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?