiving households.  A national gambling holdback tax should therefore be applied in order to compensate provinces that experience negative social consequences to other provincial gambling laws.  The holdback tax would be fully returned to provincial bodies without federal penalty when no unbalanced effects occur.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Federal equalization programs have of course been so uncontroversial on the past.

[Mapleson]

Were you trying to make a point, or just add sarcarm?

Of course equalization payments are controversial as the controvery is who pays and who receives.  The controvery can be muted by clearly defined mechanisms and no federal skimming.  It would be easily encorporated in the 2013 Federal-Provincial Transfers Framework renewals.

[Mikkel Paulson]

I was indeed trying to make a point, that point being that using the federal government to compensate for the nuances of provincial jurisdiction is never straightforward and rarely successful. If this is something that needs federal regulation, the federal government should assume jurisdiction rather than dancing around behind the scenes trying to fix the provinces' mistakes. For my part, I see no reason why any online activity should remain in provincial jurisdiction. Hell, as record and movie outfits have discovered, even leaving the matter up to national governments isn't too effective. That's why I'm not too concerned about this one way or another. If we ban online gaming establishments, they'll just start up elsewhere, even flakier than before.

[Mapleson]

Okay, that's something more substantial that I can reply too.

First, I believe in minimal intervention.  If something can be adequately be done with simpler measure, additional control and actions are unnecessarily restrictive.  Therefore, I would not support the federal government completely subsuming a provincial power when the bulk of power may as efficiency be run by the province.

Next, online activity is completely within the federal purview in so far as the full regulation of modern communication technologies (telegraph, telephone, internet).  The federal government may set the legal precedence for anything that has to do with the internet.  If at a federal level, it were desired to ban online gambling, this would be legal.

Likewise, social assistance, healthcare, and employment insurance are completely within the provincial purview in so far as they may full regulate their administration.  We have equalization payments in health care so that we receive a nationwide minimal level of service.  We have equalization payments in social assistance, so that the economically productive areas of the country may support the economically unproductive areas until such times as prevailing conditions alter (Ontario going from 'have' to 'have not', Newfoundland going from 'have not' to 'have').


In the area on online gambling, these arrays of powers overlap and the federal government is the adjudicator between one province and any other equal or higher level government body.

Is it unreasonable then so say that regulator powers relating to online gambling rest with the individual provinces?  If so, is it unreasonable that, for instance, $100 million per year of moneys spent in Nova Scotia going to Ontario that a fraction of that drain is returned to Nova Scotia?  Or is it more reasonable to allow vast transfers of regional wealth without regional compensation?

[rickmcbride]

I agree with Sean Hunt
We should leave it to the Provincial gov'ts

But it is a very good point. It is the internet, and people know us as champions of the internet in the political game. So I think we should draw up a policy on this or at least take it to a vote. Maybe shop the idea around at some meetings

[Mikkel Paulson]

Is it unreasonable then so say that regulator powers relating to online gambling rest with the individual provinces?  If so, is it unreasonable that, for instance, $100 million per year of moneys spent in Nova Scotia going to Ontario that a fraction of that drain is returned to Nova Scotia?  Or is it more reasonable to allow vast transfers of regional wealth without regional compensation?

No. What is unreasonable is to expect the federal government to come up with a hard-and-fast, uncontroversial dollar amount of damage done by one province to another, and to turn that into a big fat cheque to be distributed to every individual and company damaged by the new status quo. Much better in my mind to avoid doing the damage in the first place.

[Mapleson]

What? Who said anything about companies or individuals?  It's one provence paying another.  It's the same thing we do for health care and social assistance.

The "hard and fast, uncontroversial dollar amount" would be similar to the current U.S. Gambling Tax Recovery.

As a non-resident alien, you are subject to tax on gross U.S. gambling or lottery winnings at the rate of 30% at the time of winning. However, winnings from blackjack, baccarat, craps, roulette, and Big-6 wheel are exempt from tax. Under the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention, you can claim your U.S. gambling losses up to the amount of your U.S. gambling winnings for the year using the same rules that apply to U.S. citizens and residents.

http://www.casinotaxrebate.com/faq.html

That's applicable for individuals, but hopefully you can see how it might work with Alberta-BC replacing US-Canada.