IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The topsy-turvy sharing of the gaming tax field in Canada, 1970-2010: provincial payments, federal withdrawal

  • Étienne Desjardins
  • Mélina Longpré
  • François Vaillancourt
Registered author(s):

    This paper presents an unusual inter-governmental financial arrangement: a payment by constituent units of a federation to the federal government to keep it out of a fiscal field and thus gain sole occupancy for themselves. This paper thus presents the history of the federal/provincial relationship in the gaming field in Canada focusing on the key period of 1976-1980 when both levels of governments operated lotteries. It chronicles the attempts of both levels of governments to reach an agreement on their sharing of this revenue field. Revenue sharing was rejected, market slicing was agreed to but since 1980, the provinces have purchased a sole occupancy right through an annual payment to the federal government. It shows, using multivariate analysis, that the presence of Loto-Canada reduced provincial gaming revenues in 1978 and 1979 and thus that the provinces were right to seek sole occupancy of the lottery field. It also shows, using numerical simulations of alternative formulas, that the agreement negotiated is very advantageous for the provinces as it did not take into account either the future growth of the lottery market or the diversification of the gaming market in Canada from 1980 to 2010, let alone both. Ce texte présente une entente financière inter-gouvernementale inusuelle soit un paiement par les entités constituantes d'une fédération au gouvernement central pour obtenir l'occupation exclusive par elle-même d'un champ fiscal. Nous présentons donc l'historique des relations fédérales-provinciales au Canada dans le domaine du jeu de hasard, mettant l'emphase sur la période 1976-1980 lorsque les deux niveaux de gouvernements opéraient des loteries. Nous retraçons les diverses tentatives de parvenir à une entente sur le partage de cette source de revenus. Le partage des revenus fut rejeté, le partage des marchés fut convenu, mais depuis 1980, les provinces versent un paiement annuel au gouvernement fédéral pour un droit d'occupation exclusive du domaine du jeu de hasard. Des résultats d'une analyse multivariée indiquent qu'en 1978 et 1979, la présence de Loto-Canada réduisait les revenus du jeu des provinces; elles avaient donc raison d'en chercher l'occupation exclusive. Ce texte indique, à l'aide de simulations numériques, que l'entente en vigueur est très avantageuse pour les provinces, car elle ne tient pas compte de la croissance du marché des loteries et de la diversification du marché du jeu de hasard.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2012s-21.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by CIRANO in its series CIRANO Working Papers with number 2012s-21.

    as
    in new window

    Length: 23 pages
    Date of creation: 01 Aug 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2012s-21
    Contact details of provider: Postal: 1130 rue Sherbrooke Ouest, suite 1400, Montréal, Quéc, H3A 2M8
    Phone: (514) 985-4000
    Fax: (514) 985-4039
    Web page: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Mikesell, John L., 1994. "State Lottery Sales and Economic Activity," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 47(1), pages 165-71, March.
    2. Tosun, Mehmet Serkan & Skidmore, Mark, 2004. "Interstate Competition and State Lottery Revenues," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 57(2), pages 163-78, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2012s-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.